Banuchi v. Equifax Information Services, LLC et al

Filing 24

ORDER granting in part 23 Motion to Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Embry J. Kidd on 8/1/2022. (IRM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
ENRIQUE BANUCHI,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:22-cv-588-GAP-EJK

EQUIFAX INFORMATION
SERVICES LLC and UNIVERSAL
CREDIT SERVICES, LLC,
Defendants.
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Seal (the
“Motion”), filed July 27, 2022. (Doc. 23.) Therein, Plaintiff requests leave of Court to
seal the filed exhibits to the Complaint, stating that they inadvertently contain two
legible social security numbers that should have been redacted. (Id. at 2.) Upon
consideration, the Motion is due to be granted in part.
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).
Here, Plaintiff notes that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a) requires filings
containing an individual’s social security number to include only “the last four digits
of the social-security number.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a)(1). As this information is subject
to redaction pursuant to Rule 5.2(a), the undersigned finds good cause to seal the
documents.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Seal
(Doc. 23) is GRANTED IN PART. The Clerk is DIRECTED to SUBSTITUTE the
newly redacted exhibits (Doc. 23-1) attached to the Motion for the previously filed
exhibits to the Complaint (Doc. 1-1), and to STRIKE from the docket the previously
filed exhibits (Doc. 1-1).
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on August 1, 2022.

-2-