RES Development Corporation v. Momentive Performance Materials, Inc.

Filing 65

ORDER denying 47 Motion to Seal Document; granting 57 Motion for extension of time to file. On or before 7/15/2011, Defendant may file a motion to seal. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel B. Toomey on 7/1/2011. (MHM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
RES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 5:09-cv-491-Oc-32JBT

MOMENTIVE PERFORMANCE
MATERIALS, INC.,
Defendant.
/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to
File Motion to Compel Discovery and Memorandum in Support (“the Motion for
Extension”) (Doc. 57) and Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Seal (“the Motion to Seal”)
(Doc. 47). Defendant filed responses in opposition to both motions. (See Docs. 49 &
60.) As explained further below, the Motion for Extension will be GRANTED, and the
Motion to Seal will be DENIED, but Plaintiff may not file its motion to compel until
Defendant has had an opportunity to show good cause for the proposed sealing, and
the Court has ruled on that issue.
I.

The Motion for Extension

The Court will grant the Motion for Extension (Doc. 57) to the extent that Plaintiff
will be allowed to file a motion to compel in accord with the below-described procedure.
However, as discussed below, there has not yet been a sufficient showing to justify
sealing the motion. Moreover, if and when Plaintiff files a motion to compel, the Court
will address the timeliness of that motion when ruling on it.
II.

The Motion to Seal

The common-law right of access to judicial proceedings does not apply to
discovery materials, “as these materials are neither public documents nor judicial
records.” Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1311
(11th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted).

Moreover, “[w]here discovery materials are

concerned, the constitutional right of access standard is identical to that of Rule 26(c)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Id. at 1310 (citation omitted). Thus, the Court
must apply the “good cause” standard pursuant to Rule 26(c) when determining
whether discovery materials should be sealed. Under this standard, “[t]he prerequisite
is a showing of ‘good cause’ made by the party seeking protection.” Id. at 1313.
Whether good cause exists “is a factual matter to be decided by the nature and
character of the information in question.” Id. at 1315. Further, “[f]ederal courts have
superimposed a balancing of interests approach for Rule 26's good cause requirement.
This standard requires the district court to balance the [public’s] interest in obtaining
access against the [litigant’s] interest in keeping the information confidential.” Id. at
1313.
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 the 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 v. Drummond Co., 480 F.3d 1234, 1246 (11th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted).
Local Rule 1.09(a) provides additional requirements for motions to seal.

2

In the Motion to Seal, Plaintiff requests that it be allowed to file under seal its
proposed motion to compel discovery. (Doc. 47.) Representative of all of Plaintiff’s
explanations for why sealing is necessary, Plaintiff states that “[s]ealing the Motion to
Compel is necessary because it includes and refers to documents designated by
Momentive as ‘Confidential Attorneys-Eyes Only’ under the Stipulated Protective Order
in this case.” (Id. at 1.) While the Court recognizes that the parties agreed to the
Stipulated Protective Order (Doc. 15), the Court reminds the parties that whether
documents may be filed under seal is a separate issue from whether the parties may
agree that produced documents are confidential. Plaintiff does not provide sufficient
valid reasons for sealing and has not satisfied the “good cause” standard discussed
above. Moreover, Defendant’s response in opposition to the Motion to Seal does not
satisfy the “good cause” standard. (See Doc. 49.)
Upon consideration, it is ORDERED:
1.

The Motion for Extension (Doc. 57) is GRANTED to the extent that Plaintiff

will be allowed to file its proposed motion to compel, after Defendant has an opportunity
to address the sealing issue.
2.

The Motion to Seal (Doc. 47) is DENIED.

3.

On or before July 15, 2011, Defendant may file its own motion to seal any

documents that it believes are appropriate for seal. Any such motion should be no
broader than necessary and must satisfy the standards for sealing discussed herein.
If necessary, Defendant must confer with Plaintiff to determine exactly which
document(s) or portions thereof Plaintiff proposes to file. In the absence of a motion
3

to seal filed on or before July 15, 2011, Plaintiff may file its proposed motion to compel.
If Defendant does file a motion to seal by the deadline, Plaintiff will not file its proposed
motion to compel until after the Court has ruled on the sealing issue.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, on July 1, 2011.

Copies to:

Counsel of Record

4