UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Boca View Condominium Association, Inc. et al
Filing
36
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 28 Motion for a Protective Order and adopting Plaintiff's proposed order at ECF No. 34-1 with revisions to Paragraph 14. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart on 5/19/2023. See attached document for full details. (hk02)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 22-MC-80139-AMC/BER
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
BOCA VIEW CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants.
________________________________________
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR
ENTRY OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER (ECF No. 28)
The parties in this matter agree that the entry a protective order is necessary
to govern the production of confidential information, however they do not agree on
the proposed terms. Pursuant to the Court’s order (ECF No. 33), the parties
submitted competing proposed orders. ECF Nos, 34, 35. The Court hereby finds good
cause to adopt the proposed order submitted by Plaintiff (ECF No. 34-1), but with
revisions to Paragraph 14.
The Parties are cautioned that the mere designation as “Confidential” by a
party will not influence the Court’s decision to seal a court filing on a subsequent
motion. If either party later seeks approval to submit a document under seal, such
party should support a motion to file under seal with the specific reasons that justify
such relief. Pursuant to the Local Rules of the Southern District of Florida, “[u]nless
otherwise provided by law, Court rule, or Court order, proceedings in the United
States District Court are public and Court filings are matters of public record.” S.D.
1
Fla. L. R. 5.4(a). The general public possesses a common-law right to access judicial
records, and judicial records are presumed to be public documents. See Nixon v.
Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978); see also Chicago Tribune Co. v.
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1311 (11th Cir. 2001).
“The common law right of access may be overcome by a showing of good cause,
which requires ‘balanc[ing] the asserted right of access against the other party’s
interest in keeping the information confidential.’” Romero v. Drummond Co., 480 F.3d
1234, 1246 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting Chicago Tribune, 263 F.3d at 1309). When
conducting this balancing test, “courts consider, among other factors, whether
allowing access would impair court functions or harm legitimate privacy interests,
the degree of and likelihood of injury if made public, the reliability of the information,
whether there will be an opportunity to respond to the information, whether the
information concerns public officials or public concerns, and the availability of a less
onerous alternative to sealing the documents.” Id. (citing In re Alexander Grant & Co.
Litig., 820 F.2d 352, 356 (11th Cir. 1987)).
In seeking to file something under seal with the Court, the Parties shall bear
in mind these standards and comply with Local Rule 5.4. Specifically, the Parties
must provide the Court with more than just the existence of an agreement between
them. The Stipulated Protective Order binds the Parties, not the Court, and good
cause must still be shown before a filing is sealed.
The Parties are reminded that the confidential designation should be applied
as narrowly as possible and used only where it is genuinely needed. The Parties shall
2
refrain from the excessive and overbroad use of the confidential designation. Rather
than designating an entire document confidential, the Parties are encouraged to use
alternative means, such as redaction, in handling sensitive information.
Finally, the Court declines to adopt Paragraph 14 of the Stipulated Protective
Order to the extent it which requires the Parties to file certain documents under seal.
To the extent the Parties seek to file any documents under seal, the Parties shall
comply with the requirements of Local Rule 5.4.
Consistent with the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion for a
Protective Order (ECF No. 28) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The
terms and provisions of Plaintiff’s proposed confidentiality agreement (ECF No. 341) are adopted and incorporated in their entirety subject to the additional provisos
set forth in this Order.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach in the Southern
District of Florida, this 19th day of May, 2023.
_______________________________
BRUCE E. REINHART
United States Magistrate Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?