The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
U.S. ALL STAR FEDERATION, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No: 6:21-cv-2135-WWB-DCI
OPEN CHEER & DANCE
CHAMPIONSHIP SERIES, LLC et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court for consideration without oral argument on the
following motions:
MOTION: Defendants’ Partially Unopposed Motion for Leave to File
Under Seal (Doc. 157)
FILED: January 16, 2024
MOTION: Plaintiff’s Unopposed Renewed Motion for Leave to File
Under Seal (Doc. 161)
FILED: January 23, 2024
MOTION: Defendants’ Renewed and Unopposed Motion for Leave to
File Under Seal (Doc. 167)
FILED January 26, 2024
THEREON it is ORDERED that the motions are DENIED.
Discovery has closed in this case and Defendants have filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment. Doc. 135. That motion remains pending along with motions that relate to experts.
Docs. 114, 132-134. Pending before the Court are Defendants’ Partially Unopposed Motion for
Leave to File Under Seal (Doc. 157, Defendants’ Motion) and the parties’ renewed requests for
leave to file certain documents under seal. Docs. 161, 167 (collectively the Renewed Motions).
The Court will first address the Renewed Motions.
I. Discussion
A. The Parties’ Renewed Motions (Docs. 161, 167)
Plaintiff previously moved to seal exhibits attached to its Response in Opposition to
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.1 Doc. 148. By Order dated January 16, 2024, the
Court denied Plaintiff’s request because, in general, Plaintiff’s conclusory statements that the
information was proprietary and subject to the parties’ confidentiality agreement were
meaningless. Doc. 156 at 10. With respect to two of the exhibits, the Court specifically found that
Plaintiff provided “no information on what data belongs to FloCheer other than to say it is
contained in a report.” Id. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Unopposed Renewed Motion to
seal those exhibits with “further detail on the data at issue as well as further explanation on the
competitively sensitive nature of this data to FlorCheer’s business.” Doc. 161.
In the same Order, the Court denied Defendants’ request to seal expert Danny Woods’
report (the Woods Report) because “the Court [was] not convinced without more that redaction or
partial sealing is unsatisfactory.” Doc. 156 at 5. Defendants now come back to the Court and
request that the Court seal only the unredacted version of the Woods Report to allow the redacted
version of the report to be filed publicly. Id. at 2.
Upon due consideration, the Renewed Motions are due to be denied. Even though the
parties contend that the Renewed Motions are filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
1 Plaintiff identifies these exhibits as (1) the page Bates labeled USASF_0000006 on Exhibit 34
and (2) the page Bates labeled USASF_0001899 on Exhibit 37. Doc. 161 at 1.
5.2 and Local Rule 1.11, the parties essentially seek reconsideration of the Court’s January 16,
2024 Order. Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy and is only granted upon a showing of:
(1) an intervening change in law; (2) the discovery of new evidence that was not available at the
time the Court rendered its decision; or (3) the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice.
Fla. Coll. Of Osteopathic Med., Inc. v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 12 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 1308
(M.D. Fla. 1998). “A motion for reconsideration cannot be used to relitigate old matters, raise
argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.”
Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949, 957 (11th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks
omitted). The Court will not reconsider a prior decision without a showing of “clear and obvious
error where the ‘interests of justice’ demand correction.” Bhogaita v. Altamonte Heights Condo.
Assn., Inc., No. 6:11-CV-1637-ORL-31, 2013 WL 425827, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 4, 2013) (quoting
American Home Assurance Co. v. Glenn Estess & Assoc., 763 F.2d 1237, 1239 (11th Cir. 1985)).
Motions for reconsideration may not be used “to raise arguments, which could and should have
been made earlier.” Id. (quoting Lussier v. Dugger, 904 F.2d 661, 667 (11th Cir. 1990)).
Here, the parties renew their requests but fail to cite, let alone meet, the legal standard for
reconsideration. The parties do not refer the Court to a change in the law, discovery of new
material, or convince the Court that there is a need to correct clear error or a manifest injustice.
See Docs. 157, 161. And even if the appropriate standard is applied, Plaintiff’s desire to provide
further detail on the data at issue does not satisfy its burden on reconsideration. Likewise, the
Court denied Defendants’ previous request to seal the Woods Report as it was insufficient under
Local Rule 1.11(c). Doc. 156 at 5. Defendants’ pivot to seal only the unredacted version seems
like an attempt to end-run the Court’s ruling that already addressed the report. In sum, the parties
seek to relitigate the deficiencies in their original requests which is not a basis for the extraordinary
relief.
