Bedgood et al v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts Inc. et al
Filing
139
ORDER denying 134 Unopposed Motion and Supporting Legal Memorandum to Seal Under Local Rule 1.11 Exhibit J to Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Summary Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick on 1/29/2025. (TNP)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
CHARLES HAROLD BEDGOOD, JOEL
WILSON BRANDON, HANNAH LYN
HEIL-BRANDON, EDDIE MATHEWS
JR., REENA T. SMITH, and ROSLIND
CHRISTINE HARPER,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No: 6:21-cv-418-JSS-DCI
WYNDHAM VACATION RESORTS, INC.,
Defendant.
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court for consideration without oral argument on the
following motion:
MOTION:
Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion and Supporting Legal
Memorandum to Seal Under Local Rule 1.11 Exhibit J to
Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Opposition to Summary
Judgment (Doc. 134)
FILED:
November 20, 2024
THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion (Doc. 134) is DENIED.
I.
Background
On November 4, 2024, Defendant Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc. filed a motion for
summary judgment. Doc. 131. Plaintiffs filed their opposition and attached several exhibits,
including Exhibit J, a composite exhibit containing four documents. Docs. 133 (the Opposition);
133-10 (Exhibit J).
1
On November 20, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion seeking leave to file Exhibit J
under seal. Doc. 134 (the Motion). Exhibit J contains: 1) a sales script used in Wyndham sales
presentations (the Script); 2) an internal Wyndham presentation (the PowerPoint); 3) a customer
survey (the Survey); and 4) feedback on business strategy from a Wyndham leadership summit
(the Feedback) (collectively, the Documents). Doc. 134 at 2. Plaintiffs filed the Motion pursuant
to Local Rule 1.11 and cite to no statute, rule, or other order that authorizes the filing of items
under seal. Plaintiffs argue that the Documents should be sealed because “Defendant maintains
they contain confidential business information and trade secrets.” Doc. 134 at 3. The Motion is
unopposed.
II.
Legal Standard
The filing of items under seal is governed by Local Rule 1.11(b), which provides as
follows:
A motion to seal an item:
(1) must include in the title “Motion to Seal Under [Statute, Rule, or Order]”
or, if no statute, rule, or order applies, “Motion to Seal”;
(2) must describe the item;
(3) must establish:
(A) that filing the item is necessary,
(B) that sealing the item is necessary, and
(C) that using a redaction, a pseudonym, or a means other than
sealing is unavailable or unsatisfactory;
(4) must include a legal memorandum;
(5) must propose a duration for the seal;
(6) must state the name, mailing address, email address, and telephone
number of the person authorized to retrieve a sealed, tangible item;
2
(7) must certify the name, mailing address, email address, and telephone
number of any non-party the movant knows or reasonably should know has
an interest in establishing or maintaining the seal and the day on which, and
the means by which, the movant served or otherwise delivered the motion
to the non-party; and
(8) must include the item, which is sealed pending an order resolving the
motion.
Local Rule 1.11(b).
Once the court has assessed compliance with the Local Rule, the Court then must determine
whether the movant has shown good cause for sealing the Documents. In deciding whether to
grant a motion to seal, the Court must remain cognizant of a “presumptive common law right to
inspect and copy judicial records.” U.S. v. Rosenthal, 763 F.2d 1291, 1292-93 (11th Cir. 1985)
(citing Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). This common law right “is
instrumental in securing the integrity of the [judicial] process.” See Chicago Tribune Co. v.
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1311 (11th Cir. 2001) (per curiam); Wilson v. Am.
Motors Corp., 759 F.2d 1568, 1571 (11th Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (“The district court must keep
in mind the rights of a third party—the public, ‘if the public is to appreciate fully the often
significant events at issue in public litigation and the workings of the legal system.’”) (citation
omitted). Although the common law right of access creates a presumption against sealing court
records, a party may overcome that presumption with a showing of good cause. Romero v.
Drummond Co., 480 F.3d 1234, 1246 (11th Cir. 2007); see also Perez-Guerrero v. U.S. Att'y Gen.,
717 F.3d 1224, 1235 (11th Cir. 2013).
III.
Discussion
For at least three reasons the Motion is due to be denied. Plaintiffs have not established:
1) that filing the item is necessary; 2) that using a redaction or a means other than sealing is
3
unavailable or unsatisfactory; and 3) that good cause exists to overcome the presumptive public
right of access.
First, Plaintiffs have not established that “filing the item is necessary” as required by Local
Rule 1.11(b)(3)(A). Plaintiffs give two reasons for filing the Documents: 1) the Documents
“contain material facts about availability at Wyndham resorts and other matters which were never
disclosed to Plaintiffs[;]” and 2) because “it would be fundamentally unfair to allow Wyndham in
its Summary Judgment Motion to refer to parts of the [D]ocuments . . . without mentioning other
parts.” Doc. 134 at 3. However, Plaintiffs do not actually cite to the contents of the Documents
in their Opposition. See generally Doc. 133. Plaintiffs only refer to the Documents when
discussing their intent to file the instant Motion and to broadly state that the Documents contain
“material omissions by Wyndham.” Doc. 133 at 2, 12, 22. But Plaintiffs never articulate what
those omissions entail. Id. Similarly, Defendant’s summary judgment motion “obliquely refers
to the Powerpoint and Feedback” (Doc. 134 at 3), but Plaintiffs make no attempt to explain why
“the Court should see the [D]ocuments in their entirety.” Id. Considering that Defendant claims
that the Documents contain confidential information, it is no surprise that they “obliquely” refer
to the Documents and did not attach the Documents to their motion for summary judgment.
