Bell v. Cross et al

Filing 161

ORDER denying without prejudice 160 Motion. Signed by Judge James D. Whittemore on 9/30/2020. (JHA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ex rel.
DELIA BELL,
Plaintiffs/Relator,
v.

Case No: 8:16-cv-961-T-27AEP

CROSS GARDEN CARE CENTER, LLC
and KARL E. CROSS,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER
BEFORE THE COURT is the Parties’ Joint Motion for Confidentiality Order (Dkt. 160)
and the proposed protective order (Dkt. 160-1). Upon consideration, the motion is DENIED
without prejudice.
Protective orders are issued to encourage efficient discovery. In re Alexander Grant & Co.
Litig., 820 F.2d 352, 357 (11th Cir. 1987) (per curiam). The parties’ concern that this action is
likely to involve confidential information, including protected health information of non-party
patients, is a justification for a narrowly drafted protective order. A protective order should be
drafted with precision, however. See id. at 356. With respect to the procedures proposed for
challenging confidentiality designations, the parties are cautioned that judicial review of

1

challenged designations should be limited to “those materials relevant to the legal issues raised.”
Id.1
A more narrowly tailored protective order can achieve the desired protection without
unnecessarily involving the Court in disagreements about confidentiality designations of materials
not relevant to the legal issues raised. See (Dkt. 160-1 ¶ 6). Nor should the order impose
requirements on non-parties over whom the Court has no jurisdiction. See, e.g., (Id. ¶¶ 1, 6, 14, at
p. 10). And whether a pleading or exhibit should be sealed is the prerogative of the Court, not the
parties. See Brown v. Advantage Eng’g, Inc., 960 F.2d 1013, 1016 (11th Cir. 1992) (noting that
the parties’ agreement to keep documents confidential or seal materials is “immaterial” to a court’s
decision regarding the public’s right of access); see also M.D. Fla. Local Rule 1.09. The order
should not purport to establish requirements inconsistent with the Local Rules. (Dkt. 160-1 ¶ 7).
Finally, the proposed order should not extend the Court’s jurisdiction past the conclusion of this
case. (Id. ¶ 13).

1

As explained in Alexander Grant:

The order issued in this case, as in others, is designed to encourage and simplify the exchanging of
large numbers of documents, volumes of records and extensive files without concern of improper
disclosure. After this sifting, material can be “filed” for whatever purpose consistent with the issues
being litigated whether by pretrial hearing or an actual trial. Judicial review will then be limited to
those materials relevant to the legal issues raised.
820 F.2d at 356.

2

Accordingly, the Joint Motion for Confidentiality Order (Dkt. 160) is DENIED without
prejudice.
DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of September, 2020.

/s/ James D. Whittemore
JAMES D. WHITTEMORE
United States District Judge 
Copies to: Counsel of Record

3