Further, to the extent Defendants’ request is not “Renewed” as Defendants themselves
characterize it, the Court is still not inclined to grant relief. Defendants explain that the portions
of the Woods Report that it would redact and subject to proposed seal are as follows:
1. Charts listing the specific sales and administrative service revenues, cost of
goods sold, operating expenses, other expenses, and net income/loss for each
event produced by Open Cheer & Dance LLC and for Open Cheer and Dance
Championship Series for each year from 2021 to the present;
2. Specific monetary values referenced throughout the Report that reveal specific
financial line items from the Defendants’ financial statements and operations;
3. A chart comparing the Defendants’ revenues, as identified and calculated by
Plaintiff’s Expert, to the Defendants’ revenues that were identified and
calculated by Defendants’ bookkeeper, Ellen Graham; and
4. A chart reflecting the administrative payments made by Defendants in relation
to each event produced by Open Cheer and Dance LLC for each year from 2021
to the present.
Doc. 167 at 2-3.
Defendants argue that “[t]he Confidential Materials are highly sensitive documents that
contain detailed financial and proprietary information, the disclosure of which could cause
irreparable harm to the Defendants’ ability to compete in their relevant markets.” Id. at 5.
Defendants assert that “compelling reasons support the sealing of these materials because they
provide detailed financial and proprietary information about Defendants, including specific
financial information relating to the events and services provided by Defendants.” Id. at 3.
In the January 16, 2024 Order, the Court advised the parties that conclusory statements do
not assist the Court, and Defendants’ renewed argument is more of the same. Doc. 156 at 5-6.
Defendants have repeatedly represented to the Court that material is due to be sealed in this case
because it is “proprietary” and “confidential” and have included the same or similar “compelling
reasons” paragraph in their filings (See Doc. 116, 119, 138), but mere labels do not satisfy Local
Rule 1.11. See Aldora Aluminum & Glass Prods. v. Poma Glass & Specialty Windows, Inc., 2016
WL 7666128, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 13, 2016) (“Defendant’s blanket assertion that the filings
contain confidential business and/or financial information does not show good cause for sealing
the filing.”); see also Rodriguez v. Burgers, 2021 WL 3017528, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 24, 2021)
(“The Defendant’s conclusory statement that the documents at issue contain proprietary
information, trade secrets, and are subject to protection under the parties’ confidentiality
agreement falls short of rebutting the presumption in favor of openness.”); see also, Day v. Barnett
Outdoors, LLC, 2017 WL 10275971, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 23, 2017) (“Because the commercially
sensitive nature of the information is the only basis Barnett provides for nondisclosure, and its
conclusory statements fall short of establishing that the information qualifies as proprietary
information, it fails to establish good cause for sealing the Modification Timeline.”).
At first blush, Defendants’ description of the items at issue seems to provide more
substance than past filings, but phrases and words like “specific monetary values,” “administrative
payments,” revenues, and costs do not establish good cause. The Court acknowledges that the
items are “financial” in nature, but that characteristic alone does not overcome the presumption of
openness.2 See Ward v. Ezcorp, Inc., 2016 WL 7666133, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 29, 2016)
2 As explained in the January 16, 2024 Order, the Court must remain cognizant of the fact that the
Eleventh Circuit recognizes a “presumptive common law right to inspect and copy judicial
records.” Doc. 156 (citing U.S. v. Rosenthal, 763 F.2d 1291, 1292-93 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing
Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). This common law right “is
instrumental in securing the integrity of the [judicial] process.” See Chicago Tribune Co. v.
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1311 (11th Cir. 2001) (per curiam); Wilson v. Am.
Motors Corp., 759 F.2d 1568, 1571 (11th Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (“The district court must keep
in mind the rights of a third party—the public, ‘if the public is to appreciate fully the often
(“Claiming a document is ‘sensitive’ or proprietary is not enough to establish that this information
is a trade secret. If the only thing necessary to secure a seal were a mere declaration that a
document is confidential, no judicial review would be needed and the open docket would be bare,
indeed.”).
Based on the foregoing, the parties have not persuaded the Court that the renewed requested
relief is warranted.
B. Defendants’ Motion (Doc. 157)
Defendants also move to seal certain exhibits attached to Plaintiff’s Response in
Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Doc. 157. Specifically, Defendants
seek to seal the following:
1. Exhibits 113-116: These exhibits are the individual Defendants’ interrogatory
responses that disclose: (1) the amount of money each individual has made from
their involvement in the Open Cheer entities; (2) the amount of money each
business entity owned by the individual Defendants made as a result of their
involvement in Open Cheer; and (3) the revenue brought in by each of the
individual Defendants’ entities as a result of awarding bids to Open Cheer
events.
2. Exhibit 16: This exhibit is a substantial vendor royalty payment statement that
contains detailed confidential financial information regarding one of
Defendants’ business partnerships with a key vendor, including the number of
items ordered, cost per item, royalty percentage, total payment to the vendor,
and total royalties received by Defendants.
3. Exhibits 64, 87-88, 99, and 126: These exhibits are email communications
between and among Defendants’ owners regarding brainstorming sessions and
strategic visions about the future of cheerleading and visionary products and
services that could potentially be offered by Defendants in the future.
