Armadillo Distribution Enterprises, Inc. et al v. In Dime We Trust, RLT et al

Filing 52

ORDER granting 51 Motion for leave to file under seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone on 3/26/2024. (BEE)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
ARMADILLO DISTRIBUTION
ENTERPRISES, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 8:21-cv-2025-SDM-AAS

IN DIME WE TRUST, RLT,
et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________/
ORDER
Defendants In Dime We Trust, RLT and Rita Haney (collectively, the
defendants) move for leave to file the April 20, 2009, License/Settlement
Agreement, between Dean Zelinsky and Armadillo Distribution Enterprises,
Inc., and its affiliates, utilized in the Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave
to Amend the Complaint (the Agreement) under seal. (Doc. 51). Plaintiffs
Armadillo Distribution Enterprises, Inc. and Concordia Investment Partners,
LLC (collectively, the plaintiffs) do not oppose the defendants’ motion. (Id., p.
6).
The public has a common-law right of access to judicial proceedings,
which includes the right to inspect and copy public records and court
documents. See Chicago Trib. Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d
1

1304, 1311 (11th Cir. 2001). But the right to inspect is not absolute. In
balancing a party’s interest in keeping the information confidential against the
public interest in accessing court documents, the court considers these factors:
(1)

whether allowing access would impair court functions or
harm legitimate privacy interests;

(2)

the degree and likelihood of injury if made public;

(3)

the reliability of the information;

(4)

whether there will be an opportunity to respond to the
information;

(5)

whether the information concerns public officials or public
concerns; and

(6)

the availability of a less onerous alternative to sealing the
documents.

Romero v. Drummond Co., Inc., 480 F.3d 1234, 1246 (11th Cir. 2005).
First, allowing public access to the Agreement would harm legitimate
privacy interests. The parties have a legitimate interest in protecting
payments and other information contained in the Agreement. If the terms of
the Agreement were made public, the parties to the Agreement would be at a
competitive disadvantage. Second, the likelihood of injury if the Agreement is
made public is certain because third parties will be able to utilize this
information to the detriment of the plaintiffs and other parties.
The Agreement is also referenced by all parties throughout this
2

litigation, and a dispute likely will not arise about the reliability or
authenticity of the Agreement. The plaintiffs do not object to this motion to
seal. Finally, the information in the Agreement does not concern public officials
or public concerns.
Accordingly, the defendants’ motions for leave to file the agreement
under seal (Doc. 51) is GRANTED. This seal expires ninety days after the case
is closed and all appeals are exhausted.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on March 26, 2024.

3