Etkin & Company, Incorporated v. SBD, LLC

Filing 243

ORDER on 242 Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff's Motion to Seal Unredacted Deposition Transcripts and Unredacted Documents in Support of its Response to Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant's Motion for Sanctions is DENIED without prejudice to renew within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge John J. O'Sullivan on 5/24/2012. (gm1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 11-21321-CIV-LENARD/O’SULLIVAN
ETKIN & COMPANY, INCORPORATED,
a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SBD LLC, a Florida limited liability company,
Defendant.
/

ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff’s Motion to
Seal Unredacted Deposition Transcripts and Unredacted Documents in Support of Its
Response to Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Sealed DE# 242,
5/22/12). Having reviewed the motion and applicable law, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff’s Motion to
Seal Unredacted Deposition Transcripts and Unredacted Documents in Support of Its
Response to Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Sealed DE# 242,
5/22/12) is DENIED without prejudice to renew within fourteen (14) days of the date of
this order. Any renewed motion shall be supported by a memorandum of law explaining
the justification for the sealing of each document or portion thereof. “[A] common law
right of access exists as to civil proceedings.” Wilson v. American Motors Corp., 759 F.
2d 1568, 1571 (11th Cir. 1985); see Romero v. Drummond Co., 480 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir.

2007); Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1311-12
(11th Cir. 2001) (“Beyond establishing a general presumption that criminal and civil
actions should be conducted publicly, the common-law right of access includes the right
to inspect and copy public records and documents.”)(citing Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns,
Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)); see also, United States v. Bradley, No. 405cr059, 2007
WL 1703232, at *2 (S.D. Ga. Jun. 11, 2007) (noting that “documents that directly affect
an adjudication and play a significant role in determining a litigants’ substantive rights
are entitled to the strongest presumption [of public access]”).
DONE AND ORDERED, in Chambers, at Miami, Florida, this 24th day of
May, 2012.

JOHN J. O’SULLIVAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
United States District Judge Lenard
All Counsel of Record

2