4. Exhibits 64, 87-88, and 99 are all emails from the summer of 2020 when the
individual Defendants were envisioning the creation of the Allstar World
Championship and brainstorming strategies, business plans, and creative
solutions for deficits they saw in the industry. Exhibit 126 is an email by
significant events at issue in public litigation and the workings of the legal system.’”) (citation
omitted).
individual Defendant David Hanbery to the rest of the individual Defendant
group in July 2021 that identifies “two major issues in the sport” of cheerleading
and then goes on to propose and discuss very specific solutions that the
Defendants could implement someday in the future to address those two main
issues. While some of the Defendants’ ideas and proposals discussed in these
emails have been implemented in the Allstar World Championships, many of
the other creative and unique ideas that are written in the emails have not yet
been executed and are still in the development and brainstorming stage, and
thus, these highly confidential and proprietary ideas continue to have very
substantial value to the Defendants specifically because of their secrecy.
Releasing these emails to the public would destroy any competitive advantage
the Defendants have because it would place all the Defendants’ creative and as-
yet-unimplemented concepts directly in the hands of the Defendants’ direct
competitors (including Plaintiff).
Doc. 157 at 1-3.
Defendants state that the Motion is partially unopposed as Plaintiff only objects to the
request to seal Exhibits 64 and 99. Doc. Id. at 4. Plaintiff has since filed a response and clarifies
that Defendants are mistaken because the opposition extends to Exhibits 64, 87, 88, and 99. Doc.
168 at 2. Even though Plaintiff’s opposition is only partial, Defendants’ Motion is due to be denied
in the entirety.
As an initial matter, Defendants’ Motion closely mirrors Defendants’ previous requests to
seal documents that the Court has rejected as inadequate. See 116, 119, 138. Again, reiterating to
the Court that “compelling reasons” exist and there is “no way” to redact documents without
disclosure of sensitive financial information is not enough. See Doc. 156.
Further, with respect to the items Plaintiff does not oppose—Exhibits 16, 113-116—there
is no indication from either Defendants or Plaintiff as to why the exhibits need to be filed. Local
Rule 1.11(c) requires a motion for leave to file under seal to include the reason filing the item is
necessary. Defendants do not adequately address this requirement and Plaintiff’s response stating
its lack of opposition adds nothing.
Also, Local Rule 1.11(c) states that the motion must include a legal memorandum
supporting the seal. While Defendants cite in general to law related to the sealing of information
regarding a party’s products, they refer the Court to no authority, nor do they include a helpful
analysis to support their proposition that an exhibit should be kept from public access because it
includes the amounts of money individuals have made or reflects royalty statements. As such,
Defendants’ Motion is inadequate.
Finally, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that Defendants should not prevail with respect to
the email communications found in Exhibits 64, 87-88, 99, and 126.3 Plaintiff argues that there is
nothing in the exhibits to be considered confidential three to four years after the establishment of
the event and “[e]ither Defendants adopted the proposed event structure, protocols, and rules
discussed in the emails, in which case the public is aware that the event is run in this manner and
subject to these rules, or Defendants did not adopt these proposals, in which case they are stale and
undeserving of sealing from the public record.” Doc. 168 at 2.
The Court agrees. The Eleventh Circuit’s good cause standard requires a balance of the
right to public access against the interest in keeping the information confidential. Romero v.
Drummond Co., Inc., 480 F.3d 1234, 1245-46 (11th Cir. 2007). The Eleventh Circuit explained
good cause as follows:
“[W]hether good cause exists . . . is . . . decided by the nature and character of the
information in question.” [Chicago Tribune Co., 263 F.3d] at 1315. In balancing
the public interest in accessing court documents against a party’s interest in keeping
the information confidential, 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,
3Plaintiff does not oppose the request to file Exhibit 126 under seal although it is an email like the
other exhibits. Doc. 168. Even so, the Court finds the request for relief is due to be denied for the
other reasons stated in this Order.
whether the information concerns public officials or public concerns, and the
availability of a less onerous alternative to sealing the documents.
Romero, 480 F.3d at 1246.
Here, Defendants’ communications from years ago regarding what “could potentially be
offered” and “could [be] implement[ed] someday in the future” does not demonstrate a likelihood
of injury if the emails are made public. See ECP East LLC v. Robert C. Nucci, MD, LLC, 116527
at *3 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 19, 2014) (finding that the parties’ “desire” to file under seal an agreement
is “at best, speculative.”) (citing Teledyne Instruments, Inc. v. Cairns, 2013 WL 5874584, at *2
(M.D. Fla. Oct. 31, 2013) (“Good cause is established by showing that disclosure will cause ‘a
clearly defined and serious injury.’”). And the Court reminds that parties that even if it did seal
the items requested, “No seal under this rule extends beyond ninety days after a case is closed and
all appeals exhausted.” Local Rule 1.11(f). As such, Defendants are not entitled to relief.
Il. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that:
1. Defendants’ Partially Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Under Seal (Doc.
No. 157) is DENIED;
2. Plaintiff’s Unopposed Renewed Motion for Leave to File Under Seal (Doc. No.
161) is DENIED; and
3. Defendants’ Renewed and Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Under Seal
(Doc. No. 167) is DENIED.
ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on February 5, 2024.
— =
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE