International Markets Live, Inc. v. Huss

Filing 85

ORDER denying 83 Defendant's Amended Motion for Leave to File under Seal. Signed by Ch. Magistrate Judge John J. O'Sullivan on 11/18/2020. See attached document for full details. (mms)

Case 1:20-cv-23080-UU Document 85 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/18/2020 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 20-CV-23080-UNGARO/O’SULLIVAN
INTERNATIONAL MARKETS LIVE, INC.,
d/b/a iMARKETSLIVE,
Plaintiff,
v.
SCOTT HUSS,
Defendant.
/
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant’s Amended Motion for
Leave to File under Seal (DE# 83, 11/13/20). Having reviewed the amended motion,
which is unopposed, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendant’s Amended Motion for Leave to
File under Seal (DE# 83, 11/13/20) is DENIED. “A common law right of access exists as
to civil proceedings.” Wilson v. American Motors Corp., 759 F.2d 1568, 1571 (11th Cir.
1985). “Once a matter is brought before a court for resolution, it is no longer the parties’
case, but also the public’s case. Absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances set
forth by the district court in the record consistent with Wilson, the court file must remain
accessible to the public.” Brown v. Advantage Engineering, Inc. 960 F.2d 1013, 1016
(11th Cir. 1992). Courts have recognized a common law right to access even where the
parties have privately agreed to keep certain matters confidential. See Pessoa v.
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., No. 6:06-cv-1419-Orl-JGG, 2007 WL 1017577, at *1
(M.D. Fla. April 2, 2007). “Material filed in connection with any substantive pretrial
motion, unrelated to discovery, is subject to the common law right of access.” Romero

Case 1:20-cv-23080-UU Document 85 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/18/2020 Page 2 of 2

v. Drummond Co., 480 F.3d 1234, 1245 (11th Cir. 2007) (citing Chicago Tribune Co. v.
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1312 (11th Cir. 2001)). “The right of access
does not apply to discovery and, where it does apply, may be overcome by a showing of
good cause.” Romero, 480 F.3d at 1244. The good cause requirement “balances the
asserted right of access against the other party’s interest in keeping the information
confidential.” Chicago Tribune, 263 F.3d at 1309.
In the present case, the defendant has failed to show good cause to seal the
deposition transcript of Scott Brown, which was filed as an exhibit for the evidentiary
hearing on the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction. The undersigned has
reviewed the deposition transcript of Jason Brown and has not found anything that
warrants sealing.
DONE AND ORDERED, in Chambers, at Miami, Florida, this 18th day of
November, 2020.

JOHN J. O’SULLIVAN
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2