Connectus LLC v. Ampush Media, Inc.

Filing 172

ORDER: Defendants Ampush Media, Inc.'s and DGS Edu, LLC's respective Motions to Seal (Doc. ## 153 , 160 , 162 ) are denied to the extent set forth herein. DGS Edu and Connectus may file a supplement explaining, with specificity, why their respective financial data, such as contracted-for prices per lead, needs to be sealed by January 9, 2017. The Court will permit the lead sheets to be filed under seal at this juncture. Furthermore, where redaction of non-party consumer (i.e., p rospective student) information, such as email addresses and phone numbers, is possible on any other document submitted in support of a pending motion, the proffering party must redact said information. The Court reserves the right to revisit the matter. (DRW)

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

Case No. 8:15-cv-2778-T-33JSS

AMPUSH MEDIA, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of
Defendants Ampush Media, Inc.’s and DGS Edu, LLC’s respective
Motions to Seal (Doc. ## 153, 160, 162), filed on December
20, 2016, and December 22, 2016. Plaintiff Connectus LLC filed
a response on December 27, 2016. (Doc. # 169). For the reasons
below, the Motions are granted in part and denied in part.
Discussion
It is well settled that “[t]he operations of the courts
and the judicial conduct of judges are matters of utmost
public

concern”

maintained

by

and
the

the

integrity

public’s

right

of
of

the

judiciary

access

to

is

court

proceedings. Romero v. Drummond Co., 480 F.3d 1234, 1245 (11th
Cir. 2007). The public’s right “includes the right to inspect
and copy public records and documents.” Chicago Tribune Co.

v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1311 (11th
Cir. 2001). But, this right is not absolute and “may be
overcome by a showing of good cause, which requires balancing
the

asserted

right

of

access

against

the

other

party’s

interest in keeping the information confidential.” Romero,
480 F.3d at 1245.
“‘Good cause is established by the moving party when
disclosure will cause the party to suffer a clearly defined
and serious injury.’” NXP B.V. v. BlackBerry Ltd., No. 6:12cv-498-Orl-22TBS, 2014 WL 4059135, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 15,
2014) (citation omitted). “The parties’ agreement to seal
court documents ‘is immaterial’ to the public’s right of
access.” Id. (quoting Brown v. Advantage Eng'g, 960 F.2d 1013,
1016 (11th Cir. 1992)). “Moreover, . . . the court, as ‘the
primary representative of the public interest in the judicial
process,’ is duty-bound ‘to review any request to seal the
record

(or

part

of

it)

[and]

may

not

rubber

stamp

a

stipulation to seal the record.’” Patent Asset Licensing, LLC
v. Wideopenwest Fin., LLC, No. 3:15-cv-743-J-32MCR, 2016 WL
2991058, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 24, 2016) (citation omitted)
(alteration in original).
After
response,

thoroughly
and

the

reviewing

voluminous

2 

the

Motions,

documents

Connectus’

submitted

for

in

camera review, the Court denies the Motions in part. The Court
first addresses Ampush’s Motions and then DGS Edu’s Motion.
Ampush seeks to file two dozen exhibits, totaling wellover three thousand pages, under seal for an indefinite period
of time merely to comply with the parties’ confidentiality
agreement, but not because it thinks the documents should be
sealed. (Doc. # 160 at ¶ 3) (“In order to comply with the
Protective Agreement, Ampush is seeking to file the exhibits
attached to [its] Motion for Summary Judgment under seal
indefinitely, as one or more parties have designated said
exhibits as being subject to the Protective Order, and not
because Ampush agrees with those parties’ designations.”);
(Doc. # 162 at ¶ 3) (same). That reason alone, however, is
insufficient to override the public’s right of access. NXP
B.V., 2014 WL 4059135, at *2 (quoting Brown, 960 at 1016)
(“The

parties’

agreement

to

seal

court

documents

‘is

immaterial’ to the public’s right of access.”). It is also
worth noting that Connectus, in its response, states that it
“has no objection to some of these documents being filed
entirely or partially in the public record,” with two caveats
(Doc. # 169 at 2), which the Court addresses last. As such,
Ampush’s Motions are denied.

