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
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?