Coach, Inc. et al v. Visitors Flea Market, LLC et al

Filing 76

ORDER denying 56 Motion to Unseal Document. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith on 8/15/2012.(KHH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
COACH, INC., a Maryland
corporation, and COACH
SERVICES, INC., a Maryland
corporation,
Plaintiffs,
vs.

Case No.: 6:11-cv-1905-Orl-19TBS

VISITORS FLEA MARKET, LLC,
DELROY JOSEPHS, JULIO
BATISTA, LUIS FREITES, LILY SY,
SOMPRATHANA, VONGUILATH,
MATILDE SEGURA and DOES 1
THROUGH 3,
Defendants.`
__________________
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Amended Motion to Unseal Document
(Doc. 56), and Plaintiffs’ response thereto (Doc. 60). This is a trademark infringement
action in which Plaintiffs allege numerous violations of law by Defendants, the owners
and tenants of a flea market. (Doc. 1). Plaintiffs claim that Defendants offered for sale
hundreds of counterfeit items that imitate Plaintiffs’ trademark and logo.
The Parties are currently in the discovery phase of this case. Defendants seek to
unseal the deposition of Mr. Ethan Lau given in the case of Coach, Inc. et al. v. Wagon
Wheel Market, Inc. et. al., Case No. 8:11-cv-826-MSS-TBM. In that action, the
Honorable Mary S. Scriven, District Court Judge for the Middle District of Florida, ordered
that Mr. Lau’s testimony be kept under seal until otherwise ordered by that court. (Doc.
60-1). The Order also stated that it was “without prejudice to any party or third party

seeking to have the seal lifted as to any of these documents when the documents are
actually introduced in evidence at trial.” (Id.) To my knowledge, the seal has not been
lifted. It appears from a review of the docket in Wagon Wheel that those parties have
filed a final stipulation of dismissal. Case No. 8:11-cv-826-MSS-TBM, Doc. 130. This
Court does not know what effect a dismissal with prejudice in that case will have on the
Order to seal.
Plaintiffs have designated Mr. Lau as their expert witness regarding the
authenticity of the alleged counterfeit items at issue in this action. Defendants argue that
because Mr. Lau was Plaintiffs’ corporate designee in Wagon Wheel, his testimony in that
case may be used for any purpose in this litigation under Rule 32(a)(3).1 Defendants
also contend that Plaintiffs have no good cause to maintain the confidentiality of the
documents, because Defendants only intend to make certified copies of the deposition
and then return the originals to the Court for re-sealing and the Defendants will abide by
the Parties’ stipulated confidentiality agreement.
Defendants ask me to modify an order entered by a District Judge in a case in
which I have not presided. Defendants do not address these issues in their motion, but
presume that this Court has the authority to act. It is well-settled that courts have
inherent control of their own dockets. Kendall v. Thaxton Road, LLC, 442 F. App’x 388,
393-94 (11th Cir. 2011). What is less-settled is whether a court has any control over a
sister court’s docket. This Court is unwilling to usurp control over a sister court’s docket
and mandate that the clerk of courts in Tampa, Florida open a file sealed by a District
Judge. Additionally, Defendants ignore the fact that there was another party to the
1

In their motion, Defendants consistently cite to Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(2).
However, after a review of Rule 32, it is evident that Defendants meant to cite to 32(a)(3),
entitled “Deposition of Party Agent, or Designee.”

2

Wagon Wheel case who has not had an opportunity to be heard and who may have good
cause to keep Mr. Lau’s deposition sealed.
Accordingly, Defendants’ Amended Motion to Unseal Document (Doc. 56) is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando Florida, on August 15, 2012.

Copies to all Counsel of record.

3