Rosen v. Exact Sciences Corporation et al
ORDER denying 88 Motion for leave to file under seal. Unredacted exhibits due 1/25/23 at 5:00 P.M. Signed by Magistrate Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone on 1/18/2023. (SFC)
Case 8:19-cv-01526-MSS-AAS Document 93 Filed 01/18/23 Page 1 of 5 PageID 1403
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ex rel. NILES ROSEN, M.D.,
Case No. 8:19-cv-1526-MSS-AAS
EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION
and EXACT SCIENCES
Laboratories, LLC (collectively, Exact Sciences) move for leave to file under
seal several exhibits to its pending motion to compel (Doc. 85) and partially
redact portions of other exhibits to that motion. (Doc. 88). Plaintiff United
States of America ex rel. Niles Rosen, M.D. opposes Exact Sciences’ request.
Because filing the documents under seal is not authorized by statute,
rule, or order, Exact Sciences moves to seal the documents under Local Rule
Case 8:19-cv-01526-MSS-AAS Document 93 Filed 01/18/23 Page 2 of 5 PageID 1404
1.11(c). 1 In relevant part, Local Rule 1.11(c) states:
If no statute, rule, or order authorizes a filing under seal, a motion
for leave to file under seal:
(1) must include in the title “Motion for Leave to File Under
(2) must describe the item proposed for sealing;
(3) must state the reason:
(A) filing the item is necessary,
(B) sealing the item is necessary, and
(C) partial sealing, redaction, or means other than
sealing are unavailable or unsatisfactory;
(4) must propose a duration of the seal;
(5) must state the name, mailing address, email address, and
telephone number of the person authorized to retrieve a
sealed, tangible item;
(6) must include a legal memorandum supporting the seal;
(7) must not include the item proposed for sealing.
An order permitting leave under this section must state the reason
that a seal is required.
This court thus possesses both authority and discretion to seal records.
Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). The decision on
whether to seal records lies with this court, not the parties, and the decision
must balance the public’s common law right of access with a party’s interest in
keeping the information confidential. Id. at 597−99.
For a pretrial motion related to discovery, the court may overrule the
The revisions to the Middle District of Florida’s Local Rules took effect on February
2, 2021. The revised Local Rules are available on the Middle District of Florida’s
website. See Local Rules, https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/local-rules.
Case 8:19-cv-01526-MSS-AAS Document 93 Filed 01/18/23 Page 3 of 5 PageID 1405
common law right of access upon a showing of “good cause.” Chicago Tribune
Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1310–1312 (11th Cir. 2001).
“The ‘good cause’ standard requires the trial court to ‘balance the respective
interests of the parties.’” Sarasota County Public Hospital District v.
MultiPlan, Inc., 2019 WL 1244963 at *1 (M.D. Fla. March 18, 2019) (citing
Chicago Tribune, 263 F.3d at 1313). The analysis must consider:
whether allowing access would impair court functions or harm
legitimate privacy interests, the degree of and likelihood of injury
if made public, the reliability of the information, whether there
will be an opportunity to respond to the information, whether the
information concerns public officials or public concerns, and the
availability of a less onerous alternative to sealing the documents.
Romero v. Drummond Co., 480 F.3d 1234, 1246 (11th Cir. 2007).
Exact Sciences lists three justifications for sealing and partially
redacting exhibits to its motion to compel: (1) some of the information in the
exhibits constitutes “confidential business information, including financial
data and analysis and business strategies”; (2) some of the information in the
exhibits is “related to its engagement with government regulators”; and (3)
some of the information in the exhibits are privilege logs “filed under seal as a
matter of course” in the Eleventh Circuit. (Doc. 88, pp. 3–7).
None of Exact Sciences’ justifications necessitate sealing or redacting the
exhibits. Exact Sciences’ interest in keeping confidential certain financial data
and business strategies regarding a gift card incentive program is mitigated
Case 8:19-cv-01526-MSS-AAS Document 93 Filed 01/18/23 Page 4 of 5 PageID 1406
by the fact that (as Exact Sciences notes in their response to the plaintiffs’
interrogatories) Exact Sciences discontinued the program “in the fourth
quarter of 2018.” (Doc. 87, Ex. 2, p. 3). Exact Sciences fails to show any federal
agency has standing to request the court seal or redact any exhibits in this
matter and thus fails to establish why the court should provisionally seal
certain exhibits “until the government has a chance to express its opinion
about whether this information should be publicly available.” (Doc. 88, p. 6).
Finally, Exact Sciences is incorrect that privilege logs “as a matter of
course” are subject to seal in the Eleventh Circuit. (Id.). Privilege logs in this
circuit are instead redacted or sealed when the privilege log itself contains
confidential or sensitive information in its description of privileged material.
See Guttenberg v. United States, No. 18-cv-62758, 2019 WL 13186902, at *4
(S.D. Fla. Dec. 11, 2019) (describing a privilege log sealed in part because the
privilege log’s descriptions of privileged documents contain in part “several
redacted portions” of an FBI Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide”).
Exact Sciences does not allege the privilege log itself contains confidential
information. Exact Sciences instead only argues the privilege log “also contains
information related to Exact Sciences’ engagement with government
regulators.” (Doc. 88, p. 7).
Exact Sciences has not established good cause for sealing or redacting
Case 8:19-cv-01526-MSS-AAS Document 93 Filed 01/18/23 Page 5 of 5 PageID 1407
the listed exhibits to their motion to compel (Doc. 85). Exact Sciences’ motion
to file confidential exhibits under seal or for redaction (Doc. 88) is therefore
DENIED. Exact Sciences has until January 25, 2023 at 5:00 P.M. to submit
the unredacted exhibits.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on January 18, 2023.
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?