Travelodge Hotels, Inc. v. Ravin Hotels & Investments, LLC et al
ORDER granting 25 Motion to Seal LexisNexis Accurint report. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith on 4/13/2018. (Smith, Thomas)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
POSER INVESTMENTS, INC.,
Case No: 6:13-mc-18-Orl-36TBS
RAVIN HOTELS & INVESTMENTS, LLC,
GIRDHARI SANKAR and JEYASELVAN
This case comes before the Court without a hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal
Exhibit to Affidavit in Support of Second Renewed Verified Motion for Charging Order
(Doc. 25). Defendant Jeyaselvan Kanagasabapathy has not filed a response to the
motion and the time within to do so has expired. When a party fails to respond, that is an
indication that the motion is unopposed. Foster v. The Coca-Cola Co., No. 6:14-cv-2102Orl-40TBS, 2015 WL 3486008, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 2, 2015); Jones v. Bank of Am.,
N.A., 564 Fed. Appx. 432, 434 (11th Cir. 2014) 1 (citing Kramer v. Gwinnett Cty., Ga., 306
F.Supp.2d 1219, 1221 (N.D. Ga. 2004); Daisy, Inc. v. Polio Operations, Inc., No. 2:14-cv564-FtM-38CM, 2015 WL 2342951, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 2015) (when defendant did
not respond court could consider motion to compel unopposed); Brown v. Platinum
Wrench Auto Repair, Inc., No. 8:10-cv-2168-T-33TGW, 2012 WL 333803, at *1 (M.D. Fla.
1 “Unpublished opinions are not considered binding precedent, but may be cited as persuasive
authority.” CTA11 Rule 36-2.
Feb. 1, 2012) (after party failed to respond, court treated motion for summary judgment as
unopposed). The Court proceeds on the basis that this motion is unopposed.
Plaintiff seeks leave of Court to file a LexisNexis Accurint report containing alias
names purportedly used by Kanagasabapathy (Id., ¶ 10). Plaintiff represents that the
report also contains confidential and/or private identifying information for
The public enjoys a qualified common-law right of access to judicial proceedings.
See generally Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304 (11th
Cir. 2001). The right applies to all material submitted “in connection with a substantive
motion,” and it requires the Court to balance the interest of the parties in keeping the
information confidential with the interest of the public in making it available. Id. at 1312–
13. 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 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).
In this district, a party seeking to file information under seal must first comply
with the procedural requirements in Local Rule 1.09. The moving party must file a motion
to seal, identifying and describing each item proposed for sealing. Id. The motion must
also 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. Plaintiff’s motion satisfies the requirements of Local Rule 1.09.
The Court finds that the LexisNexis Accurint report contains confidential
information that is relevant to Plaintiff’s application for a charging order. The Court also
finds that disclosure of the information may harm Kanagasabapathy’s privacy interest, the
information does not concern public officials or public concerns, there does not appear to
be a less onerous alternative to sealing the information, and Kanagasabapathy will have
an opportunity to respond to the information. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to seal is
GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file and the Clerk shall maintain the Accurint report UNDER
SEAL for one year from the rendition of this Order. Any party may move to extend the
seal at any time prior to the expiration of the seal.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on April 13, 2018.
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?