Echevarria et al v. TRIVAGO GMBH et al

Filing 275

ORDER GRANTING 241 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)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUXT FOR THE
SOU TH ERN D ISTRICT OF FLOR ID A
M iam iD ivision
Case N um ber:19-22621-C1V -M O R EN O
M A RIO ECHEV ARRIA ,

Plaintiff,

EX PED IA G ROU P,lN C.,H OTELS.COM
L.P.,H OTELS.COM GP,and O RBITZ,LLC,
D efendant.

O R D ER GR AN TIN G M O TIO N FO R LEA VE T O PU BLICLY FILE EX H IBITS A N D
D EN Y IN G M O TIO N TO SEA L
THIS CAU SE cam e before the Court upon Plaintiffs M otion for Leave to Publicly File
Exhibits ahd Unredacted Statem ent of Facts in support of his Om nibus M otion for Partial

SummaryJudgmentorintheAltelmative,toFileUnderSeal(D.E.241),filedonJuiv 31.2024.
THE COURT has considered the m otion, the response,the pertinent pol-tion: of the
record,and being otherw ise fully advised in the prem ises,itis
A DJUD G ED thatthe m otion is GRAN TED exceptas to custom er nam es ahd addresses,

where Plaintiffagreed to uke only alastnnme and firstinitialonly in therelevantexhibits.
Plaintiffseeksto publicly file Exhibits 29-36,38-42,and 45,w hich w ere nam ed ashighly
confidentialby the D efendants pursuantto the Stipulated Confidentiality O rder entered in this'
case on Jtlly 31,2020.W hen the padies first agreed to the Stipulated Confidentiality O rder ill

this case,D efendants'com petitors w ere also nam ed in this case and the inform ation contained in
the exhibits w as current.The Defendants'com petitors have now been dism issed from this case
and in the four years since the Stipulated O rder was entered, the D efendants stopped selling the
.

sttbjecthotelson theirwebsites.Plaintiffarguesthattheinformation contained in the exhibits
date from 2016 to 2020.and go to the heartofhistrafficking case and the Defendants'lawful
travelde
fense.The Coul'
tretains the ability throughoutproceedingsto m odify the confidentiality
7
u

order,as appropriate.See Boca Raton Comm .H osp.Inc.v.TenetH ealthcare Corp.,271 F.R .D .

530,537 (S.D.Fla.2010)(statingthata courtmqy modify aprotectiveorderaflerdetelnnining
whetheranyjustification existsfor.liftingormodifyingtheorder).
isdonce a m atter is broughtbefore a courtfor resolution,itis no longer solely the parties'

case,butalso thepublic'scase.''Brown v.AdvantageEngk.,Inc.,960 F.2d 1013,1016 (11th
Cir.1992).Thereisa(igeneralpresumption thatcriminaland civilactionsshouldbeconductdd

publicly.''FFC v.AbbvieProds.,LLC,713F3d 54,62 (1lth Cir.zol3ltquoting Chi.Frjl//fneCo.
v.Bridgestone/Firestone,Inc.,263 F.3d 1304,1311 (11th Cir.2001)).M oreover,theolderthe
inform ation is,the less appropriate it is to seal it.In re K eurig Green M ountain Single Serve
Ct/#'
C:AntitrttstLitig.,No.14-M D-2542 (VSB),2023 W L 196134,at*4 (S.D.N.Y.Jan.17,
.

2023).
To overcome the jresumption in favor of access,the Courtmust exnmine whether

Defendantshaveshown goodcause.Romerov.DrummondCo.,Inc.,480F.3d 1234,1246(11th
Cir.2007). ThisrequirestheCouttto 'tbalancel)theassm-ted rightofaccessagainstthe other
pàrty'sinterestin keepingtheinformationconfidential.''fJ.(quoting Chi.TribuneCo.,263F.3d
at1309).('W hethergood causeexistsisdecidedbythecharacterandnatureoftheinformationin

question.''1d (quoting Chi.Tribune,263 F.3d at1315).Courtsconsider,among otherfactors,
whether allow ing access would im pair colzrtfunctions or harm legitim atè privacy interests,the

degreeofandlikelihoodofinjuryifmadepublic,thereliability oftheinformation,whetherthere
w illbe an opportunity to respond to the inform ation,whether the inform ation concerns public

2

offcials orpublic issues,and the availability oflessonerousalternative to sealing.Id

The Coul'texaminesthe exhibitsthem selvesto determ ine whether good cause is shown.
N otably,the docum ents date from 2016-2020.This is a chal'tshow ing the exhibits thatPlaintiff
seeksto tile:

Exhibit

Descrijtion

29

M arCaribe Contract

30

A ccorContracttkA ddenduln

31

Cubanacan Contract

32

ReservationChartforIberostarM ojito

33

Reservation Cha14forlberostarColonial

34

Reservation Char'tforPullm an Cayo Coco

35

ReasonsforTravelforlberostarColonial

36

Revenue Chal-tofTrafficked Hotels

38

Pullm an Cayo Coco Reviews

39

MojitoLandingPage

40

ReasonsforTravelM oji
to

41

ReasonsforTravelPullm an Cayo Coco

42

M odule Email

45

AgentA ssistedPresentation

'

.

