The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
JANET MORRIS,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No: 8:22-cv-2048-CEH-AAS
LINCARE, INC.,
Defendant.
___________________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Lincare, Inc.’s Unopposed
Motion to File Exhibit “A” to Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Class Action
Complaint Under Seal (Doc. 56). In the motion, Defendant requests it be permitted
to file under seal Exhibit “A” to its motion because the exhibit consists of patient
health records that constitute protected health information (PHI) subject to the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and because the document is
subject to the parties’ Confidentiality Agreement. The Court, having considered the
motion and being fully advised in the premises, will deny Defendant’s Unopposed
Motion to File Exhibit “A” to Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Class Action
Complaint Under Seal. To the extent that Defendant wants to file the Exhibit in
conjunction with the Court’s consideration of its motion to dismiss, Defendant may
file a redacted version of Exhibit “A” that redacts any PHI.
DISCUSSION
In relevant part, the Middle District of Florida’s Local Rules state, “[b]ecause
constitutional law and common law afford the public a qualified right of access to an
item filed in connection with the adjudication of a claim or defense, sealing is
unavailable absent a compelling justification.” M.D. Fla. Local Rule 1.11(a).
Defendant moves to file under seal Exhibit “A” to its Motion to Dismiss Second
Amended Complaint. Doc. 56. In support, Defendant submits that Exhibit “A” is a
patient disclosure form signed by the Plaintiff that contains personal health
information (PHI) that should not be disclosed to the public.
HIPAA prohibits covered entities from using or disclosing protected health
information. Opis Mgmt. Res., LLC v. Sec’y, Fla. Agency for Health Care Admin., 713 F.3d
1291, 1295 (11th Cir. 2013) (citing 45 C.F.R. § 164.502). Additionally, Rule 5.2(a)
recognizes that certain information, including social security numbers, birthdates,
names of minors, and financial account information, should be redacted. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 5.2(a). Notwithstanding those limited examples, “the courts of this country
recognize a general right to inspect and copy . . . judicial records and documents.”
Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978); see also Romero v.
Drummond Co., Inc., 480 F.3d 1234, 1245 (11th Cir. 2007). In some limited
circumstances, a court has the discretion to permit materials to be filed under seal.
Romero, 480 F.3d at 1246. However, such relief is to be granted only upon a showing
of “good cause,” which requires balancing the asserted right of access against the
party’s interest in keeping the information confidential. See id. (describing balancing
considerations). Among other factors, courts consider
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. at 1246.
Defendant submits that the document is necessary for the Court’s consideration
of the pending motion to dismiss because it evidences Plaintiff’s prior express consent
impacting Plaintiff’s claims under the TCPA. Defendant further contends that sealing
is necessary because of the PHI contained within the document as well as the
document being subject to the parties’ confidentiality agreement. Defendant requests
the document be sealed indefinitely.
“Material filed in connection with any substantive pretrial motion, unrelated to
discovery, is subject to the common law right of access” to judicial proceedings.
Romero, 480 F.3d at 1245 (citing Chicago Tribune v. Bridgestone/Firestone, 263 F.3d 1304,
1312 (11th Cir. 2001)). While Defendant’s argument regarding the need to maintain
the confidentiality of Plaintiff’s PHI is well-taken, Defendant fails to provide sufficient
reasons why the entire document needs to be sealed. In arguing that the Exhibit must
be sealed, Defendant repeatedly refers to the fact that it is subject to the parties’
confidentiality agreement. Doc. 56 ¶¶ 4–7, 11, 13. However, “[t]he parties’ mutual
agreement to keep documents confidential or to seal materials is ‘immaterial’ to a
court’s decision regarding the public’s right of access.” Reed v. CRST Van Expedited,
Inc., 8:17-cv-199-JDW-CPT, 2018 WL 5077179, *2 (M.D. Fla. April 17, 2018)
(Whittemore, J.) (citing Brown v. Advantage Eng’g, 960 F.2d 1013, 1016 (11th Cir.
1992)). Indeed, the Local Rules make clear that sealing “is not authorized by a
confidentiality agreement, . . . a designation of confidentiality, or a stipulation.” M.D
Fla. Local Rule 1.11(a). Moreover, the purported need for the Court to review the
Exhibit, notwithstanding the inclusion of any confidential information, does not
sufficiently explain the necessity of sealing. Thus, Defendant’s request to file Exhibit
“A” under seal lacks good cause and is due to be denied to the extent it seeks to seal
the entire document when less restrictive means are available. Other than stating the
document is subject to the parties’ confidentiality agreement, Defendant fails to
demonstrate why redaction of the PHI, rather than sealing the entire document, would
not suffice.
The Court is cognizant that the Motion is unopposed, but the Court, as the
“primary representative of the public interest in the judicial process, is bound by duty
to review any request to seal the record (or part of it) and may not rubber stamp”
requests to seal. Mobile Shelter Sys. USA, Inc. v. Grate Pallet Solutions, LLC, No. 3:10-cv-
978-RBD-JBT, 2011 WL 5357843, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 1, 2011) (internal quotation
marks and alterations omitted).
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED:
1. Defendant's Unopposed Motion to File Exhibit “A” to Motion to
Dismiss Second Amended Class Action Complaint Under Seal (Doc. 56) is DENIED.
2. To the extent Defendant wants to file Exhibit “A” in conjunction with
the Court’s consideration of its Motion to Dismiss,' Defendant may file, within
fourteen (14) days of this Order, a redacted version of Exhibit “A” that appropriately
redacts Plaintiff's PHI.
DONE AND ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on November 17, 2023.
Chakon 2 z Aiarda Hn TL gt yell 0.
Charlene Edwards Honeywell
United States District Judge
Copies to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties, if any
' By this ruling, the Court is not making a determination at this juncture as to whether the
document is appropriate for consideration on a motion to dismiss.