Local Access, LLC v. Peerless Network, Inc.

Filing 806

ORDER granting 788 Defendant Peerless Network, Inc.'s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Under Seal its Motion for Order Directing Clerk to Sign and Affix Seal to Certification of Service. Signed by Magistrate Judge Embry J. Kidd on 12/6/2022. (RMN)

Case 6:17-cv-00236-WWB-EJK Document 806 Filed 12/06/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID 18688

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 Defendant Peerless Network, Inc.’s
Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Under Seal its Motion for Order Directing Clerk
to Sign and Affix Seal to Certification of Service (the “Motion to Seal”) (Doc. 788),
filed November 29, 2022. Therein, Defendant requests leave of Court to file under seal
its Motion for Order Directing Clerk to Sign and Affix Seal to Certification of Service
(the “Motion”), filed in redacted form at Docket Entry 787. Upon consideration, the
Motion to Seal is due to be granted.
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

Case 6:17-cv-00236-WWB-EJK Document 806 Filed 12/06/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID 18689

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.
Defendant has complied with the requirements under Local Rule 1.11(c). As to
good cause, Defendant states that the Motion should be sealed because it states the
name of a Local Access customer and references an agreement that Local Access
produced in this litigation, which Local Access has designated “Confidential” under
the Protective Order in this case. (Doc. 788 at 2.) However, as Local Rule 1.11(c)
states, “[s]ealing is not authorized by a . . . protective order . . . .”
But Defendant states that very little information has been redacted from the
Motion on the public docket (Doc. 787), and the sealing of the Motion would
otherwise protect Local Access’s customer’s name and other business information.
(Doc. 788 at 3.) Moreover, Defendant asserts that by Local Access designating the
customer’s name and agreement as Confidential pursuant to the Protective Order,

-2-

Case 6:17-cv-00236-WWB-EJK Document 806 Filed 12/06/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID 18690

Local Access has certified that the information is a protected trade secret. (Id.); Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G). 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, *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, *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, in this instance, Defendant has demonstrated good cause for the
sealing of the Motion independent of the Protective Order.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant Peerless Network, Inc.’s
Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Under Seal its Motion for Order Directing Clerk
to Sign and Affix Seal to Certification of Service (Doc. 788) is GRANTED. Defendant
is DIRECTED to file the Motion at Docket Entry 787 and related exhibits under seal
through CM/ECF. 1 The seal shall remain in place until resolution of this matter,
including any appeals.

1

Effective November 7, 2022, lawyers are required to use CM/ECF to file a sealed
document. Additional information and instructions can be found at
https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/cmecf.

-3-

Case 6:17-cv-00236-WWB-EJK Document 806 Filed 12/06/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID 18691

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on December 6, 2022.

-4-