Local Access, LLC et al v. Peerless Network, Inc.
ORDER granting 394 Motion to Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith on 11/7/2017. (Smith, Thomas)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
LOCAL ACCESS, LLC and BLITZ
TELECOM CONSULTING, LLC,
Case No: 6:14-cv-399-Orl-40TBS
PEERLESS NETWORK, INC.,
This case comes before the Court without oral argument on Plaintiffs’ Unopposed
Motion to Seal Plaintiffs’ Renewed Verified Motion to Hold Defendant in Contempt of
Sealed Order Enforcing Settlement Agreement (Doc. 394). Defendant does not oppose
the motion (Id., at 5).
The reasons why sealing is sought are not new. This is at least the sixteenth
motion to seal that has been filed in this case (Docs. 65, 95, 101, 103, 115, 120, 121, 128,
146, 148, 161, 167, 192, 204 and 289). The Court applies the law referred to in the Orders
on those earlier motions and finds that there is good cause to seal Plaintiffs’ unredacted
motion. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request for sealing is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall file a
redacted version of their motion on the public docket and the unredacted version UNDER
Plaintiffs propose that the information they are filing be held under seal for a period
of six years (Id., at 2). The Court’s local rules generally provide for sealing for up to one
year which is renewable on motion made before the expiration of the seal. M.D. FLA.
1.09(c). However, this situation involves a confidential settlement that will, as matters now
stand, be in effect for years to come (Id.). Accordingly, although the Court is not
persuaded that six years is appropriate, the information to be sealed pursuant to this
Order shall remain sealed until the earlier of: (1) an order unsealing the information; or (2)
November 7, 2022. Prior to the expiration of the seal, any party may file a motion to extend
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on November 7, 2017.
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?