Regions Bank v. Kaplan et al
ORDER denying 145 Renewed Motion to Seal Confidential Documents Pursuant to Agreed Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone on 1/10/2018. (BEE)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
REGIONS BANK, an Alabama
Case No.: 8:16-cv-2867-T-23AAS
MARVIN I. KAPLAN, and individual;
Defendants Marvin Kaplan, Kathryn Kaplan, R1A Palms, LLC, Triple Net Exchange,
LLC, MK Investing, LLC, BNK Smith, LLC, and MIK Advanta, LLC (collectively, “Kaplan
Defendants”), request to file under seal the following exhibits to Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. 134):
Exhibit A. Chase Bank Statement and Wire Transfer Form;
Exhibit B. Wells Fargo Bank Statement;
Exhibit C. Quickbooks entries;
Exhibit D. Composite Invoices and check; and
Exhibit E. Annual Report of Advanta IRA 2013.
(Doc. 145). The request to seal Exhibits A through D was previously denied without prejudice.
(Doc. 135). At the court’s request, the Kaplan Defendants submitted Exhibits A through E for in
As previously stated in this action, “[t]hough a stipulated protective order may provide that
documents designated as confidential are presumptively protected, a party’s calling a document
confidential pursuant to a protective order does not make it so when it comes to filing the document
with the court.” (Docs. 141, 142) (citing Brown v. Advantage Eng’g, Inc., 960 F.2d 1013, 1016
(11th Cir. 1992) (holdings that the parties’ agreement to seal court documents “is immaterial” to
the public’s right of access) and Joao Bock Transaction Sys., LLC v. Fidelity Nat. Info. Servs., Inc.,
Case No. 3:13-cv-223-J-32JRK, 2014 WL 279656, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 24, 2014)).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(d) authorizes a court to permit parties to file documents
under seal. Middle District of Florida Local Rule 1.09(a) requires the following process for a party
to request that filings be under seal:
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 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.
Strict adherence to this court’s procedure is necessary because“‘[t]he 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., Inc., 480 F.3d 1234, 1245 (11th
Cir. 2007) (quoting Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1311 (11th
Cir. 2001)). “The common law right of access may be overcome by a showing of good cause,
which requires ‘balanc[ing] the asserted right of access against the other party’s interest in keeping
the information confidential.’” Romero, 480 F.3d at 1246 (quoting Chicago Tribune Co., 263 F.3d
As a case shifts from the discovery period to the adjudication on the merits by way of
summary judgment motions or trial, the court’s balancing of a party’s right to confidentiality of its
records and the public’s right of access also shifts. Although there is an exception to the public
right of access for discovery material, a party’s use of documents as evidence at summary judgment
or trial puts the information into the public domain unless the party can show good cause for
keeping the information confidential. Alvey v. Gualtieri, No. 8:15-cv-1861-T-33MAP, 2016 WL
4129273, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 3, 2016) (citing Diaz-Granados v. Wright Med. Tech., Inc., No.
6:14-cv-1953-Orl-28TBS, 2016 WL 1090060, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 21, 2016)).
The Kaplan Defendants have not demonstrated good cause for shielding these five exhibits
from the public’s right of access. This case concerns the alleged improper movement of assets by
judgment debtors. These financial records are not inherently immune from being filed in the public
record and will not be sealed absent a showing of good cause. See Rasmussen v. Cent. Florida
Council Boy Scouts of Am., Inc., No. 6:07-CV-1091-ORL-19GJK, 2010 WL 11508114, at *3
(M.D. Fla. Jan. 22, 2010) (denying request to seal bank records). Having reviewed the documents
in camera, the Kaplan Defendants may partially redact any financial account numbers in
compliance with Rule 5.2(a) and the court’s Administrative Procedures for Electronic Filing, but
there is not good cause to shield from disclosure any other portions of Exhibits A through E in the
face of the presumptive right of public access.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Kaplan Parties’ Renewed Motion to Seal Confidential
Documents Pursuant to Agreed Protective Order and in Support of Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment and Response to Regions’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 145) is
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on this 10th day of January, 2018.
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?