Packard v. Temenos Advisory, Inc. et al

Filing 57

ORDER granting Defendant's 42 Motion file under seal. The documents which already have been filed under seal shall REMAIN under seal. In addition, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to place the filing at Docket Number 38 under seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Stan Baker on 3/29/2016. (csr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
BRUNSWICK DIVISION

CHARLES PACKARD,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:15-cv-87

v.
TEMENOS ADVISORY, INC.; and GEORGE
L. TAYLOR,
Defendants.

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to File Under Seal.
(Doc. 42.) For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED.
The right of access to judicial records pursuant to common law is well-established. See
Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978); see also Brown v. Advantage
Eng’g, Inc., 960 F.2d 1013, 1016 (11th Cir. 1992). This right extends to the inspection and the
copying of court records and documents. See Nixon, 435 U.S. at 597. The right to access,
however, is not absolute. See Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court for Norfolk Cty., 457
U.S. 596, 598 (1982). When deciding whether to grant a party’s motion to seal, the court is
required to balance the historical presumption of access against any significant interests raised by
the party seeking to file under seal. See Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263
F.3d 1304, 1311 (11th Cir. 2001); Newman v. Graddick, 696 F.2d 796, 803 (11th Cir. 1983). In
balancing the interests, courts consider, among other things:

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.
Romero v. Drummond Co., Inc., 480 F.3d 1234, 1246 (11th Cir. 2005). Additionally, “[a]
party’s privacy or proprietary interest in information sometimes overcomes the interest of the
public in accessing the information.” Id. (citing Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S.
at 598.)
This Court’s Local Rule 79.7 sets forth procedures for a party to request that documents
be filed under seal. This Court does not allow the automatic filing of documents under seal.
Rather, a “person desiring to have any matter placed under seal shall present a motion setting
forth the grounds why the matter presented should not be available for public inspection.”
Local R. 79.7. If the Court denies the Motion to Seal, the Clerk of the Court shall return the
materials which the person sought to file under seal, and the person then has the option of filing
the materials on the Court’s open docket. Id.
Defendants have shown good cause for filing their Motion for Summary Judgment and
supporting documents under seal. Specifically, Defendants cite this Court’s Protective Order
entered after the parties filed a Joint Motion for Protective Order and note their documents
contain sensitive information, as set forth by this Court’s Order. (Doc. 42, p. 1.) Further,
Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to Defendants’ Motion. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS
Defendants’ Motion to File Under Seal. The documents which already have been filed under

2

seal shall REMAIN under seal. 1 In addition, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to place the
filing at Docket Number 38 under seal.
SO ORDERED, this 29th day of March, 2016.

R. STAN BAKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

1

The parties are encouraged to review this Court’s Local Rules. In particular, Local Rule 79.7(b) does
not permit the filing of documents under seal, unless the Court has permitted such filing. Rather, this
Rule specifically provides that the party seeking to have a matter placed under seal shall file a motion for
such a request and provide the matter sought to be filed under seal to the Clerk of Court for safekeeping
until this Court’s disposition of a party’s motion to seal.

3