Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. The Unidentified, Shipwrecked Vessel or Vessels

Filing 91

ORDER ruling deferred 85 Motion seeking an order finding certain materials disclosed to Spain by Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. are not confidential. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo on 2/22/2008. (DK)

Download PDF
Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. The Unidentified, Shipwrecked Vessel or Vessels Doc. 91 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION ODYSSEY MARINE EXPLORATION, INC., Plaintiff, v. THE UNIDENTIFIED SHIPWRECKED VESSEL OR VESSELS, their apparel, tackle, appurtenances and cargo located within center point coordinates: 49, 25' N, 6, 00' W; Radius: 5 nautical miles, Defendants, in rem and THE KINGDOM OF SPAIN, Claimant. _______________________________________/ ORDER The Kingdom of Spain has filed identical motions in case numbers 8:06-cv-1685-T-23MAP, 8:07-cv-614-T-23MAP, and 8:07-cv-616-T-23MAP, seeking an order that certain materials disclosed to Spain by Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. are not confidential. See 06-cv-1685, doc. 85; 07-cv-614, doc 78; and 07-cv-616, doc. 82. Spain contends that Odyssey has adopted a "blanket approach" to confidentiality: "each and every document, photograph, and videotape was designated as confidential, regardless of what it shows or contains." Spain requests that this Court strike the confidential designation "with respect to the photographs, artifact lists, artifact descriptions, and certain other documents provided by Odyssey." Spain notes that it cannot describe the materials further in its motion because they have been designated confidential, but offers to file them under seal. CASE NO.: 8:06-cv-1685-T23-MAP Dockets.Justia.com In response, Odyssey claims that it cannot diligently show "good cause" as to the need for confidentiality without knowing exactly which items Spain objects to as being confidential. Odyssey also claims that the parties have not adequately conferred about the confidential status of each document. This Court reminds the parties of their obligation to confer in an attempt to resolve issues before seeking court intervention. See Local Rule 3.01(g). "Confer," as that term is used in Local Rule 3.01(g), means "to come together to compare views or take counsel." Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1979). See e.g., Williams v. Board of County Commissioners, 192 F.R.D. 698, 700 (D.C. Kan. 2000) (a single letter between counsel addressing a discovery dispute does not satisfy the duty to confer; it requires counsel to "converse, confer, compare views, consult, and deliberate"). The parties are directed to confer in an attempt to narrow the number of items for which the confidentiality designation is at issue. To the extent the parties cannot agree, Spain is directed to file under seal the materials it contends were inappropriately designated as confidential on or before February 29, 2008. DONE and ORDERED at Tampa, Florida on February 22, 2008. 2

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?