Southern-Owners Insurance Company v. MAC Contractors of Florida, LLC et al

Filing 162

AMENDED ORDER granting 160 Motion to Seal. The unredacted version of Exhibit D to MAC's Motion for Supplemental Relief (Doc. 159) will be filed UNDER SEAL. See Order for further directives and details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kyle C. Dudek on 4/24/2023. (CGW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
SOUTHERN-OWNERS
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No.: 2:18-cv-21-JES-KCD

MAC CONTRACTORS OF
FLORIDA, LLC, PAUL S.
DOPPELT, and DEBORAH A.
DOPPELT,
Defendants.
/
AMENDED ORDER1
In this insurance case, summary judgment was entered in favor of MAC
Contractors of Florida. (Doc. 155.) MAC now moves to seal unredacted invoices
related to its pending motion for supplemental relief for the costs of defending
itself. (Doc. 159.) For now, MAC’s motion for supplemental relief contains a
placeholder at Exhibit D pending a ruling on the motion to seal. (Doc. 159-5.)
MAC asserts that sealing is necessary because the detailed invoices from
three law firms are in a narrative format, and contain confidential attorneyclient communications, privileged work product information, and settlement
communications. MAC says redaction is impractical because most of the

This Amended Order amends the Order at Doc. 161 to correct the document number of the
motion ruled upon, from Doc. 159 to Doc. 160.
1

information is confidential or privileged. Plaintiff has no objection to sealing
Exhibit D.
A court has discretion to determine which parts of the record should be
sealed, but its discretion is guided by the presumption of public access. PerezGuerrero v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 717 F.3d 1224, 1235 (11th Cir. 2013). “Judges
deliberate in private but issue public decisions after public arguments based
on public records. . . . Any step that withdraws an element of the judicial
process from public view makes the ensuing decision look more like fiat and
requires rigorous justification.” Id. (quoted authority omitted).
Good cause may overcome the presumption of public access. Romero v.
Drummond Co., 480 F.3d 1234, 1246 (11th Cir. 2007). In evaluating whether
good cause exists, the court must balance the interest in public access against
a party’s interest in keeping the documents confidential. Id. Considerations
include whether allowing access would impair court functions or harm
legitimate privacy interests, the degree and likelihood of injury if the
documents are made public, the reliability of the information, whether there
will be an opportunity to respond to the information, whether the information
concerns public officials or public concerns, and the availability of a less
restrictive alternative to sealing. Id.
MAC has overcome the presumption of public access and shown good
cause for filing the invoices under seal. Sealing is necessary because the
2

invoices are voluminous (100+ pages), the majority of which include
confidential and privileged information, including detailed narratives of
services

rendered

that

reveal

the

attorneys’

mental

impressions,

communications with clients, and discussions about settlement.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:
1. MAC Contractors of Florida, LLC’s Unopposed Motion to Seal (Doc.
160) is GRANTED. The unredacted version of Exhibit D to MAC’s
Motion for Supplemental Relief (Doc. 159) will be filed UNDER
SEAL.
2. MAC Contractors shall deliver to the Clerk’s Office an envelope with
the caption of this case and an indication that the contents are to be
filed UNDER SEAL pursuant to this Order and include within the
envelope a flash drive containing PDF files of the unredacted
Exhibit D to MAC’s Motion for Supplemental Relief (Doc. 159).

3. After the PDF files are docketed under seal, the Clerk may return the
flash drive if MAC provides a postage-prepaid method to do so, or the
Clerk may securely destroy the flash drive.

4. The Clerk is directed to remove and replace the placeholder filed for
Exhibit D to MAC’s Motion for Supplemental Relief as Document 1595 with a single sheet reading “Exhibit D filed under seal pursuant to
court order.”
3

5. Exhibit D will remain under seal indefinitely.
6. The law firm of Boyle, Leonard & Anderson, P.A., and their
representatives, located at 9111 W. College Pointe Drive, Fort Myers,
Florida, 33919, [phone], are authorized to obtain a sealed,
tangle copy of Exhibit D.
ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this April 24, 2023.

Copies: All Parties of Record

4