Omni Healthcare Inc. et al v. Health First, Inc. et al

Filing 185

ORDER granting 183 Motion to Seal. On or before January 22, 2016, Corporate Defendants shall file a complete and unredacted version of their motion for summary judgment and Daubert motions under seal, inclusive of all specified confidential ex hibits. Then, on or before January 27, 2016, Corporate Defendants shall file the same motion for summary judgment and Daubert motions on the public docket, omitting confidential exhibits and redacting any discussion of such confidential exhibits. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 1/19/2016. (SN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
OMNI HEALTHCARE, INC.;
INTERVENTIONAL SPINE INSTITUTE
OF FLORIDA; CRAIG DELIGDISH;
C. HAMILTON BOONE, PA; BRIAN
DOWELL; RICHARD GAYLES; STAN
GOLOVAC; LANCE GRENEVICKI;
ALEKSANDER KOMAR; SCOTT
SEMINER; INSTITUTE OF FACIAL
SURGERY INC.; THE PAIN INSTITUTE
INC.; and PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT
SERVICES OF FLORIDA, LLC,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 6:13-cv-1509-Orl-37DAB

HEALTH FIRST, INC.; HOLMES
REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC.;
HEALTH FIRST PHYSICIANS, INC.;
HEALTH FIRST HEALTH PLANS, INC;
MICHAEL D. MEANS; and JERRY
SENNE,
Defendants.
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Seal
Confidential and Highly Confidential Exhibits to Their Forthcoming Motion for Summary
Judgment and Daubert Motions and Redact Discussions of Confidential Material from
Same or, in the Alternative, for De-Designation of Such Materials and Accompanying
Memorandum of Law (Doc. 183), filed January 18, 2016.
Defendants Health First Health Plans, Inc., Health First Physicians, Inc., Health
First, Inc., and Holmes Regional Medical Center, Inc. (collectively, “Corporate
Defendants”) move to file under seal specified exhibits to their forthcoming motion for

summary judgment and Daubert motions (“Forthcoming Motions”). (Doc. 183.)
Specifically, Corporate Defendants seek to: (1) file a complete and unredacted copy of
their Forthcoming Motions under seal on the applicable deadline; and (2) within three
business days of the applicable deadline, file their Forthcoming Motions on the public
docket with confidential exhibits omitted and any discussion of such confidential material
redacted from the filing itself (“Corporate Defendants’ Motion”). (Id.) Pursuant to the
Court’s Order dated January 14, 2016, (Doc. 181) Corporate Defendants sufficiently
identify the exhibits and information they wish to file under seal. (Doc. 183, pp. 5–6, 10–
11.)
A party seeking to file under seal in the Middle District of Florida must first comply
with the procedural requirements set forth in the Local Rules. The party must file a motion
to seal that identifies and describes each item proposed for sealing. Local Rule 1.09(a).
The motion should include: (1) the reason that filing each item is necessary; (2) the reason
that sealing each item is necessary; (3) 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; (4) the proposed duration of the seal; and (5) a memorandum of legal authority
supporting the seal. Id.
In addition to determining whether the party has complied with Rule 1.09(a), the
Court must consider the “common law right” of the public 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) (citations omitted). A party may overcome the “common law
right of access” if it is able to show that good cause exists. MEDAI, Inc. v. Quantros, Inc.,
No. 6:12-cv-840-Orl-37GJK, 2012 WL 2512007, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 29, 2012);

2

Romero v. Drummond Co., 480 F.3d 1234, 1245 (11th Cir. 2007). To determine whether
a party has met this burden, the Court must balance the public’s right of access against
the party’s interest in keeping the information confidential. Romero, 480 F.3d at 1246. In
balancing these interests:
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 the public officials or public concerns, and the
availability of a less onerous alternative to sealing the documents.
Id. (citations omitted).
Upon consideration, the Court finds that: (1) Corporate Defendants have complied
with the requirements set forth in Local Rule 1.09(a); and (2) Corporate Defendants’
Motion sufficiently balances the public’s right of access and the parties’ interest in keeping
the specified information confidential. Therefore, the Motion is due to be granted.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants’ Renewed
Motion to Seal Confidential and Highly Confidential Exhibits to Their Forthcoming Motion
for Summary Judgment and Daubert Motions and Redact Discussions of Confidential
Material from Same or, in the Alternative, for De-Designation of Such Materials and
Accompanying Memorandum of Law (Doc. 183) is GRANTED. On or before January 22,
2016, Corporate Defendants shall file a complete and unredacted version of their motion
for summary judgment and Daubert motions under seal, inclusive of all specified
confidential exhibits. Then, on or before January 27, 2016, Corporate Defendants shall
file the same motion for summary judgment and Daubert motions on the public docket,
omitting confidential exhibits and redacting any discussion of such confidential exhibits.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

3

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on January 19, 2016.

Copies:
Counsel of Record

4