Stoneeagle Services, Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc. et al

Filing 133

ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion to Seal the Non-Infringement Expert Report of Defendants' Expert, Thomas N. Turi 116 is GRANTED. Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Under Seal the Dispositive Motions for Summary Judgment of Defendants and Exhibits D and E Thereto 124 is GRANTED. Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Defendants' Motion to Exclude Testimony of Mr. Weston Anson and Memorandum in Support Thereof and Exhibits C, D, and F Thereto 126 is GRANTED. The documents, as described within the Motions, may be filed under seal. The documents shall remain under seal for a period ofone year. If necessary, the parties may file appropriate motions to renew this Court's Order. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 3/25/2015. (KNC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
STONEEAGLE SERVICES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No.: 8:13-cv-2240-T-33MAP

PAY-PLUS SOLUTIONS, INC., and
PREMIER HEALTHCARE EXCHANGE, INC.,
Defendants.
_______________________________/
ORDER
This matter is before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff
StoneEagle

Services,

Inc.’s

Motion

to

Seal

the

Non-

Infringement Expert Report of Defendants’ Expert, Thomas N.
Turi (Doc. # 116); Defendants Pay-Plus Solutions Inc. and
Premier Healthcare Exchange, Inc.’s Motion for Leave to File
Under Seal the Dispositive Motions for Summary Judgment of
Defendants and Exhibits D and E Thereto (Doc. # 124); and
Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Defendants’
Motion to Exclude Testimony of Mr. Weston Anson and Memorandum
in Support Thereof and Exhibits C, D, and F Thereto (Doc. #
126). All the present Motions are unopposed and ripe for this
Court’s review. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants
the Motions.
Discussion

1

Plaintiff seeks an Order authorizing it to file under
seal Defendants’ expert - Thomas N. Turi’s - Non-Infringement
Report dated November 12, 2014. (Doc. # 116). Furthermore,
Defendants

request

an

Order

allowing

them

to

file

the

following documents under seal: (1) Defendants’ Dispositive
Motions

for

Summary

Judgment;

(2)

Exhibits

D

and

E

to

Defendants’ Dispositive Motions for Summary Judgment; (3)
Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Testimony of Mr. Weston Anson;
and (4) Exhibits C, D, and F to the Motion to Exclude Testimony
of Mr. Weston Anson. (Doc. ## 124, 126).
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 unavailable or
unsatisfactory to preserve the interest advanced by the motion
to seal, (v) a statement of the duration of the seal, and
(vi) a memorandum of law. See Local Rule 1.09, 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

2

is filed before the expiration of the seal." See Local Rule
1.09(c), 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
by the Eleventh Circuit 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." 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, "[t]he 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 First Amendment
to the United States Constitution also provides a qualified
right of access to trial proceedings, although this right

3

"has a more limited application in the civil context than it
does

in

the

criminal

[context]."

Chi.

Tribune

Co.

v.

Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 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.
The public's right of access to judicial records may be
overcome by a showing of good cause by the party seeking
protection, which includes a balancing of interests. Mobile
Shelter Sys. USA, Inc. v. Grate Pallet Solutions, LLC, No.
3:10-CV-978-J-37JBT, 2011 WL 5357843, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Nov.
1, 2011); see also Romero, 480 F.3d at 1245. Good cause
“generally signifies a sound basis or legitimate need to take
judicial action.” In re Alexander Grant & Co. Litig., 820
F.2d 352, 356 (11th Cir. 1987). If the court finds that good
cause exists, the court must then balance the interest in
obtaining access to the information against the interest in
keeping the information confidential. Chi. Tribune Co., 263
F.3d at 1313. In balancing these interests:
[C]ourts consider, among other factors, whether
allowing access would impair court functions or
harm legitimate privacy interests, the degree of
and likelihood of injury if made public, the
reliability of the information, whether there will

4

be an opportunity to respond to the information,
whether the information concerns public officials
or public concerns, and the availability of a less
onerous alternative to sealing the documents.
Romero, 480 F.3d at 1246 (citations omitted). Moreover, even
in the absence of a third party challenging the protection of
information, the Court, as “the primary representative of the
public interest in the judicial process,” is bound by duty
“to review any request to seal the record (or part of it)
[and] may not rubber stamp a stipulation to seal the record.”
Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v. CBS, Inc., 184 F.
Supp. 2d 1353, 1363 (N.D. Ga. 2002).
This

Court

finds

that

the

parties

have

met

the

requirements of the Local Rules, and have shown good cause as
to why certain documents should be filed under seal. The items
to be sealed are described in the Motions, and the parties
have provided a satisfactory reason why the documents must be
filed as they contain “extremely confidential” material that
would

cause

“economic

harm

or

significant

competitive

disadvantage.” (See Doc. ## 116, 124, 126).
In addition, the parties have provided the documents to
the Court, and the Court has reviewed each document. The Court
determines that each document is confidential and proprietary
and that good cause exists to seal each document. Disclosure

5

of the documents to the public could put the parties at a
competitive disadvantage or otherwise invade the parties’
legitimate privacy interests. After carefully reviewing the
Motions and the documents, the Court grants the Motions.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)

Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal the Non-Infringement Expert
Report of Defendants’ Expert, Thomas N. Turi (Doc. #
116) is GRANTED.

(2)

Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Under Seal the
Dispositive Motions for Summary Judgment of Defendants
and Exhibits D and E Thereto (Doc. # 124) is GRANTED.

(3)

Defendants’

Motion

for

Leave

to

File

Under

Seal

Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Testimony of Mr. Weston
Anson and Memorandum in Support Thereof and Exhibits C,
D, and F Thereto (Doc. # 126) is GRANTED.
(4)

The documents, as described within the Motions, may be
filed under seal.

(5)

The documents shall remain under seal for a period of
one year. If necessary, the parties may file appropriate
motions to renew this Court’s Order.

6

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this
25th day of March, 2015.

Copies: All Counsel of Record

7