3 

For its part, DGS Edu, “[i]n order to comply with the
Protective Agreement only, . . . seek[s] to file under seal
deposition excerpts and deposition exhibits attached to its
Motion

for

Summary

Judgment

which

the

Plaintiff

has

designated Confidential or AEO—not because DGS agrees with
Plaintiff’s designations.” (Doc. # 153 at 2). Again, that
reason is not sufficient to warrant sealing the documents,
NXP B.V., 2014 WL 4059135, at *2 (quoting Brown, 960 at 1016),
and Connectus does not object to the documents being filed on
the public record, except for the aforementioned caveats.
Therefore, DGS Edu’s Motion is denied insofar as it seeks to
file documents designated as confidential by Connectus under
seal.
DGS Edu further “requests leave to file under seal
depositions

excerpts

and

deposition

exhibits

which

were

designated as ‘Confidential’ [to one degree or another] . .
. by DGS and/or because they contain certain sensitive,
confidential, and proprietary information, and/or relate to
DGS’s finances, product pricing, marketing, and sales.” (Doc.
# 153 at 2). After perusing the documents submitted by DGS
Edu for in camera review, the Court is not convinced that
sealing such documents is necessary, or that the public’s
right of access is outweighed by DGS Edu’s interest in sealing

4 

the documents. However, in an abundance of caution, the Court
will

permit

DGS

Edu

an

opportunity

to

clarify,

with

specificity, why its financial data, such as contracted-for
prices per lead, needs to be sealed. DGS Edu’s supplement, if
it elects to file one, shall not exceed 10 pages and must be
filed by January 9, 2017.
Turning to Connectus’ response, Connectus states that it
“seeks to maintain under seal only two narrow categories of
information:” non-party consumers’ personal information and
sensitive financial information, such as negotiated prices
per lead. (Doc. # 169 at 2). As to negotiated prices per lead
and other financial information, while such information is
indeed sensitive, it is also central to this case. To be sure,
if the case is resolved in favor of Connectus and damages are
awarded, the financial information of all parties will become
relevant in calculating an appropriate damages award. But, as
with DGS Edu, the Court will provide Connectus one final
opportunity to explain, with specificity, in 10 pages or less
by

January

9,

2017,

why

its

financial

data,

such

as

contracted-for prices per lead, needs to be sealed.
In

addition,

with

respect

to

non-party

consumer

information contained on the lead sheets, the Court finds
that, in light of the number of pages submitted, at this

5 

juncture redaction is not an efficient means to secure the
non-parties’ interest in maintaining their privacy. Thus, the
Court will permit the lead sheets to be filed under seal at
this juncture, but where redaction of non-party consumer
(i.e.,

prospective

student)

information,

such

as

email

addresses and phone numbers, is possible on any other document
submitted in support of a pending motion, the proffering party
must redact said information. The Court reserves the right to
revisit this matter should the case proceed beyond the summary
judgment stage.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)

Defendants

Ampush

Media,

Inc.’s

and

DGS

Edu,

LLC’s

respective Motions to Seal (Doc. ## 153, 160, 162) are
DENIED to the extent set forth above.
(2)

DGS Edu and Connectus may file a supplement explaining,
with specificity, why their respective financial data,
such as contracted-for prices per lead, needs to be
sealed by January 9, 2017.

(3)

The Court will permit the lead sheets to be filed under
seal at this juncture. Furthermore, where redaction of
non-party

consumer

(i.e.,

prospective

student)

information, such as email addresses and phone numbers,

6 

is possible on any other document submitted in support
of a pending motion, the proffering party must redact
said

information.

The

Court

reserves

the

right

to

revisit the matter.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this
30th day of December, 2016.

7