Advice Interactive Group, LLC v. Web.com Group, Inc.

Filing 318

ORDER granting 312 Motion to Seal; granting 313 Motion for Leave to File; granting 314 Motion to Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson on 8/17/2018. (ADM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
ADVICE INTERACTIVE GROUP, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 3:17-cv-801-J-39MCR

WEB.COM GROUP, INC.,
Defendant.
________________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Seal
Documents (Doc. 312), Defendant’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Under
Seal (Doc. 313), and Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Seal Document (Doc. 314).
For the reasons stated herein, these Motions are due to be GRANTED.
The parties seek leave to file under seal complete and unredacted copies
of the following:
(1)

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion and Memorandum of

Law to Exclude the Testimony of Christopher C. Barry and any exhibits thereto,
(2)

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Exclude the Opinions

of Sarah Butler and any exhibits thereto,
(3)

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Exclude the Opinions

of Philip Greenspun and any exhibits thereto,
(4)

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Dispositive Motion for Summary

Judgment and Memorandum of Law in Support and any exhibits thereto,
(5)

Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment and any exhibits thereto,
(6)

Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude Portions of

the Expert Report and Opinions of Erich Joachimsthaler and any exhibits thereto,
(7)

Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude Testimony of

Stephen Gray and any exhibits thereto,
(8)

Defendant’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude

Expert Reports and Testimony of Erica Bramer and the 2015 and 2018
Spreadsheets, and any exhibits thereto, and
(9)

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike the Declaration of Lisa Anteau Filed in

Support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and the Declaration of
Stephen Gray Filed in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Exclude the Opinions of
Philip Greenspun. The parties propose to file redacted versions of the above
listed documents, without exhibits, on the public docket.
As an initial matter, whether documents may be filed under seal is a
separate issue from whether the parties may agree that the documents are
confidential because the public has “a common-law right to inspect and copy
judicial records and public documents.” In re Alexander Grant & Co. Litig., 820
F.2d 352, 355 (11th Cir. 1987) (per curiam). Nevertheless, the public’s right of
access to judicial records may be overcome by a showing of good cause by the
2

party seeking protection, which includes a balancing of interests. See id. at 1313;
see also Romero v. Drummond Co., 480 F.3d 1234, 1245 (11th Cir. 2007). Good
cause “generally signifies a sound basis or legitimate need to take judicial action.”
In re Alexander, 820 F.2d at 356.
If the court finds that good cause exists, the court must balance the interest
in obtaining access to the information against the interest in keeping the
information confidential. Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263
F.3d 1304, 1313 (11th Cir. 2001) (per curiam). In balancing these interests:
[C]ourts 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.
Romero, 480 F.3d at 1246. Even in the absence of a third party challenging the
protection of information, the court, as “the primary representative of the public
interest in the judicial process,” is bound by duty “to review any request to seal
the record (or part of it) [and] may not rubber stamp a stipulation to seal the
record.” Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v. CBS, Inc., 184 F. Supp. 2d
1353, 1363 (N.D. Ga. 2002).
Further, pursuant to Local Rule 1.09(a):
Unless filing under seal is authorized by statute, rule, or order,
a party seeking to file under seal any paper or other matter in any
civil case shall file and serve a motion, the title of which includes the
3

words “Motion to Seal” and which includes (i) an identification and
description of each item proposed for sealing; (ii) the reason that
filing each item is necessary; (iii) the reason that sealing each item is
necessary; (iv) the reason that a means other than sealing is
unavailable or unsatisfactory to preserve the interest advanced by
the movant in support of the seal; (v) a statement of the proposed
duration of the seal; and (vi) a memorandum of legal authority
supporting the seal. The movant shall not file or otherwise tender to
the Clerk any item proposed for sealing unless the Court has granted
the motion required by this section. . . . Every order sealing any item
pursuant [to] this section shall state the particular reason the seal is
required.
M.D. Fla. R. 1.09(a).
At this juncture, it appears that the above listed requirements have been
satisfied and the Court will permit the sealing of the subject documents and their
respective exhibits. However, the parties shall also file redacted versions of
these documents, without exhibits, on the public docket.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Seal Documents (Doc. 312),

Defendant’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Under Seal (Doc. 313), and
Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Seal Document (Doc. 314) are GRANTED.
2.

The parties may present to the Clerk of Court for filing under seal

complete and unredacted copies of the following:
(1)

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion and Memorandum

of Law to Exclude the Testimony of Christopher C. Barry and any exhibits thereto,
(2)

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Exclude the

4

Opinions of Sarah Butler and any exhibits thereto,
(3)

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Exclude the

Opinions of Philip Greenspun and any exhibits thereto,
(4)

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Dispositive Motion for

Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Law in Support and any exhibits
thereto,
(5)

Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial

Summary Judgment and any exhibits thereto,
(6)

Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude

Portions of the Expert Report and Opinions of Erich Joachimsthaler and any
exhibits thereto,
(7)

Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude

Testimony of Stephen Gray and any exhibits thereto,
(8)

Defendant’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to

Exclude Expert Reports and Testimony of Erica Bramer and the 2015 and 2018
Spreadsheets, and any exhibits thereto, and
(9)

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike the Declaration of Lisa Anteau Filed

in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and the Declaration of
Stephen Gray Filed in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Exclude the Opinions of
Philip Greenspun.
These documents shall remain under seal until further Order of the Court. At
5

the conclusion of this litigation, or beforehand if deemed necessary by the parties,
the parties shall move to have the subject documents unsealed or returned. If the
parties have not already done so, they shall file redacted versions of these
documents, without the accompanying exhibits, on the public docket.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, on August 17, 2018.

Copies to:
Counsel of Record

6