Molloy v. Boynton et al

Filing 7

ORDER granting 2 Motion to Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson on 10/19/2017. (ADM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
DAVE MOLLOY, derivatively on behalf of
RAYONIER, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 3:17-cv-1157-J-20MCR

PAUL G. BOYNTON, et al.,
Defendants,
and
RAYONIER, INC., a North Carolina
Corporation,
Nominal Defendant.
________________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Leave
to File Under Seal (“Motion”) (Doc. 2). The Motion seeks leave, pursuant to Local
Rule 1.09, to publicly file a redacted version of the Verified Stockholder Derivative
Complaint (“Complaint”) and to file under seal an unredacted version of the
Complaint. (Id.) For the reasons stated herein, the Motion is due to be
GRANTED.
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
party seeking protection, which includes a balancing of interests. See Chicago
Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1313 (11th Cir. 2001)
(per curiam); 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, 263 F.3d at 1313. 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
2

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
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).
As Plaintiff has satisfied each of the above listed requirements, the Court
will allow him to file an unredacted version of the Complaint under seal, with a
redacted version of the Complaint remaining on the public docket. The Complaint
contains confidential and proprietary business information, the release of which
could cause Rayonier competitive harm, and there is no less restrictive method
available to protect this information. See Patent Asset Licensing, LLC v. Bright
House Networks, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-742-J-32MCR, 2016 WL 2991057, *2
(M.D. Fla. May 24, 2016) (permitting a party to file confidential business
information under seal); Bastian v. United Servs. Auto. Assoc., Case No 3:13-cv1454-J-32MCR, 2014 WL 6908430 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 8, 2014) (same).
3

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
The Motion (Doc. 2) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall file under seal
the unredacted version of the Complaint provided by Plaintiff, which shall remain
under seal for the duration of this litigation or until further Order of the Court.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, on October 19, 2017.

Copies to:
Counsel of Record
Any Unrepresented Party

4