However, Plaintiffs, as the movants seeking to file the Documents on the docket, in whole and
under seal, bear the burden of establishing that filing the Documents “is necessary.” Local Rule
1.11(b)(3)(A). Plaintiffs have not done so here. Generic references to a collection of four items
totaling over seventy pages—without an analysis related to the necessity of filing tied to any
pinpoint citation to the relevant pages or information deemed necessary—does not meet the
standard established by Local Rule 1.11(b)(3)(A).
4
Second, Plaintiffs have not established that “using a redaction, a pseudonym, or a means
other than sealing is unavailable or unsatisfactory” as required by Local Rule l.11(b)(3)(C).
Plaintiffs make a one-sentence blanket assertion that “[c]onfidential information is contained
throughout the [D]ocuments so that redaction would render the [D]ocuments incomprehensible.”
Doc. 134 at 3. But Plaintiffs have submitted four distinct items for seal and have not articulated
why partial sealing or redactions would be inappropriate for each. For example, in the case of the
Script, it appears that the left half of the item is the public-facing presentation, and only the right
half of the item is a sales script. Plaintiffs could have suggested partially sealing or redacting the
Script. But blanket and conclusory assertions do not provide this Court with the information it
needs to assess whether lesser measures could be appropriate for some of the Documents.
Therefore, Plaintiffs have not met the requirements of Local Rule 1.11.
Third, Plaintiffs have not met their burden in showing good cause to overcome the
presumption of public access. As a preliminary matter, Plaintiffs did not recognize that they
carried the burden of showing good cause in this Motion and seemed to misunderstand that the
public right of access would attach to the Documents if they are considered in relation to a motion
for summary judgment. Doc. 134 at 5 (“The question of public access to the [D]ocuments can be
decided at trial.”). As this Court considers Defendant’s summary judgment motion (Doc. 131),
the evidence the Court relies upon becomes an integral part of the judicial record and subject to
the public right of access. Chicago Tribune, 263 F.3d at 1312 (“[D]iscovery material filed in
connection with pretrial motions that require judicial resolution of the merits is subject to the
common-law right [of access.]”); see also Regions Bank v. Kaplan, 2017 WL 11025768, at *2
(M.D. Fla. Dec. 11, 2017) (“Stated another way, although there is no common law right to obtain
5
discovery material, a party that submits documents in connection with a motion for summary
judgment puts the information into the public domain and triggers greater public right of access.”).
If Plaintiffs seek to attach the Documents to their Opposition, the Documents are intended
to be part of the judicial record. Doc. 133-10. Thus, the Court must evaluate whether good cause
for the seal exists. But Plaintiffs have not clearly articulated the harm that public disclosure of the
Documents would cause. Loc. Access, LLC v. Peerless Network, Inc., 2017 WL 2021761, at *3
(M.D. Fla. May 12, 2017) (“Good cause is established by showing that disclosure will cause ‘a
clearly defined and serious injury.’”) (citations omitted). And conclusory assertions that entire
items are confidential are insufficient to show good cause. Aldora Aluminum & Glass Prods., Inc.
v. Poma Glass & Specialty Windows, Inc., 2016 WL 7666128, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 13, 2016)
(“Defendant's blanket assertion that the filings contain confidential business and/or financial
information does not show good cause for sealing the filings.”).
Separately, the Parties’ confidentiality agreement and another court’s decision to seal the
Documents in another proceeding does not militate sealing here. As mentioned in a prior Order
denying a motion to seal in this case, to the extent Plaintiffs’ basis for relief is that the parties or
Defendant previously designated the materials “Confidential,” the parties do not have the right to
stipulate what judicial records will be sealed. See Wilson v. Am. Motors Corp., 759 F.2d 1568,
1571 (11th Cir. 1985). Local Rule 1.11 specifies that sealing is not authorized by a confidentiality
agreement, a protective order, a designation of confidentiality, or a stipulation. Local Rule 1.11(a).
Further, reference to a protective order in a case from another court is not an adequate reason to
seal the information in the present case.
Litigation is an inherently public process. Certainly, the Court does not regularly issue
secret, sealed orders in civil cases. And if the information at issue is necessary to the Court’s
6
decision, the Court may discuss it in an eventual order. Thus, the confidential information at issue
may become public regardless of whether the Court allows the parties to seal their briefing or
exhibits. Of course, if the confidential information is not necessary to the Court’s decision, the
parties should probably not provide it to the Court, sealed or not. See Local Rule 1.11(c)(3)(A).
Nevertheless, it is expected that information obtained via discovery or otherwise in the
possession of the parties is available to all parties for the purpose of seeking and opposing
dispositive motions made to the Court, and this Order should not be construed as a mechanism to
prevent a party from utilizing such discovery or other materials in this case for all appropriate
purposes. Thus, to the extent a party has concluded that a provisions of the parties’ confidentiality
agreement (or some other confidentiality agreement) prevents them from filing their motions and
the exhibits thereto on the public record, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties are given leave
of court to file those Documents at issue in the Motion on the public record in relation to the
dispositive motions.
If there is information in the Documents that a party deems confidential and that is not
necessary for the Court’s consideration of the underlying motion for summary judgment, the Court
expects that information to be minimally redacted prior to public filing—the Court will not
consider any information that is redacted.
IV.
Conclusion
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Motion (Doc. 134) is DENIED.
ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on January 29, 2025.
7
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?