A. L. et al v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.

Filing 337

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 334 Motion to Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith on 3/9/2020. (Smith, Thomas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
A.L. and D.L.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No: 6:14-cv-1544-Orl-22GJK

WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS
US, INC.,
Defendant.
ORDER
This Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12311 et seq. case was tried by
the Court without a jury on February 18-20, 2020 and the parties are awaiting a decision
(Docs. 316, 318, 322). Now pending before the Court is their joint motion to seal certain
trial exhibits (Doc. 334). After due consideration, with one exception, the motion is
GRANTED.
“The judge is the primary representative of the public interest in the judicial process
and is duty-bound therefore to review any request to seal the record (or part of it). He may
not rubber stamp a stipulation to seal the record.” Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v.
CBS, Inc., 184 F. Supp. 2d 1353, 1363 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 15, 2002) (quoting Citizens First
Nat’l Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 945 (7th Cir. 1999)). “The right
to inspect and copy is not absolute, however, and a judge’s exercise of discretion in
deciding whether to release judicial records should be informed by a sensitive
appreciation of the circumstances that led to the production of the particular document in
question.” Chemence Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medline Indus., No. 1:13-CV-500-TWT, 2015
WL 149984, at *1 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 12, 2015).

The public’s right of access may be overcome by a showing of “good cause”
sufficient for the granting of a protective order pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c) (“The court
may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance,
embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense …”). “‘Good cause’ is a well
established legal phrase. Although difficult to define in absolute terms, it generally
signifies a sound basis or legitimate need to take judicial action.” In re Alexander Grant,
820 F.2d 352, 356 (11th Cir. 1987). The Eleventh Circuit has “superimposed a somewhat
more demanding balancing or interests approach to the” good cause requirement in Rule
26(c). Farnsworth v. Procter & Gamble Co., 758 F.2d 1545, 1547 (11th Cir. 1985). This
means that before making its decision, the court has a duty to balance the public’s right of
access against the party’s interest in confidentiality. The Eleventh Circuit has recognized
that “[a] party’s privacy or proprietary interest in information sometimes overcomes the
interest of the public in accessing the information.” Romero v. Drummond Co., 480 F.3d
1234, 1245-1246 (11th Cir. 2007).
The parties claim that Plaintiffs’ trial exhibits 68, 72, and 151-173, should be
sealed because they contain Plaintiffs’ confidential and personally identifiable information
(Doc. 334, at 3-4). After reviewing the exhibits, the Court finds that all should be sealed
except for Plaintiffs’ Trial Exhibit 68 which provides tips for visiting Disney properties with
children with autism and does not contain any of Plaintiffs’ confidential or personally
identifiable information.
The parties also claim that Plaintiffs’ trial exhibits 342 and 345, and Defendant’s
trial exhibits 37, 39, 41, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71, and 74, should be sealed because they
contain Defendant’s confidential data, proprietary information, park statistics, metrics,
internal study results, business operations, and communications strategies (Id., at 4-5).

-2-

The Court has reviewed these exhibits and fins that they contain such confidential and
proprietary information.
The Court has balanced the parties’ interests in the documents they ask be sealed
against the public’s right of access and finds, with one exception, that the parties have
met their burden. Accordingly, good cause has been shown, and the parties’ interest
outweighs the public’s interest in Plaintiffs’ trial exhibits 72, 151-173, 342 and 345, and
Defendant’s trial exhibits 37, 39, 41, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71, and 74.
Plaintiffs’ trial exhibits 72, 151-173, 342 and 345 and Defendant’s trial exhibits 37,
39, 41, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71, and 74 (Docs. 330-7, 330-9 through 330-10, & 330-18
through 330-24) shall be placed UNDER SEAL. The seal shall remain in force for a period
of one year from the rendition of this Order. See Local Rule 1.09(c). Any party may seek
an extension of the seal on motion filed before the seal expires. Versions of the documents
listed above, from which confidential information has been redacted, may be filed on the
public docket.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on March 5, 2020.

Copies furnished to Counsel of Record

-3-