Local Access, LLC v. Peerless Network, Inc.
Filing
1042
ORDER granting 1033 Peerless Network, Inc.'s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Under Seal its Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Embry J. Kidd on 7/17/2023. (RMN)
Case 6:17-cv-00236-WWB-EJK Document 1042 Filed 07/17/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID 22943
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
LOCAL ACCESS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 6:17-cv-236-WWB-EJK
PEERLESS NETWORK, INC.,
Defendant.
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on Peerless Network, Inc.’s Unopposed
Motion for Leave to File Under Seal its Motion for Sanctions (the “Motion”) (Doc.
1033), filed July 6, 2023. Upon consideration, the Motion is due to be granted.
Local Rule 1.11(c) requires the following for filing a document under seal, if it
is not authorized by a statute, rule, or order:
[The Motion] (1) must include in the title “Motion for
Leave to File Under Seal”; (2) must describe the item
proposed for sealing; (3) must state the reasons . . . filing the
item is necessary, . . . sealing the item is necessary, and . . .
partial sealing, redaction, or means other than sealing are
unavailable or unsatisfactory; (4) must propose a duration
of the seal; (5) must state the name, mailing address, email
address, and telephone number of the person authorized to
retrieve a sealed, tangible item; (6) must include a legal
memorandum supporting the seal; but (7) must not include
the item proposed for sealing.
The Motion complies with the Local Rule; thus, the Court must now determine
whether there is good cause for the seal.
Case 6:17-cv-00236-WWB-EJK Document 1042 Filed 07/17/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID 22944
While the Eleventh Circuit recognizes a “presumptive common law right to
inspect and copy judicial records,” United States v. Rosenthal, 763 F.2d 1291, 1292–93
(11th Cir. 1985), a party may overcome the public’s right to access by demonstrating
good cause. Romero v. Drummond Co., Inc., 480 F.3d 1234, 1246 (11th Cir. 2007); see
also Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978) (“It is uncontested,
however, that the right to inspect and copy judicial records is not absolute. Every court
has supervisory power over its own records and files, and access has been denied where
court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes.”).
If good cause is shown, the court must balance the interest in obtaining access
to the information against the interest in keeping the information confidential. See
Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1309 (11th Cir. 2001).
Factors a court may consider are:
[W]hether 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.
Romero, 480 F.3d at 1246.
Peerless requests leave to file under seal its Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 1032)
and 30 of 33 exhibits attached thereto, which Peerless represents contain information
that a party or deponent has designated as Confidential or Highly Confidential
Litigation Material, pursuant to the terms of the Protective Order (Doc. 44). (Doc.
-2-
Case 6:17-cv-00236-WWB-EJK Document 1042 Filed 07/17/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID 22945
1033 at 1.) The Motion for Sanctions quotes from the exhibits and has been filed in
redacted form. (Doc. 1032.) Generally, the exhibits sought to be sealed, which have
not been filed in redacted form, include (1) documents and communications
exchanged between Local Access and its customers; (2) documents and
communications exchanged between Local Access and Peerless, including between
their attorneys; and (3) transcript excerpts from depositions of Local Access’s
principals and customers. (Id. at 1–2.)
Peerless represents that all of the referenced documents refer to or quote
information that has been designated by a party as Confidential or Highly Confidential
pursuant to the terms of the Protective Order. As the undersigned previously found,
based on the parties’ representations that the documents have been designated
“Confidential” or “Highly Confidential” pursuant to the terms of the Protective Order,
the Court will infer that the parties have certified that the information contained
therein references confidential or proprietary business information, as contemplated
by the definitions set forth in the Protective Order (Doc. 44 at 2).
Courts in this District have recognized that maintaining the privacy of
confidential business information can constitute good cause for keeping documents
from the public view. See, e.g., Local Access, LLC v. Peerless Network, Inc., No. 6:14-cv399Orl-40TBS, 2017 WL 2021761, at *2–3 (M.D. Fla. May 12, 2017) (permitting sealing
of proprietary financial and business information); Patent Asset Licensing LLC, v. Bright
House Networks, LLC, No. 3:15-cv-742-J-32MCR, 2016 WL 2991057, at *2 (M.D. Fla.
May 24, 2016) (permitting party to file confidential business information under seal
-3-
Case 6:17-cv-00236-WWB-EJK Document 1042 Filed 07/17/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID 22946
where such documents’ exposure could “violate the parties' privacy or proprietary
interests”). Thus, Peerless has demonstrated good cause to overcome the public’s right
of access to the aforementioned documents to be sealed.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
1. Peerless Network, Inc.’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Under Seal its
Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 1033) is GRANTED.
2. Peerless is DIRECTED to file the documents approved for sealing through
CM/ECF on or before July 24, 2023. The seal shall remain in place until
resolution of this matter, including any appeals.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on July 17, 2023.
-4-
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?