Regions Bank v. Kaplan et al

Filing 461

ORDER granting 446 Motion to Seal. The Clerk is directed to file Bridgeview Bank Group's motion to determine that deposition testimony of Marvin Kaplan is not privileged, as well as Exhibit A to that motion, under seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo on 8/24/2015. (CRJ)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
REGIONS BANK,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO.: 8:12-cv-1837-T-17MAP

MARVIN I. KAPLAN, et al
Defendants,
__________________________/
ORDER
Before me is Bridgeview Bank Group’s motion for leave to file documents under seal (doc.
446). By the motion, Bridgeview Bank Group requests leave to seal its motion to determine that
deposition testimony of Martin Kaplan is not privileged, as well as Exhibit A to that motion.
Specifically, Bridgeview Bank Group claims that the motion and exhibit contain information over
which Mr. Kaplan has asserted a claim of privilege and, therefore, filing under seal is authorized by
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B). Although Bridgeview Bank Group did not comply with
Local Rule 3.01(g), which requires that a movant certify he or she has conferred with opposing
counsel regarding the subject matter of the motion and state whether opposing counsel agrees to the
relief sought in the motion, I will presume that Mr. Kaplan does not oppose the motion because he
is interested in protecting information over which he claims a privilege. For the reasons stated,
Bridgeview Bank Group’s motion is granted.
When deciding whether to seal a document, the Court must keep in mind its responsibility
to the public to ensure that the public interest in the common-law right of access to judicial

proceedings is protected. See Romero v. Drummond Co., 480 F.3d 1234, 1245 (11th Cir. 2007)
(“The operations of the courts and the judicial conduct of judges are matters of the 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.”) (internal citations
omitted). The “right of access has a more limited application in the civil context than it does in the
criminal.” Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1310 (11th Cir.
2001). In civil cases, courts have found that the common-law right of access may be overcome if
the party seeking the protection shows good cause. Id. If good cause exists, the Court must then
balance the interest in obtaining access to the information against the interest in keeping the
information confidential. Id. at 1313.
Here, I am satisfied that the motion and exhibit contain information over which Mr. Kaplan
asserts a privilege. Therefore, there is good cause for protecting the information, and Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B) authorizes seal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(B) (“If information
produced in discovery is subject to a claim of privilege[,] . . . a party . . . may promptly present the
information to the court under seal for a determination of the claim.”). Finally, this case involves
private parties and raises little public concern. Thus, the balance of interests weighs in favor of
sealing these documents. Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1.

Bridgeview Bank Group’s motion to seal (doc. 446) is GRANTED.

2.

The Clerk is directed to file Bridgeview Bank Group’s motion to determine that
deposition testimony of Marvin Kaplan is not privileged, as well as Exhibit A to that
motion, under seal.

2

3.

The duration of the seal will extend until the lawsuit is terminated. See Local Rule
1.09(c). However, if the motion to determine that deposition testimony of Martin
Kaplan is not privileged is granted, the motion and exhibit shall be unsealed.

DONE and ORDERED at Tampa, Florida on August 24, 2015.

3