Echevarria et al v. TRIVAGO GMBH et al

Filing 269

ORDER GRANTING 235 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PUBLICLY FILE EXHIBITS and DENYING MOTION TO SEAL. Signed by Judge Federico A. Moreno on 8/28/2024. See attached document for full details. (mmd)

UN ITED STA TES D ISTRICT C OU RT FOR TH E
SOU TH EM D ISTRICT OF FLO RIDA
M iam iD ivision
C ase N um ber:19-22620-C 1V -M O REN O
M A RIO ECHEVA RRJA ,
Plaintiff,
V S.

EX PED IA GR OU P,lN C .,H O TELS.C OM
L.P.,H O TELS.COM GP,LLC,and ORBITZ,
LLC,
D efendants.
O R DER G M N TIN G M O TIO N FO R LEAV E T O PUB LICLY FILE EX H IBIT S A ND
DEN YIN G M O TIO N TO SEA L

THIS CAU SE cam ebefore the Courtupon PlaintiffsM otion forLeave to Publicly File
Exhibits and Unredacted Statem ent of Facts in suppol't of his Omnibus M otion for Partial

SummaryJudgmentorintheAlternative,toFileUnderSeal(D.E.235),filed onJulv 31.2024.
TH E CO URT has considered the m otion, the response, the pertinent portions of the
record,and being otherwise fully advised in the prem ises,itis
A DJUD G ED thatthe m otion is G RAN TED except as to custom er nam es and addresses,
where Plaintiff agreed to use only a lastnam e and firstinitialonly in the relevantexhibits.

Plaintiffseekstopublicly fileExhibits29-36,38-42,and 45,which werenam ed ashighly
confidentialby the D efendants pursuant to the Stipulated Confidentiality O rder entered in this
case on July 31,2020.W hen the paMies first agreed to the Stipulated Confidentiality Order in
this case,D efendants'com petitol's w ere also nam ed in this case and the inform ation contained in
the exhibits w as current.The D efendants'com petitol's have now been dism issed from this case
and in the four years since the Stipulated Order w as entered,the D efendants stopped selling the

subjecthotelson theil'websites.Plaintiffarguesthattheinformation contained in the exhibits
date from 2016 to 2020 and go to the heattof his trafficking case and the D efendants' law ful
traveldefense.The Coul'tretainsthe abili'
ty throughoutproceedingsto m odify the confidentiality
order,as appropriate,See Boca Raton Comm .H osp.Jnc.v.TenetH ealthcare Corp.,271 F.R .D .

530,537 (S.D.Fla.2010)(statingthata courtmay modify aprotectiveorderafterdetermining
whetheranyjustification existsforliftingormodifyingtheorder).
ftdonce a m atter is broughtbefore a courtforresolution,itis no longer solely the parties'

case,butalso the public'scase.''Brown v.AdvantageEngk.,Il1c.,960 F.2d 1013,1016 (11th
Cir.1992).ThereisaClgeneralpresumpticm thatcriminaland civilactionsshouldbeconducted

publicly.''FFC v.AbbvieProds.,LLC,713F3d 54,62 (11thCir.zol3ltquotingChi.TribtmeCo.
v.Bridgestone/Firestone,Inc.,263F.3d 1304,1311(11th Cir.2001)).M oreover,the olderthe
inform ation is, the less appropriate it is to seal it.In re Akl/rfg Green M ountain Single Serve

Co//p
':AntitrustLitig.,No.14-MD-2542 (VSB),2023 W L 196134,at*4 (S.D.
N .Y.Jan.17,
2023).
To overcom e the presum ption in favor of access, the Coul't m ust exam ine whether

Defendantjhaveshown goodcause.Romero v.Drummond Co.,Inc.,480F.3d 1234,1246 (11th
Cir.2007). Thisrequiresthe Courtto Itbalanceljthe asserted rightofaccessagainsttheother
party'sinterestin keepingtheinformation contidential.''Id (quotingChi.Fr/bz/ncCo.,263F.3d
at1309).(tW hethergoodcauseexistsisdecidedbythecharacterandnatureoftheinfonnationin
question.''1d.(quoting Chi.Frjbz/nc,263 F.3d at1315).Courtsconsider,among otherfactors,
w hether allow ing access w ould im pair courtfunctions or harm legitim ate privacy interests,the

degreeofandlikelihoodofinjuly ifmadepublic,thereliabilityoftheinformation,whetherthere
w illbe an opportunity to respond to the inform ation,w hether the inform ation concezms public

ofticialsorpublicissues,and theavailability oflessonerousalternativeto sealing.Id
The Coul't exam ines the exhibitsthem selves to determ ine w hether good cause is shown.

