Local Access, LLC v. Peerless Network, Inc.

Filing 1127

ORDER granting 1121, 1122 Unopposed Motions to Seal. All items approved for sealing by this Order SHALL be filed through CM/ECF on or before September 21, 2023. Signed by Magistrate Judge Embry J. Kidd on 9/14/2023. (RMN)

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 the Unopposed Motions to Seal (Docs.
1121, 1122), filed September 7 and 8, 2023, respectively. Upon consideration, the
Motions to Seal are 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 reason . . . 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 Motions to Seal comply with the Local Rule; thus, the Court must now determine
whether there is good cause for the seal.

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., 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.
The following items are proposed for sealing by the parties:
• Local Access’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Final Judgment
(Doc. 1120) and Exhibits 3–6 thereto (Docs. 1120-3 through 1120-6). (Doc.
1121.)

-2-

• Peerless’s Opposition to Local Access’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.
1108), and Exhibits 91, K, 19, 48, 63, 65, 66, 71, 80, 91, 96, 98, 103, 200, 201,
206, 235, 237, 239, D, E, K, O, Q, AA, AB, AC, AD, AG, AK, AM, AN, and
AQ thereto. (Doc. 1122.)
The parties represent that the proposed items to be sealed all contain
information that is “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential” in nature, as defined by
the Protective Order. (Doc. 44 at 2.) As the Court has previously found, based on these
representations, the Court will infer that the parties have certified that the information
contained therein references confidential or proprietary business information.
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
where such documents’ exposure could “violate the parties' privacy or proprietary
interests”). Thus, the parties have 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. The Motions to Seal (Docs. 1121, 1122) are GRANTED.

-3-

2. All items approved for sealing by this Order SHALL be filed through CM/ECF
on or before September 21, 2023. The seal shall remain in place until resolution
of this matter, including any appeals.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on September 14, 2023.

-4-