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

Filing 204

ORDER granting 199 Motion to Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith on 2/1/2016. (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 Exhibit A to
Peerless’ Motion in Limine (Doc. 199). 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
immaterial” to the public’s right of access. Brown v. Advantage Eng'g, Inc., 960 F.2d
1013, 1016 (11th Cir. 1992).

-2-

II. Discussion
Defendant seeks to file under seal Exhibit A to Doc. 198. Defendant’s motion is
unopposed. It represents that the documents sought to be sealed contain confidential
information about the parties’ business plans, pricing information, client contacts, and
technical capabilities that have been designated as “Confidential” pursuant to the
protective order in this case. The Court finds that at this stage of the litigation, the
parties’ interest in the privacy of their financial information outweighs the public’s right of
access. Defendant’s motion to file Exhibit A to Doc. 198 under seal is therefore
GRANTED. Defendant has ten (10) days to file Exhibit A under seal. 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. Defendant is further ORDERED to file
a redacted copy of Exhibit A to Doc. 198 within ten (10) days.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on February 1, 2016.

Copies furnished to Counsel of Record

-3-