Action Nissan, Inc. d/b/a Universal Nissan v. Hyundai Motor America Corporation et al

Filing 129

ORDER granting 126 Motion for leave to file under seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Embry J. Kidd on 8/14/2023. (AS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
ACTION NISSAN, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:21-cv-2152-WWB-EJK

HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA
CORPORATION,
Defendant.
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to File
Under Seal (the “Motion”), filed August 11, 2023. (Doc. 126.) Therein, Defendant
seeks leave to file under seal Exhibit K to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
(Id.) Upon review, the Motion 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
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 Court finds that Defendant has complied with the requirements under
Local Rule 1.11(c) for filing a motion to seal and has articulated good cause for sealing
the requested exhibit. Defendant argues that sealing the document is necessary as it
“contains a data set providing sensitive business information of other dealers not
involved in the pending litigation.” (Doc. 126 at 2.)
The undersigned concludes that the privacy of the documents sought to be filed
under seal outweighs the public right of access. See, e.g., Barkley v. Pizza Hut of Am., Inc.,
No. 6:14-cv-376-Orl-37DAB, 2015 WL 5915817, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 8, 2015)
(granting a motion to file under seal documents that contained confidential
information regarding the party’s business operations and confidential and
competitively sensitive information); Patent Asset Licensing, LLC v. Bright House

-2-

Networks, LLC, No. 3:15-cv-742-J-32MCR, 2016 WL 2991057, *2 (M.D. Fla. May 24,
2016) (permitting a party to file confidential business information under seal).
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion to File Under Seal (Doc.
126) is GRANTED. Defendant is DIRECTED to file the document under seal
through CM/ECF. 1 The seal shall remain in place until resolution of this matter,
including any appeals, at which time the sealed filing should be destroyed.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on August 14, 2023.

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-