FLEXSTEEL PIPELINE TECHNOLOGIES INC v. CHEN et al

Filing 131

ORDER granting 129 FlexSteel's Motion to Submit Confidential Documents. Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE GARY R JONES on 10/31/19. (grj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
FLEXSTEEL PIPELINE
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
v.

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 5:16-cv-239-TKW-GRJ

BIN CHEN and CHANGCHUN
GAOXIANG SPECIAL PIPE CO., LTD.
a/k/a GOLSUN PIPES,
Defendants.
____________________________/
ORDER
Pending before the Court is FlexSteel’s Motion to Submit Confidential
Documents. ECF No. 129. Defendant Changchun Gaoxiang Special Pipe
Co., Ltd. (“Golsun”) filed a response, ECF No. 130, representing that it did
not oppose FleSteel’s request to file its opposition under seal but opposes
FlexSteel’s request for an extension of time.
FlexSteel intends to file its opposition to Defendant Golsun’s Renewed
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdcition Or, in the Alternative,
Motion to Transfer Venue to the Eastern District of Virginia on October 31,
2019. ECF No. 126. Included within the material Golsun will file are

Page 2 of 6

documents comprising and reflecting Golsun’s and third parties’
confidential technical and design documentation, research and
development information, customer information and financial and pricing
data, some of which (or perhaps all of which) may be subject to an order
sealing the information. Rather than first filing a motion to seal and
advancing arguments supporting the sealing of the documents under
applicable Eleventh Circuit law for sealing documents, FlexSteel proposes
that it file its opposition on the docket with the confidential materials
redacted and then meet and confer with Golsun to discuss whether there is
good cause for sealing any of the designated material.
As to third party documents FlexSteel proposes that it also engage in
a meet-and-confer with the third parties. FlexSteel will serve Golsun with
an unredacted version of its opposition designated as confidential and
subject to protective order. FlexSteel will then file manually with the Court
on Monday November 4, 2019, unredacted versions of all motions and
exhibits. Thereafter FlexSteel promptly will engage in a meet-and-confer
with Golsun and the third parties and advise the Court if a producing party
requests that any submitted material be maintained under seal and, if so,
the bases for maintaining the documents under seal.

Page 3 of 6

Golsun does not object to FlexSteel filing its opposition under seal
but interprets FlexSteel’s motion as requesting an extension of time.
Golsun says this warrants the Court finding FlexSteel’s opposition as
untimely.
In support of its position Golsun points to the Court’s comment in the
September 26, 209 order, ECF No. 129, which stated the deadline for filing
the opposition as October 30, 2019 and not October 31, 2019, as FlexSteel
calculates the deadline. The correct deadline is October 31, 2019. In the
Court’s August 9, 2019 order the Court expressly recited that “Golsun must
file its renewed motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction by
October 14, 2019 and FlexSteel must file its response to the motion to
dismiss by October 31, 2019.” ECF No. 114, pp. 9-10. The Court set
October 31, 2019 as the deadline for filing the opposition because it was
the last day of the month. The Court incorrectly recited October 30, 2019
as the deadline in the Court’s September 26, 2019 order. ECF No. 124.
The October 30, 2019 date was included in the September 26, 2019 order
by error and not because the Court had shortened the response deadline
from October 31 to October 30. In any event because October 31, 2019 is
the correct deadline—and even if it was not, FlexSteel certainly could say it

Page 4 of 6

reasonably relied upon the Court’s previous order—FlexSteel’s motion
does not present a request for an extension of time. Thus, filing the
opposition on October 31, 2019 will not be untimely.
Turning now to the real point of FlexSteel’s motion the procedures
proposed by FlexSteel hopefully will minimize the volume of material
whose confidentiality will be submitted to the Court to evaluate. Rather,
than presenting the Court with a voluminous motion (or multiple motions) to
seal FlexSteel’s proposed protocol will reduce the number of documents
subject to sealing and thus relieve the Court from having to engage in the
time consuming process of determining whether documents should be
sealed based upon the Eleventh Circuit’s balancing test for documents that
neither Golsun nor any third parties care whether the documents are
sealed. The Court recently has utilized a similar protocol for submitting
sealed documents in a MDL proceeding pending before the Court. See, In
Re: 3M Combat Arms Earplug Products Liability Litigation, Case No.
3:19-md-2885-MCR-GRJ, ECF No. 788.
Therefore, because the protocol FlexSteel suggests in its motion
makes sense, facilitates the parties filing documents without having to wait
for the Court to enter an order sealing the documents and ultimately allows

Page 5 of 6

the Court to make a decision regarding sealing documents where there is a
real need to file the documents under seal, the Court concludes that
FlexSteel’s motion is due to be granted.
Upon due consideration, it is ORDERED:
1. FlexSteel’s Motion to Submit Confidential Documents, ECF No.
129, is GRANTED.
2. FlexSteel must file via ECF by October 31, 2019, its opposition
to Glosun’s motion to dismiss that is redacted to remove such
material designated as confidential under the Court’s Protective
Order by noting on the documents “REDACTED PURSUANT
TO PROTECTIVE ORDER.”
3. FlexSteel must electronically serve Golsun by October 31, 2019
unredacted versions of all motions and exhibits (including
designated materials), designated “CONFIDENTIAL SUBJECT
TO PROTECTIVE ORDER” or “ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY
SUJBECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER,” as applicable.
4. Flexsteel must file manually with the Court by Monday
November 4, 2019, unredacted versions of all motions and
exhibits (including designated materials), similarly designated.
5. FlexSteel must promptly meet-and-confer with Golsun, and with
third parties as needed, and inform the Court within twenty (20)
days if a producing party requests that any submitted material
should continue to be maintained under seal and the reasons
why the documents should continue to remain under seal. In
the absence of any such request all documents filed under seal
or filed with redactions will be lifted and refiled on the docket
without further notice. In the event FlexSteel files a request for
the Court to continue to maintain documents under seal the
Court will then address whether the documents should continue

Page 6 of 6

to be maintained under seal in accordance with applicable
Eleventh Circuit standards.
DONE AND ORDERED this 31st day of October 2019.

s/Gary R. Jones

GARY R. JONES
United States Magistrate Judge