Robertson v. ADA Alliance Data Systems, Inc.

Filing 326

ORDER: Defendant ADS Alliance Data Systems, Inc.'s Motion to Require Plaintiffs to File Confidential Documents Under Seal and to Direct Plaintiffs not to Reveal the Content of said Confidential Information in Argument Pursuant to this Court' ;s Order Approving Confidentiality Stipulation and Agreed Protective Order 298 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Defendant ADS Alliance Data Systems, Inc. has until and including January 15, 2014, to file an amended motion that complies with Local Rule 1.09. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 1/10/2014. (KNC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
DOUGLAS B. STALLEY, in his
capacity as Personal Representative
of the Estate of Gary Robertson
and JEREMIAH HALLBACK, individually,
and on behalf of all those similarly
situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 8:11-cv-1652-T-33TBM

ADS ALLIANCE DATA SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant.
_________________________________/

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court pursuant to Defendant
ADS

Alliance

Data

Systems,

Inc.’s

Motion

to

Require

Plaintiffs to File Confidential Documents Under Seal and to
Direct

Plaintiffs

not

to

Reveal

the

Content

of

said

Confidential Information in Argument Pursuant to this Court’s
Order

Approving

Confidentiality

Stipulation

and

Agreed

Protective Order (Doc. # 298), which was filed on October 11,
2013. Plaintiffs Douglas B. Stalley, in his capacity as
Personal Representative of the Estate of Gary Robertson and
Jeremiah Hallback filed a response in opposition to ADS’s
Motion on October 16, 2013. (Doc. # 302). Upon review and for

the reasons stated below, the Court denies ADS’s Motion
without prejudice.
Discussion
On February 23, 2012, Thomas B. McCoun III, United States
Magistrate

Judge,

approved

the

parties’

confidentiality

stipulation and agreed protective order (Doc. # 55), which
states in relevant part:
If a party intends to file documents designated
Confidential, then the party seeking to file such
documents must provide notice no less than Ten (10)
days in advance of doing so to the opposing party.
It will be the responsibility and burden of the
party who designated the documents Confidential to
make an appropriate application to the Court to
have those documents filed under seal in accordance
with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this
Court’s Local Rules.
(Doc. # 55-1 at 4).
According to ADS’s Motion, during discovery ADS produced
various contracts between ADS and third-parties, and ADS
designated these contracts as “Confidential” pursuant to the
parties’ confidentiality stipulation and agreed protective
order. (Doc. # 298 at ¶ 4).

Thereafter, on October 1, 2013,

Stalley and Hallback “notified [ADS] of their intent to file
portions of the aforementioned confidential contracts in
support of [Stalley and Hallback’s] Reply in Support of

2 

[Stalley

and

Hallback’s]

Motion

for

Partial

Summary

Judgment.” (Id. at ¶ 5). Accordingly, ADS filed the present
Motion. ADS seeks to “have these confidential documents filed
under seal in order to prevent unnecessary public exposure to
confidential

and

proprietary

terms,

including

pricing

information, contained therein. Such exposure may result in
undue injury and hardship to [ADS].” (Id. at ¶ 6).
However,

Stalley

and

Hallback,

in

their

response,

contend that (1) ADS has “failed to demonstrate that its
interest in keeping the documents confidential is greater
than the common law right of access to judicial proceedings”
and (2) ADS has failed to comply with Local Rule 1.09, United
States District Court, Middle District of Florida, which
addresses filing records under seal. (Doc. # 302 at 2, 5).
Local Rule 1.09(a) requires inter alia that a motion to
seal include:
(i) an identification and description of each item
proposed for sealing; (ii) the reason that filing
each item is necessary; (iii) the reason that
sealing each item is necessary; (iv) the reason
that a means other than sealing is unavailable or
unsatisfactory to preserve the interest advanced by
the movant in support of the seal; (v) a statement
of the proposed duration of the seal; and (vi) a
memorandum of legal authority supporting the seal.

3 

Local Rule 1.09(a). It is the burden of the party seeking the
protection to establish that the document should be filed
under seal. See Bovie Med. Corp. v. Livneh, No. 8:10–cv–1527–
T–24EAJ, 2010 WL 4117635, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 19, 2010).
Upon review of the present Motion, the Court finds that
ADS has failed to comply with Local Rule 1.09. Specifically,
ADS has not identified and described each item proposed for
sealing. Instead, ADS seeks to have “confidential contracts
between [ADS] and third-parties” filed under seal. (Doc. #
298 at ¶¶ 4-5). Furthermore, ADS has insufficiently alleged
the reason that sealing each contract is necessary.

Namely,

ADS merely states in conclusory fashion that the contracts
contain “sensitive information” that is “proprietary” in
nature. (Id. at 3-5).

These generic monikers are not helpful

to the Court. Moreover, ADS has not submitted why a means
other

than

sealing

unsatisfactory.

the

contracts

is

unavailable

or

Finally, ADS has not provided the Court with

the proposed duration of the requested seal. See F.T.C. v.
Alcoholism

Cure

Corp.,

No.

3:10-CV-266-J-34TEM,

2010

WL

4840046 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 23, 2010)(finding that the defendant
must “cull through the massive filing and identify specific
documents he seeks to have sealed and explain the reasons
why” and “must explain why the sealing of each identified

4 

document is necessary, and why means other than sealing are
unavailable or unsatisfactory”).
Therefore, as the Court finds that ADS has failed to
comply with Local Rule 1.09, the Court denies ADS’s Motion.
However, the Motion is denied without prejudice so that ADS
may have an opportunity to file an amended motion by January
15, 2014, that complies with Local Rule 1.09.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)

Defendant ADS Alliance Data Systems, Inc.’s Motion to
Require Plaintiffs to File Confidential Documents Under
Seal and to Direct Plaintiffs not to Reveal the Content
of said Confidential Information in Argument Pursuant to
this Court’s Order Approving Confidentiality Stipulation
and Agreed Protective Order (Doc. # 298) is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

(2)

Defendant ADS Alliance Data Systems, Inc. has until and
including January 15, 2014, to file an amended motion
that complies with Local Rule 1.09.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this

10th day of January, 2014.

5 

Copies: All Counsel of Record

6