N otably,the documents date from 2016-2020.Thisisa chartshowing the exhibitsthatPlaintiff
seeksto file:

Exhibit

D escription

29

M arCaribe Contract

30

A ccorContract&A ddenduln

31

Cubanacan Contract

32

ReservationChal-tforlberostarM ojito

33

Reservation Chal'tforlberostarColonial

34

Reservation Chal-tforPullm an Cayo Coco

35

ReasonsforTravelforlberostarColonial

36

Reventle ChartofTrafficked Hotels

38

Pullm an Cayo Coco Reviews

39

M ojitoLandingPage

40

ReasonsforTravelMojito

41

ReasonsforTravelPullman Cayo Coco

42

M odule Em ail

45

A gentAssisted Presentation

For exhibits 29-36 and 40-41, the D efendants seek to redact price and revenue

inform ation.Theinform ation relatestotransactionsfrom 2017-2019.Atthetim e,theD efendanss
published pricing inform ation on their w ebsites.For exhibits 29-31, D efendants also seek to

DO

redact com pensation inform ation. Defendants also seek to redact custom ers' names and
addresses from exhibits 35,40,and 41.Exhibits 42 and 45 are internal em ails regarding the

.

certification m odule and an internal com m unication regarding agent-assisted bookings.Finally,

Defendantsagree exhibits 38,39,and %2,which are deposition excerpts,can be filed publicly.
Defendantsm akeno m ention ofexhibit45 in theirresponsem em orandum .
The Defendants' m ain argument for finding good cause is that the inform ation
D efendants seek to redact is com petitively sensitive and revealing that inform ation w ould put
D efendants at a disadvantage w ith com petitors. They m ake this argum ent w ith respect to the
exhibits 32,33,34,35,40,and 41.These docum ents,however,relate to transactions from 20172019. N ot only is this m aterial dated, but the pricing infolnnation w as available on the
D efendants' websites atthe tim e.So itis hard to say now over fouryears later thatD efendants

haveshown gbod causetoredactthesedocuments.Thepricing information isjusttoo old such
thatitw ould putD efendants ata com petitive disadvantage now .Likew ise,the D efendants assert
thatthe com pensation infonnation in exhibits29-31 iscom petitively sensitive and should be kept
confidential. A gain, the inform ation is dated and the D efendants have not m ade a sufficient
show ing of good cause astb why this com pensation inform ation should be keptconfidential.The
Courtalso agrees w ith Plaintiffthatthe inform ation isrelevantto show the trafficking elem entof
the H elm s-Burton cause of action.

D efendants rely on Synchrony Bank v.Cabinets to Go,LL C,N o.1:21-CV -21828-K M M ,

2022 W L 19300397,at*2 (S.D.Fla.Apr.13,2022)to arguethereisgood causeto keep the
exhibits confidentialas financialrecords.In Synchrony Bank,how ever,the courtrecognized that
the parties'aglyem ent centralto the breach of contract claim w as already partially disclosed on
.

'

the docket and given thatcontext,allow ed the Plaintiffto file a redacted version on the docket

4

and an unzedacted one tm der seal. H ere, how ever, the Plaintiff seeks to 5le the agreenAents
betw een D efendants and third-party hotels to show the trafficking elem entofthe cause of action.
The relevant provisions are not otherw ise disclosed so that the public retains access, and the
D efendants have notshow n the dated inform ation is so sensitive thatthe Courtshould oven'ide
the presum ption in favor of access. W ith re'spect to the only active contract, exhibit 30,
D efendants argue itshould be kept confidential because it covers hotels a11 over the w orld not

justhotelsinCuba.Therefore,revealing compensationtermswould allow competitorstousethe
inform ation to im prove their tenns with sim ilarhotels,which w ould hnrm Expedia's com petitive
position.A gain,the Coul-tis not convinced the nature of this inform ation rises to the level of
good cause to overcom e the public'srightofaccess and interestin transparentproceedings.
D efendants' reliance on CRubin, LLC v. Escoriaza, N o. 19-CV -22261, 2020 W L

2542629(S.D.Flé.M ay 19,2020)alsodoesnotperstladetheCourtthatgoodcauseisshown.In
that case,the courtsealed exhibits containing trade secrets,attorney correspondence,technical
infrastructure,business strategy,and other non-public proprietary inform ation.D èfendants have
not show lt how the exhibits here correlate with w hat w as sealed in CRubin,w here the parties

filedajointmotiontosealthedocuments.
Finally,D efendants seek to redact custom er inform ation from exhibits 35, 40, and 41.
The Federal Rules provide that publicly identifying inform ation needs to be redacted'
. Gsan
individual's social-security num ber,taxpayer-identification ntlm ber,or birth date,the nam e ofan

individualknowntobeaminor,orafinancial-accountnumber.''Fed.R.Civ.P.5.2(a).Atlpost,
the exhibitsEchevarria seeksto file contain som e nam es,which he claim s are necessary to prove
thatD efendants did not com ply w ith their Oftice of Foreign A sset Controllicense.H e contends

the inform ation show s thatD efendants failed to collecta reason for travelfrom evely traveler to

5

Cuba as required by the license. Echevania agreesthathe can redactthe exhibitto show only
.

thefirstinitialand lastname ofthe custom erand redactthefew addresseslisted.TheCourtfinds
that this level of redaction w ould suffice to appease the concerns of the D efendants while
allow ing the Plaintiffto challenge the law fultraveldefense.

A ccordingly,w ith the exceptions ofcustom er nam es and addresses as setforth above,the
Plaintiffm ay publicly tile exhibits29-36,38-42,and 45 and an unredacted Statem entofFacts.

DONEANDORDEREDinChambersatMiami,Florida,this

C ofAugust2024.

FE ER ICO .M O 'N O
U N ITED STA TES D ISTRICT JU D GE
Copies furnished to:

CounselofRecord

6