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

Filing 132

ORDER granting 131 Motion for leave to file under seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Embry J. Kidd on 8/21/2023. (AS)

Case 6:21-cv-02152-WWB-EJK Document 132 Filed 08/21/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID 2551

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 Seal
(the “Motion”), filed August 17, 2023. (Doc. 131.) Therein, Defendant seeks leave to
file under seal Exhibit 5 to Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify Defendant’s Proposed
Expert Witness. (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.”).

Case 6:21-cv-02152-WWB-EJK Document 132 Filed 08/21/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID 2552

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 the exhibit “contains a detailed
explanation of [its] allocation process” with “confidential and proprietary business
information that would cause harm to [its] business and competitive position.” (Doc.
131 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-

Case 6:21-cv-02152-WWB-EJK Document 132 Filed 08/21/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID 2553

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 Unopposed Motion to File Under
Seal (Doc. 131) is GRANTED. Defendant is DIRECTED to file the document under
seal through CM/ECF on or before August 23, 2023. 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 21, 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-