The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 18-cv-80176-BLOOM/Reinhart
IRA KLEIMAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CRAIG WRIGHT,
Defendant.
______________________/
OMNIBUS ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Opposed Motions to Seal, ECF Nos.
[524];1 [527];2 [530];3 and [532]4 (“Motions”). The Motions represent that the underlying
responses that should be sealed, ECF Nos. [525]; [528]; [533]; and [534] (“Sealed Responses”),
“cite[] information Defendant has designated confidential under this Court’s Stipulated
Confidentiality Order.” Id. Plaintiffs state that although they do not believe the information should
remain confidential, they are “filing this motion to seal to comply with the Stipulated
Confidentiality Order and the Local Rules of this Court.” Id. The Court has reviewed the Motions,
the record in this case, the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons set forth
below, the Motions are denied.
1 Requesting the Court to Seal Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Omnibus Motion
in Limine.
2 Requesting the Court to Seal Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Exclude the
Opinion Testimony of Plaintiffs’ Expert Witnesses.
3 Requesting the Court to Seal Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment.
4 Requesting the Court to Seal Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Statement of
Material Facts.
“[T]he common-law right of access to judicial proceedings, an essential component of our
system of justice, is instrumental in securing the integrity of the process.” Chi. Tribune Co. v.
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1311 (11th Cir. 2001) (citing Richmond Newspapers,
Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 564–74 (1980)). “Once a matter is brought before a court for
resolution, it is no longer solely the parties’ case, but also the public’s case.” Brown v. Advantage
Eng’g., Inc., 960 F.2d 1013, 1016 (11th Cir. 1992). See also S.D. Fla. Local Rule 5.4(a) (“Unless
otherwise prohibited by law, Court rule, or Court order, proceedings in the United States District
Court are public and Court filings are matters of public record.”). Where a court “attempts to deny
access in order to inhibit the disclosure of sensitive information, it must be shown that the denial
is necessitated by a compelling governmental interest, and is narrowly tailored to that interest.”
Newman v. Graddick, 696 F.2d 796, 802–03 (11th Cir.1983); see also Brown, 960 F.2d at 1015–
16 (11th Cir.1992); Wilson v. American Motors Corp., 759 F.2d 1568, 1571 (11th Cir.1992).
Courts “have discretion to determine which portions of the record should be placed under
seal, but [such] discretion is guided by the presumption of public access to judicial documents.”
Perez-Guerrero v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 717 F.3d 1224, 1235 (11th Cir. 2013). “‘What transpires
in the court room is public property,’ and both judicial proceedings and judicial records are
presumptively available to the public[.]” id. (internal citation omitted). “Courts have discretion to
determine which portions of the record, if any, should remain under seal, and this discretion is ‘to
be exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.’” Id. (citation
omitted). When a party seeks to seal only particular documents within the record, a court’s task is
only “to balance the competing interests of the parties,” which includes “whether the records are
sought for such illegitimate purposes as to promote public scandal or gain unfair commercial
advantage, [and] whether access is likely to promote public understanding of historically
significant events.” Id. at 1235-36 (citations omitted).
“Material filed in connection with any substantive pretrial motion, unrelated to discovery,
is subject to the common law right of access.” Romero v. Drummond Co., Inc., 480 F.3d 1234,
1245 (11th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). Indeed, a motion that is “‘presented to the court to invoke
its powers or affect its decisions,’ whether or not characterized as dispositive, is subject to the
public right of access.” Id. at 1246. “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, whether the information concerns public
officials or public concerns, and the availability of a less onerous alternative to sealing the
documents.”
Further, Local Rule 5.4 sets forth procedures for filing under seal. That rule provides that,
“[i]f, prior to the issuance of a ruling on the motion to file under seal, the moving party elects or
is required to publicly file a pleading, motion, memorandum, or other document that attaches or
reveals the content of the proposed sealed material, then the moving party must redact from the
public filing all content that is the subject of the motion to file under seal.” Id. at Rule 5.4(b)(1).
Here, the Motions simply state that they “cite[] information Defendant has designated
confidential[.]” In assessing the factors, the Court does not believe that sealing the responses, ECF
Nos. [525], [528], [533], and [534], in their entirety is warranted. However, redactions to the
Sealed Responses may be appropriate upon a proper showing of good cause.
Case No. 18-cv-80176-BLOOM/Reinhart
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motions, ECF Nos. [524];
[527]; [530]; and [532] are DENIED. However, the Sealed Responses, ECF Nos. [525], [528],
[533], and [534] shall REMAIN UNDER SEAL until further Court order. Defendant shall reply
to the sealed responses by June 2, 2020. To the extent Defendant believes that certain portions of
the sealed responses are exempt from the public’s right of access, the parties shall confer in good
faith and by no later than June 1, 2020, Plaintiffs shall re-file the Sealed Responses with redacted
portions following the procedures of Local Rule 5.4.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on May 25, 2020.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Counsel of Record