For exkaibits 29-36 and

40-41, the D efendants .seek to redact price and revenue

inform ation.The inform ation relatesto transactionsfrom 2017-2019.Atthe tim e,the D efendants
published pricing inform ation on their w ebsites.For exhibits 29-31, D efendants also seek to

3

redact compensation inform atipn. Defendants also seek to redact custom ers' nam es and

addresses from exhibits 35,à0,and 41.Exhibits 42 and.45 are intelmalemailsregarding the
.

'

certification m odule and an intelmal com m unication regarding agent-assisted bookings.Finally,
D efendants agree exhibits 38,39,and 42,w hich are deposition excerpts,can be filed publicly.
D efendantsm ake no m ention ofexhibit45 in theirresponse m em orandum .
The D efendants' m ain arp lm ent for tinding 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

exhibits32,33,34,35,40,and 41.Thesedocum ents,however,relatetotransactionsfrom 20172019. N ot only is this m aterial dated, but the pricing inform ation w as available on the
D efendants'w ebsites at the tim e.So it is hard to say now over four years later that D efendants

have shown good catlsetoredactthesedocuments.Thepricing information isjusttooold such
thatitw ould putD efendants ata com petitive disadvantage now .Likew ise,the D efendants assert
thatthe com pensation inform ation in exhibits29-31is com petitively sensitive and should be kept
confidential.A gain, the inform ation is dated and the D efendants have not m ade a sufscient

showing ofgood cause asto whythiscompensation inform ation should bekeptconfidential.The
Courtalso agreesw ith Plaintiffthatthe inform ation is relevantto show the trafticking elem entof
the H elm s-Bul-ton cause ofaction.

Defendantsrely on Synchrohy Bank v.Cabinets to Go,LLC,N o.1:21-CV -21828-KM M ,

2022 W L 19300397,at*2 (S.D.Fla.Apr.13,2022)to argttethereisgood causeto keep the
exhibits'
confidentialas financialrecords.In Synchrony Bank,hôw ever,the courtrecognized that
the parties'agreem ent centralto the breach of contract claim w as already pal4ially disclosed on
the doclw tand given thatcontext,allow ed the Plaintiffto file a redacted version on the docket

and an unredacted one under seal. H ere, how ever, the Plaintiff seeks to file the agreem ents

between Defendantsand third-party hotelsto show thetrafficking elem entofthe cause ofaction.
The relevantprovisions are nototherwise dis
'closed so that the public retains access,and the
Defendantshave notshown the dated inform ation is so sensitive thatthe Courtshould ovenide
the presum ption in favor of access. W ith respect to the only active contract, exhibit 30,
D efendants azgue it should be kept confidentialbecause it covers hotels a11 over the w orld not

justhotelsinCuba.Therefore,revealingcompensationtermswould allow competitorstousethe
inform ation to im prove theirterm sw ith sim ilar hotels,w hich w ould harm Expedia's com petitive

position.A gain,the Coul't is not convinced the nature of this inform ation rises to the levelof
good cause to overcom e the public's rightofaccess and interestin transparentproceedings.

Defendants' reliance on CRubin, LLC v. Escoriaza, No. 19-CV-22261, 2020 W L

2542629(S.D.Fla.M ay 19,2020)alsodoesnotpersuadetheCourtthatgoodcauseisshown.ln
that case,the court sealed exhibits containing trade secrets,attorney correspondence,technical

infrastructure,businessstrategy,and othernon-public propzietary inform ation.Defendantshave
notshown how the exhibits here correlate with whatwas sealed in CRubin,where the parties

filedajointmotiontosealthedocuments.
Finally,D efendants seek to redact custom er inform ation f'
rom exhibits 35,40,and 41.
The Federal Rules provide that publicly identifying inform ation needs to be redacted: Gtan
individual's social-security num ber,taxpayer-identification num ber,orbirth date,the nam e of an

individuall
tnown tobeaminor,orafinancial-accountnumber.''Fed.R.Civ.P.5.2(a).Atmust,
the exhibiisEchevm ia seekstofile contain some names,which he claim sarenecessary topl'ove
thatD efendants did not çom ply w ith their Office of Foreign A ssetControllicense.H e contends
the inform ation show s thatD efendants failed to collebta reason fortravelfrom evel'y travelerto

5

Cuba asrequired by the license. Echevania agrees thathe can redactthe exhibitto show only
the firstinitialand lastnam e ofthe custom erand redactthe few addresseslisted.The Cou14 finds
that this level of redaction would suftice to appease the concerns of the D efendants w hile
allow ing the Plaintiffto challenge the law fultraveldefense.

Accordingly,with the exceptionsofcustom ernamesand addressesassetforth above,the
Plaintiffm ay publicly tèle exhibits 29-36,38-42,and 45 and an unredacted Statem entofFacts.

DONEANDORDEREDinChambersatMiami,Florida,this2 f orAugust2024
'

.

FED ERI O .M OREN O
UN ITED TA TES D ISTRICT JUD GE

Copiesfurnished to:
Counsel.
ofRecord

6