McKesson Global Sourcing Limited v. M.C. Johnson Co., Inc.

Filing 80

ORDER denying 77 Motion for Reconsideration / Clarification. See Order for details. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 7/29/2022. (AFC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
MCKESSON GLOBAL SOURCING
LIMITED, an active foreign
private limited company,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No:

2:21-cv-782-JES-NPM

M.C. JOHNSON CO., INC., a
Florida profit corporation,
dba PRIVATE LABEL MEDICAL,
and aka M.C. JOHNSON
COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant/ThirdParty Plaintiff,
v.
MCKESSON MEDICAL-SURGICAL,
INC.,
Third-Party
Defendant.

ORDER
This case comes before the Court on review of third-party
defendant McKesson Medical-Surgical, Inc.’s (MMS) Unopposed Motion
for Reconsideration for Leave to File Under Seal Opposition to
Motion to Dismiss/Strike First Amended Third-Party Complaint (Doc.
#77) filed on July 14, 2022.

The motion seeks relief from the

Court’s Order, issued on July 1, 2022, requiring third-party
plaintiff M.C. Johnson Co., Inc. (MCJ) to file an unredacted

version of MCJ’s response in opposition to MMS’ motion to dismiss
and strike because no party had moved to seal the opposition and
the time for doing so had expired.

(Doc. #75.)

Although MMS titles its motion as one for reconsideration,
the

Court

construes

it

as

an

untimely

motion

to

seal. 1

Specifically, MMS requests that the Court seal the unredacted
opposition in its entirety.

(Doc. #77 pp. 6-7.)

MMS then provides

a proposed version for the public docket, which redacts certain
information from the opposition.

(Doc. #77-2.)

The public has a common-law right of access to judicial
proceedings and to inspect and copy public records and documents.
Chicago Trib. Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304,
1311 (11th Cir. 2001). 2

“The common law right of access may be

overcome by a showing of good cause, which requires ‘balanc[ing]
the asserted right of access against the other party’s interest in
keeping the information confidential.’”

Romero v. Drummond Co.,

480 F.3d 1234, 1245 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting Chicago Tribune, 263

MMS has demonstrated excusable neglect for failing to timely
file and the Court finds good cause to consider the untimely
motion.
1

See also Local Rule 1.11(a) (“Because constitutional law
and common law afford the public a qualified right of access to an
item filed in connection with the adjudication of a claim or
defense, sealing is unavailable absent a compelling justification.
Sealing is not authorized by a confidentiality agreement, a
protective order, a designation of confidentiality, or a
stipulation.”)
2

2

F.3d at 1309); see also Local Rule 1.1 (filing under seal in a
civil action). “Whether good cause exists is decided by the nature
and character of the information in question.”

Id. (cleaned up).

In balancing the public interest in accessing
court documents against a party’s interest in
keeping the information confidential, courts
consider,
among
other
factors,
whether
allowing access would impair court functions
or harm legitimate privacy interests, the
degree of and likelihood of injury if 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 onerous alternative to sealing the
documents.
Id. (citations omitted).
The

Court

has

reviewed

the

unredacted

version

and

MMS’

proposed redactions and finds that many of MMS’ redactions are
overbroad and lack a connection to confidential information.

For

example, MMS seeks to redact MCJ’s entire damages analysis, which
mostly consists of Virginia statutory and case law citations.
(E.g., Doc. #76, pp. 10-13.)
the

parties

is

Also, although the agreement between

appropriately

sealed

as

confidential

business

information, MMS seeks to redact any sentence that mentions the
agreement, regardless of whether the sentence discloses anything
about the agreement. 3

MMS has not provided any reason, let alone

For example, MMS wants to redact the sentence: “As an initial
matter, there is no allegation in the 3PC that gives rise to a
3

3

a compelling justification to redact all it seeks to redact.

MMS

has not shown good cause for disrupting the common-law right of
access.
For

the

foregoing

reasons,

MMS’

Unopposed

Motion

for

Reconsideration for Leave to File Under Seal Opposition to Motion
to Dismiss/Strike First Amended Third-Party Complaint (Doc. #77)
is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this

29th

day of

July, 2022.

Copies:
Counsel of Record

plausible inference that McKesson Medical ever terminated the
Agreement, much less for cause.” (Doc. #76, p. 7.)

4