Camargo v. KBS Flooring LLC

Filing 15

ORDER denying 14 Motion to Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith on 3/10/2017. (Smith, Thomas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
GILBERT CAMARGO,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:16-cv-1348-Orl-31TBS

KBS FLOORING LLC,
Defendant.
ORDER
Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion to Seal Writ of Garnishment Documents (Doc. 14)
argues that the following documents should be sealed: (1) Plaintiff’s proposed order on
the motion to seal; (2) his ex parte motion for writ of garnishment, directed at Wells Fargo
Bank; and (3) his proposed writ of garnishment directed at Wells Fargo Bank (Id. ¶ 3).
Plaintiff argues that the Court must seal these documents “to ensure that the Defendant
does not remove the funds from the bank accounts Plaintiff seeks to garnish” (Doc. 14 at
¶ 7).
The motion is due to be denied for three reasons. First, Plaintiff did not seek or
obtain leave of Court to file the pending motion under seal. Consequently, the information
Plaintiff seeks to seal is already in the public record. See (Doc. 14-1; 14-2; 14-3). Second,
this is an ex parte proceeding and Plaintiff has not demonstrated by evidence that further
protection of the information is necessary. 1 Third, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that
good cause exists to warrant sealing. 2 Medai, Inc. v. Quantros, Inc., No. 6:12-cv-840-Orl-

1 This is the first time a judgment creditor has asked the undersigned to seal a writ of garnishment.
This by itself, suggests that the procedure is unnecessary.
2 In this Circuit, it is well settled that “[t]he operations of the courts and the judicial conduct of
judges are matters of utmost public concern” and the integrity of the judiciary is maintained by the public’s

37GJK, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90318, at *4 (M.D. Fla. June 29, 2012); Bovie Med. Corp.
v. Livneh, Case No. 8:10-cv-1527-T-24EAJ, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114485, at *3-5 (M.D.
Fla. Oct. 19, 2010); Vista India, Inc. v. Raaga, LLC, Case No. 07-1262, 2008 WL 834399,
at *2 (D.N.J. Mar. 27, 2009); M.D. FLA. R. 1.09(a). For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion
(Doc. 14) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on March 10, 2017.

Copies furnished to Counsel of Record

right of access to court proceedings. Romero v. Drummond Co., 480 F.3d 1234, 1245 (11th Cir. 2007)
(citing Landmark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829, 839 (1978)). The public’s right “includes the right
to inspect and copy public records and documents.” Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.,
263 F.3d 1304, 1311 (11th Cir. 2001). “The common law right of access may be overcome by a showing of
good cause, which requires balancing 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, 263 F.3d at
1309).

-2-