Schojan et al v. Papa John's International, Inc. et al

Filing 48

ORDER: Plaintiffs' Agreed Motion to Seal Motion for Summary Judgment and Agreed Motion to Seal Motion for Class Certification are DENIED. The Clerk is directed to file the Motions to Seal on the public record. In the instance that Plaintiffs seek to file their Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Class Certification, Plaintiffs should file the Motions on the open record. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 9/18/2014. (KAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
BRUCE SCHOJAN, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No.

8:14-cv-1218-T-33MAP

PAPA JOHN'S INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
ET AL.,
Defendants.
______________________________/
ORDER
This matter is before the Court pursuant to Plaintiffs'
Agreed Motion to Seal Motion for Summary Judgment and Agreed
Motion to Seal Motion for Class Certification, both tendered
to the Court on September 15, 2014.

Upon due consideration,

the Court denies the Motions to Seal.

The Court directs the

Clerk to file the Motions to Seal on the public record.
Analysis
Plaintiffs have tendered to the Court a Motion for
Summary Judgment and a Motion for Class Certification, and
seek leave to file these two Motions under seal.

The manner

in which Plaintiffs have submitted these documents to the
Court

is

in

direct

contravention

of

the

Local

Rules.

Specifically Local Rule 1.09(a) directs the proponent of a
motion to seal to "file and serve the Motion" and further
explains, "The movant shall not file or otherwise tender to

the Clerk any item proposed for sealing unless the Court has
granted the motion . . . ." Local Rule 1.09(a).
Here, instead of filing the Motions to Seal on the public
record, Plaintiffs have submitted the Motions to Seal to the
Clerk and have attached the items proposed for sealing.
Plaintiffs'

failure

to

comply

with

these

technical

requirements justifies an Order denying the Motions to Seal.
However, the Court will provide further analysis of its
reasoning for denial of the Motions to Seal.
Plaintiffs

assert

that

the

Court

should

seal

these

Motions and the exhibits thereto because these documents are
subject to the terms of a confidentiality agreement and
protective order. 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;
See Local Rule 1.09(a), M.D.

and (vi) a memorandum of law.

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
2

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.
The Court acknowledges that Plaintiffs have enumerated
the items to be sealed, but Plaintiffs have not shown why any
of the documents should be sealed or provided the other
relevant information required by Local Rule 1.09. Plaintiffs'
conclusory assertion that the documents are subject to a
protective order is insufficient to justify shielding these
proceedings from the public.
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. # 125 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
3

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, "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
4

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.,
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 Motions are accordingly denied.
The Clerk is directed to file the Motions to Seal on the
public record. In the instance that Plaintiffs seek to file
their

Motion

for

Summary

Judgment

and

Motion

for

Class

Certification, Plaintiffs should file the Motions on the open
record.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)

Plaintiffs' Agreed Motion to Seal Motion for Summary
Judgment and Agreed Motion to Seal Motion for Class
Certification are DENIED.

(2)

The Clerk is directed to file the Motions to Seal on the
public record. In the instance that Plaintiffs seek to
5

file their Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for
Class Certification, Plaintiffs should file the Motions
on the open record.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 18th
day of September, 2014.

Copies: All Counsel of Record

6