# Hansen v. Payspan, Inc.

> District Court, M.D. Florida · February 4, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10104451

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Florida
- **Decided:** February 4, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10104451

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining type of document entitled to presumption
- explaining that because matter brought to court for resolution is no longer just parties’ case, fact that parties entered into confidentiality agreement is immaterial

## Opinion text

United States District Court
Middle District of Florida
Jacksonville Division

CATHY HANSEN,

Plaintiff,

V. NO. 3:19-CV-1416-J-20PDB

PAYSPAN, INC.,

Defendant.

Order
The parties move for entry of a stipulated confidentiality agreement. Doc. 15.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), the Court grants the motion in part,
Doc. 15, and adopts the language of the confidentiality agreement and its exhibit 1
with the following addition to paragraph 10 and the understanding that paragraph
11 does not apply to documents filed with the Court.
In seeking to file a document under seal, the parties will comply with Local
Rules 1.09 and 3.01(g). The parties understand that designating a document as
confidential does not govern whether the Court will file it under seal. See Brown v.
Advantage Eng’g, Inc., 960 F.2d 1013, 1016 (11th Cir. 1992) (explaining that because
matter brought to court for resolution is no longer just parties’ case, fact that parties
entered into confidentiality agreement is immaterial). If the presumption of public
access applies, the Court will balance factors to determine if the presumption should
be overcome; if the presumption of public access does not apply, the Court will apply
the good cause standard in Rule 26(c). See F.T.C. v. AbbVie Prods. LLC, 713 F.3d 54,
63-64 (11th Cir. 2013) (explaining type of document entitled to presumption); Romero
v. Drummond Co., 480 F.3d 1234, 1246 (11th Cir. 2007) (describing pertinent factors).

Ordered in Jacksonville, Florida, on February 4, 2020.

PATRICIA D. BARKSDALE
United States Magistrate Judge
Cc: Counsel of record

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10104451. Public record. Not legal advice.