Stoneeagle Services, Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc. et al
Filing
302
ORDER granting 298 Motion to Seal. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 9/22/2015. (KAK)
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 Defendants’
Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Defendants’ Renewed Motion
for Judgment as a Matter of Law Pursuant to Rule 50(b) (Doc.
# 298), which was filed on September 21, 2015.
The Motion is
unopposed and is granted as follows.
Discussion
Defendants seek an Order authorizing them to file under
seal Defendants’ Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law
Pursuant to Rule 50(b). The Court notes that Defendants have
filed a redacted version of the Motion on the public record.
(Doc. # 297).
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
1
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
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
2
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
"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.
3
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
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
Defendants
have
met
the
requirements of the Local Rules, and have shown good cause as
4
to why the Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law should be
filed under seal. The unredacted version of the Motion for
Judgment as a Matter of Law contains information that is
confidential and commercially sensitive.
Among other things,
it discusses a License Agreement that is protected from public
disclosure.
As such, Defendants have provided a satisfactory
reason why the unredacted version of the Motion must be filed
under seal. In addition, because the Court needs access to
the unredacted version of the Motion to make an informed
decision, the Court determines that the Motion to Seal should
be granted.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)
Defendants’
Motion
for
Leave
to
File
Under
Seal
Defendants’ Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of
Law Pursuant to Rule 50(b) (Doc. # 298) is GRANTED.
(2)
The Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Pursuant to
Rule 50(b) shall remain under seal for a period of one
year. If necessary, the parties may file appropriate
motions to renew this Court’s Order.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this
22nd day of September, 2015.
5
Copies: All Counsel of Record
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?