Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe

Filing 108

ORDER: Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Seal (Doc. # 101 ) is granted as provided in the Order. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 2/9/2016. (DRW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:14-cv-1580-T-33TBM

GREGORY WEAVER,
Defendant.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff Malibu
Media, LLC’s Unopposed Motion to Seal (Doc. # 101). For the
reasons that follow, the Court grants the Motion.
Discussion
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(d) allows a court
to order a filing be made under seal without redaction.
Furthermore, Middle District of Florida Local Rule 1.09(a)
states:
a party seeking to file under seal any paper or
other matter in any civil case shall file and serve
a motion, the title of which includes the words
“Motion to Seal” and which includes (i) an
identification and description of each item
proposed for sealing; (ii) the reason that filing
each item is necessary; (iii) the reason that
sealing each item is necessary; (iv) the reason
that a means other than sealing is unavailable or
unsatisfactory to preserve the interest advanced by
the movant in support of the seal; (v) a statement

1 

of the proposed duration of the seal; and (vi) a
memorandum of legal authority supporting the seal.
The movant shall not file or otherwise tender to
the Clerk any item proposed for sealing unless the
Court has granted the motion required by this
section.
In addition, “[e]very order sealing any item pursuant to this
section

shall

state

the

particular

reason

the

seal

is

required.” Local Rule 1.09(a), M.D. Fla.
The

public

maintains

a

right

of

access

to

court

operations that “includes the right to inspect and copy public
records

and

documents.”

Chicago

Tribune

v.

Bridgestone/Firestone, 263 F.3d 1304, 1311 (11th Cir. 2001).
The public’s right of access is not unbounded, however. Romero
v. Drummond Co., 480 F.3d 1234, 1245 (11th Cir.2007). For
example, “the need for public access to discovery is low
because discovery is essentially a private process . . . the
sole purpose [of which] is to assist trial preparation.” Id.
(internal

quotation

marks

omitted)

(citation

omitted).

Furthermore, “[t]he prospect of all discovery material being
presumptively subject to the [public’s] right of access would
likely

lead

to

an

increased

resistance

to

discovery

requests.” Chicago Tribune, 263 F.3d at 1312 n.10.
After consideration, the Court finds that Malibu Media’s
Motion is due to be granted. This case does not involve

2 

governmental officials and the document to be sealed contains
information relating to Malibu Media’s business practices and
strategies

along

with

other

information

subject

to

non-

disclosure agreements. As such, the Court will permit Malibu
Media to file the December 30, 2015, deposition transcript of
Colette Pelissier-Field, Malibu Media’s 30(b)(6) corporate
representative, under seal.
The

seal

shall

remain

effective

during

the

pending

action. If, at the conclusion of the case, the seal is still
in effect, Malibu Media may move to have the seal renewed
under Local Rule 1.09(b)-(c) or for other such relief as may
be appropriate.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)

Plaintiff Malibu Media, LLC’s Unopposed Motion to Seal
(Doc. # 101) is GRANTED.

(2)

The

seal

action.

shall
The

remain

Clerk

effective

is

directed

during
to

the

pending

maintain

the

aforementioned deposition transcript under seal during
the pendency of the action.
(3)

If the seal is still in effect at the conclusion of this
action, Malibu Media may move to have the seal renewed

3 

under Local Rule 1.09(b)-(c) or for other such relief as
may be appropriate.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 9th
day of February, 2016.

4