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

Filing 148

ORDER granting 142 Motion to Seal; granting 147 Motion to Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith on 10/27/2015. (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 are Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion to Seal Exhibits to
Response of Local Access, LLC and Blitz Telecom Consulting, LLC in Opposition to
Peerless Network, Inc.’s Motion and Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment on
Counts I-IV (Doc. 142), and Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Seal Exhibits to Plaintiffs’
Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs’ Expert Testimony (Doc. 147).
For the reasons that follow, the motions are 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.

-2-

Oct. 28, 2010). Nevertheless, the parties’ agreement to seal court documents “is
immaterial” to the public’s right of access. Brown v. Advantage Eng'g, Inc., 960 F.2d
1013, 1016 (11th Cir. 1992).
II. Discussion
Plaintiffs seek to file Exhibits 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 14 to Doc. 141 and Exhibit E
to Doc. 144 under seal (Docs. 142, 147). Plaintiffs’ motions are unopposed, and
Plaintiffs represent that the documents sought to be sealed contain confidential and
proprietary business records that have been designated as “Confidential” pursuant to the
protective order in this case or by subpoenaed parties. The exhibits to Doc. 141 consist
of emails and letters that contain information about the potential sale of Blitz Telecom
Consulting, LLC, confidential contract negotiations, and Defendant’s customers (Doc.
142, pp. 1-2). Exhibit E to Doc. 144 contains information related to Defendant’s “minutes
of use, billing and revenue collections, and the names of its prepaid calling card
customers.” (Doc. 147, p. 1).
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. Plaintiffs’ motions
to file documents under seal (Docs. 142, 147) are therefore GRANTED. Plaintiffs are
ORDERED to file Exhibits 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 14 to Doc. 141 and Exhibit E to Doc.
144 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. Plaintiffs are further ORDERED to file redacted copies of the exhibits within
ten (10) days.

-3-

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on October 27, 2015.

Copies furnished to Counsel of Record

-4-