Curry v. Bank of America, N.A.

Filing 40

ORDER: Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Seal Motion for Summary Judgment 39 is provisionally GRANTED. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 9/13/2012. (KAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
ZACHARY CURRY,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No.

8:11-cv-1904-T-33MAP

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
Defendant.
________________________________/
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court pursuant to Defendant’s
Unopposed Motion to Seal Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #
39), which was filed on September 11, 2012.

For the reasons

that follow, the Court provisionally grants the Motion.
I.

Background
Plaintiff

filed

this

sexual

harassment

employment

discrimination action against Bank of America on August 22,
2011.

Before filing this suit, Plaintiff brought a separate

suit on March 15, 2010, which was dismissed without prejudice
for lack of prosecution. (Curry v. O’Connor, et al., 8:10-cv631-T-23AEP).

In the July 22, 2010, order dismissing the

initial suit without prejudice, the presiding Judge ordered,
“If the plaintiff re-files this action, the plaintiff shall
not in any pleading, motion, exhibit, or other paper submit
sexually explicit language or photographs or any other item

offensive to the dignity of the court.” (8:10-cv-631-T-23AEP,
Doc. # 52).
At this juncture, Defendant seeks to file its Motion for
Summary Judgment and all exhibits thereto under seal “because
the sexually explicit items that Plaintiff submitted in the
first lawsuit, which this Court considered offensive to the
dignity of the Court, have also been placed at issue in this
case and are discussed at length and in detail throughout the
Bank’s Motion for Summary Judgment.” (Doc. # 39 at 2).
Plaintiff does not oppose the Motion to Seal.
II.

Analysis
In this district, the proponent of a motion to seal must

include: (i) an identification and description of each item
proposed for sealing; (ii) the reason that filing each item is
necessary; (iii) the reason for sealing each item; (iv) the
reason that a means other than sealing is unsatisfactory to
preserve the interest advanced by the motion to seal; (v) a
statement of the proposed duration of the seal; and (vi) a
memorandum of law.

See Local Rule 1.09, M.D. Fla.

In addition to the technical requirements of the Court's
Local Rules, the law of the Eleventh Circuit requires a strong
showing by the proponent of a motion to seal before the Court
will deny public access to judicial proceedings. As explained
-2-

in Brown v. Advantage Engineering, Inc., 960 F.2d 1013, 1016
(11th Cir. 1992), "Once a matter is brought before a court for
resolution, it is no longer solely the parties' case, but is
also the public's case.

Absent a showing of extraordinary

circumstances set forth by the district court in the record
. . . the court file must remain accessible to the public."
American courts recognize a general right "to inspect and copy
public records and documents, including judicial records and
documents." Nixon v. Warner Comms., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597
(1978).
The Eleventh Circuit has also noted, "The operations of
the courts and the judicial conduct of judges are matters of
utmost public concern and the common-law right of access to
judicial proceedings, an essential component of our system of
justice, is instrumental in securing the integrity of the
process." Romero v. Drummond Co., 480 F.3d 1234, 1245 (11th
Cir. 2007)(internal citations omitted).
Here, the Bank has generally satisfied the requirements
of the Local Rules; however, because the Court has a duty to
minimize the presence of sealed files, the Court determines it
is appropriate to provisionally grant the Motion to Seal. The
Court will review the Motion for Summary Judgment and all
exhibits in camera and will instruct the Clerk to make such
-3-

filings public, if, after review, the Court determines that
the public's interest in having access to the case outweighs
other considerations bearing on the dignity of the Court or
the privacy interests of the litigants.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Seal Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. # 39) is provisionally GRANTED.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this
13th day of September, 2012.

Copies:
All Counsel of Record

-4-