TRUNNELL v. ADVANCE STORES COMPANY INCORPORATED

Filing 47

ORDER granting 42 Motion to Seal. Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE GARY R JONES on 10/31/11. (bkp)

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
DOREEN TRUNNELL,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-38-SPM-GRJ

ADVANCE STORES COMPANY, INC.
d/b/a ADVANCED AUTO PARTS,
Defendant.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion to Seal. (Doc. 42.)
Defendant requests the Court to enter an order sealing certain nonparty pay and
personnel records, as well as Defendant’s region-specific pay scales, to the extent such
records are filed by Plaintiff in her anticipated motion for summary judgment, or by the
parties in response or reply memoranda. Plaintiff has not filed a response and the time
for doing so has passed.1
On September 30, 2011 the Court entered a protective order (Doc. 41), which
endorsed Defendant’s proposed Consent Order Governing the Protection and
Exchange of Confidential Information and Documents. Defendant advises that it has
produced certain nonparty pay and personnel records, which it contends are
confidential and must be filed under seal to the extent these documents need to be
considered by the Court in resolving motions for summary judgment.

1

Defendant advises in its m otion that Defendant’s counsel conferred with counsel for Plaintiff and
that although Plaintiff’s counsel does not object to the filing of the m otion, Plaintiff does not agree that
there is sufficient cause to seal the requested docum ents.

Page 2 of 3

In determining whether materials filed in conjunction with a motion may be
sealed despite the presumptive common-law and/or First Amendment rights of access
to certain court records, the Court must assess whether there is good cause to seal the
records. See, e.g. Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304,
1310-15 (11th Cir. 2001). Legitimate privacy interests are implicated where, as here, the
records concern private individuals who are not parties to the lawsuit. Luzzi v. ATP
Tour, Inc., 2011 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 747796, *9 (M.D. Fla. 2011).
The records produced in this case include compensation information,
performance evaluations, disciplinary notices, and wage information. In addition, the
records produced pursuant to the Confidentiality Order include region specific wage
rate tables. The disclosure of wage information – and particularly region specific wage
information – to competitors could provide a competitor with an unfair competitive
advantage. On the other hand, there does not appear to be any compelling interest by
the public in such information. Therefore, the Court concludes that Defendant has
demonstrated sufficient good cause for sealing the requested documents.
Accordingly, upon due consideration, it is ORDERED that:
(1) Defendant’s Motion to Seal (Doc. 42) is GRANTED.
(2) To the extent Plaintiff files any nonparty employee wage and personnel
records produced by Defendant or Defendant’s proprietary region-specific wage scales,
in conjunction with a motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff shall files these records
under seal.
(3) When referencing the employee-specific sealed information in her motion for
summary judgment and/or memoranda, Plaintiff shall refer to the relevant nonparty
Case No: 1:11-cv-38-SPM -GRJ

Page 3 of 3

employees as “Employee A,” “Employee B,” “Employee C,” etc. The sealed record must
contain a “key,’ which matches each employee to his applicable letter designation.
(4) To the extent Plaintiff references information from the sealed documents in
her motion for summary judgment and/or related memoranda, Plaintiff must limit her
description of the records only to that which is relevant to prove her claim.
DONE AND ORDERED this 31st day of October, 2011.

s/ Gary R. Jones
GARY R. JONES
United States Magistrate Judge

Case No: 1:11-cv-38-SPM -GRJ