Local Access, LLC v. Peerless Network, Inc.

Filing 1191

ORDER granting 1184 Peerless Network, Inc.'s Unopposed Motion to Seal Its Opposition to Local Access's Motion In Limine. The documents approved for sealing SHALL be filed through CM/ECF on or before December 8, 2023. Signed by Magistrate Judge Embry J. Kidd on 12/6/2023. (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 Peerless Network, Inc.’s Unopposed
Motion to Seal Its Opposition to Local Access’s Motion In Limine (the “Motion”)
(Doc. 1184), filed November 22, 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 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 Motion complies 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 of 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.
Peerless seeks to file under seal unredacted copies of its opposition to Local
Access’s Motion in Limine (Doc. 1176) and Exhibit K, and eleven other exhibits
attached thereto (Exhibits 48, 200, 96, Q, 98, D, P-0503, 206, 239, A, and B). (Doc.
1184.) Both the opposition and the exhibits contain documents and communications

-2-

relating to the Settlement Amendment, Blitz produced documents, and expert witness
reports, deposition transcripts and related communications.
Peerless represents that the proposed items to be sealed all contain information
that is “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential” in nature, as defined by the Protective
Order. (Docs. 44 at 2.) As the Court has previously found, the Court will infer that the
parties have certified that the information contained in the items to be sealed 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-cv399-Orl-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, 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. The Motion (Docs. 1184) is GRANTED.
2. The documents approved for sealing SHALL be filed through CM/ECF on
or before December 8, 2023. The seal shall remain in place until resolution

-3-

of this matter, including any appeals.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on December 6, 2023.

-4-