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

Filing 167

ORDER granting 166 Defendant Hyundai Motor America Corporation's Unopposed Motion to Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Embry J. Kidd on 10/13/2023. (ADH)

Case 6:21-cv-02152-WWB-EJK Document 167 Filed 10/13/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID 3565

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 Hyundai Motor America
Corporation’s Unopposed Motion to Seal (the “Motion”), filed October 10, 2023.
(Doc. 166.) Therein, Defendant seeks an order directing Plaintiff to file under seal
Exhibits 1, 3, and 4 to Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Its Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment (Doc. 144). (Id. at 1.) Upon review, 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 reasons . . . 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.

Case 6:21-cv-02152-WWB-EJK Document 167 Filed 10/13/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID 3566

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 exhibits. Defendant argues that the Court should seal Exhibits 1, 3, and
4 because they contain “confidential and proprietary business information . . . and

-2-

Case 6:21-cv-02152-WWB-EJK Document 167 Filed 10/13/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID 3567

financial information of Hyundai dealers that are not parties to this litigation and
would result in harm to the dealers’ business and competitive positions.” (Doc. 166 at
3.) For example, Exhibit 1 contains “competitive business [information] of a non-party
dealer that did not voluntarily place its business information into the public record.”
(Id. at 2.) Exhibit 3 contains information on “HMA’s internal allocation processes and
systems.” (Id.) Lastly, Exhibit 4 contains “sensitive business and financial information
of dealers that are not part[ies] to this litigation.” (Id.)
The undersigned concludes that the privacy of the documents sought to be filed
under seal outweighs the public right of access. 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);
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 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 Defendant Hyundai Motor America
Corporation’s Unopposed Motion to Seal (Doc. 166) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is
DIRECTED to file Exhibits 1, 3, and 4 to Plaintiff’s Reply In Support of Its Motion

-3-

Case 6:21-cv-02152-WWB-EJK Document 167 Filed 10/13/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID 3568

for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 144) under seal through CM/ECF on or before
October 16, 2023. 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 October 13, 2023.

-4-