Palma et al v. Metro PCS Wireless, Inc.

Filing 245

ORDER: Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to File Exhibit to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Under Seal 243 is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 5/22/2014. (KAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
KAREN PALMA and HALLIE SELGERT,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No.

8:13-cv-698-T-33MAP

METROPCS WIRELESS, INC.,
Defendant.
______________________________/
ORDER
This matter is before the Court pursuant to Plaintiffs'
Unopposed Motion to File Exhibit to Plaintiffs' Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment Under Seal (Doc. # 243), which was
filed on May 21, 2014. For the reasons that follow, the Court
denies the Motion without prejudice.
Analysis
Plaintiffs seek an Order authorizing Plaintiffs to file
the following documents under seal: "(a) Corporate Structure
Chart;

(b)

Employee

Handbook;

(c)

various

policies;

(d)

Indirect Dealer Agreement; (e) 2011 Blueprint for Success; (f)
MetroPCS' Dealer Approved Collateral Guide; (g) Summary of P1
and P2 (setting forth basic ASR job parameters)." (Doc. # 243
at 1).

Plaintiffs submit that the documents should be sealed

because "on March 20, 2014, the parties to this litigation
entered

into

a

confidentiality

stipulation

prior

to

the

production of these documents. . . . Subsequently, this Court

entered

[the]

Stipulated

Protective

Order."

(Id.

at

2).

Plaintiffs assert that "Defendant expressly produced these
documents subject to the stipulation of the confidentiality
and/or

terms

of

the

Stipulated

Protective

Order."

(Id.)

Plaintiffs suggest that the documents should remain under seal
indefinitely.
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(a), M.D. Fla.

The

relevant rule also states: "Unless otherwise ordered by the
Court for good cause shown, no order sealing any item pursuant
to this section shall extend beyond one year, although a seal
is renewable by a motion that complies with (b) of this rule,
identifies the expiration of the seal, and is filed before the
expiration of the seal."

See Local Rule 1.09(c), M.D. Fla.

In the case of the present Motion, Plaintiffs fail to
satisfy the requirements of Local Rule 1.09.

The Court

acknowledges that Plaintiffs have enumerated the items to be
2

sealed, but Plaintiffs have not shown why any of the exhibits
should be sealed or provided the other relevant information
required by Local Rule 1.09.

Rather, Plaintiffs argue:

"because the residents whose information is contained in these
records are not parties, there is even more reason that their
private information should be protected." (Doc. # 243 at 2-3).
This argument is not cogent under the facts presented in this
case

and

does

not

warrant

an

Order

sealing

any

of

the

documents referenced in the Motion.
Furthermore, while the Court recognizes that the parties
have entered into a confidentiality agreement, the Court has
explained

in

its

Case

Management

and

Scheduling

Order

governing the course of these proceedings that "[w]hether
documents filed in a case may be filed under seal is a
separate

issue

from

whether

the

parties

produced documents are confidential.

may

agree

that

Motions to file under

seal are disfavored, and such motions will be denied unless
they comply with Local Rule 1.09." (Doc. # 138 at 5).
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
by the Eleventh Circuit in Brown v. Advantage Engineering,
3

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."

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 noted, "The operation 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).

The court further

explained, "This right of access includes the right to inspect
and copy public records and documents.

This right of access

is not absolute, however [and] may be overcome by a showing of
good cause." Id.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution
also

provides

proceedings,

a

qualified

although

right

this

right

of
"has

access
a

to

more

trial
limited

application in the civil context than it does in the criminal
[context]." Chi. Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.,
4

263

F.3d

1304,

1310

(11th

Cir.

2001).

Where

this

constitutional right of access applies, any denial of access
requires a showing that it "is necessitated by a compelling
governmental interest, and is narrowly tailored to [serve]
that interest." Id.
In addition to failing to meet the requirements of the
Local Rules, Plaintiffs have not shown good cause to override
the common law and First Amendment rights of the public to
review court documents.

The Motion is accordingly denied

without prejudice.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
Plaintiffs'

Unopposed

Motion

to

File

Exhibit

to

Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Under Seal
(Doc. # 243) is DENIED without prejudice.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 22nd
day of May, 2014.

Copies: All Parties of Record

5