Local Access, LLC et al v. Peerless Network, Inc.

Filing 128

ORDER granting 127 Motion to Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith on 10/7/2015. (JMP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
LOCAL ACCESS, LLC, and BLITZ
TELECOM CONSULTING, LLC,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No: 6:14-cv-399-Orl-40TBS

PEERLESS NETWORK, INC.,
Defendant.
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Seal Exhibits 5, 6,
7, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, and 22 to Defendant Peerless Network, Inc.’s Motion and
Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment on Counts I Through IV, as well as the
Unredacted Motion and Memorandum Itself (Doc. 127). For the reasons that follow, the
motion is due to be granted.
I. Standard
Middle District of Florida Rule 1.09 requires a party filing a motion to seal to (1)
identify and describe each item proposed for sealing; (2) provide the reason why filing
each item is necessary; (3) explain the reason why sealing each item is necessary; (4)
state why a means other than sealing is unavailable or unsatisfactory to preserve the
interest advanced by the movant in support of the motion to seal; (5) suggest the
proposed duration of the seal; and (6) provide a memorandum of law supporting the seal.
M.D. FLA. R. 1.09.
In addition to Local Rule 1.09, the law provides that “[t]he operations of the courts
and the judicial conduct of judges are matters of utmost public concern,’” Romero v.

Drummond Co., Inc., 480 F.3d 1234, 1245 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting Landmark
Commc'ns, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829, 839 (1978)), “and ʻ[t]he common-law right of
access to judicial proceedings, an essential component of our system of justice, is
instrumental in securing the integrity of the process.’” Id. (quoting Chicago Tribune Co.
v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1311 (11th Cir. 2001)). “Beyond
establishing a general presumption that criminal and civil actions should be conducted
publicly, the common-law right of access includes the right to inspect and copy public
records and documents.” Chicago Tribune Co., 263 F.3d at 1311 (citing Nixon v. Warner
Commc’ns Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). “The common law right of access may be
overcome by a showing of good cause, which requires ‘balanc[ing] the asserted right of
access against the other party's interest in keeping the information confidential.’”
Romero, 480 F.3d at 1246 (quoting Chicago Tribune Co., 263 F.3d at 1309. 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.
Id.
A party’s interest in the privacy of its financial records and the terms of confidential
agreements oftentimes outweighs the public’s right of access. Graphic Packaging Int'l,
Inc. v. C.W. Zumbiel Co., No. 3:10-CV-891-J-JBT, 2010 WL 6790538, at *2 (M.D. Fla.
Oct. 28, 2010). Nevertheless, the parties’ agreement to seal court documents “is

-2-

immaterial” to the public’s right of access. Brown v. Advantage Eng'g, Inc., 960 F.2d
1013, 1016 (11th Cir. 1992).
II. Discussion
Defendant seeks to file Exhibits 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, and 22 to
Defendant Peerless Network, Inc.’s Motion and Memorandum in Support of Summary
Judgment on Counts I Through IV (Doc. 124) under seal. (Doc. 127). Defendant also
seeks to file an unredacted copy of Doc. 124 under seal. Defendant’s motion is
unopposed, and Defendant represents that the documents sought to be sealed contain
confidential business records that have been designated as “Confidential” pursuant to the
protective order in this case. The exhibits consist of emails, agreements, and a
deposition transcript that contain information about Defendant’s customers, confidential
contract terms, and the valuation of Plaintiffs’ business. Doc. 124 has been redacted to
the extent that it quotes the information sought to be sealed.
The Court finds that, at this stage of the litigation, the parties’ interests in the
privacy of their financial records outweigh the public’s right of access. Defendant’s
motion to file documents under seal (Doc. 127) is therefore GRANTED. Defendants are
ORDERED to file Exhibits 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, and 22 to Doc. 124, as well
as an unredacted version of Doc. 124, under seal within ten (10) days. The Clerk shall
maintain the documents under seal until the earlier of: (1) an order unsealing the
documents; (2) one year from the date of this Order; or (3) the conclusion of the case,
including any appeals. Prior to the expiration of the seal, any party may file a motion to
extend the seal of any or all of these documents. Defendants are further ORDERED to
file redacted copies of Exhibits 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, and 22 within ten (10)
days.

-3-

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on October 7, 2015.

Copies furnished to Counsel of Record

-4-