The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No.: 22-80373-CV-MIDDLEBROOKS/Matthewman
BELLE GLADE FISH MARKET, LLC
and SHERIF REFAAT SEDDDIK,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
MOTION ADOPTING STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Parties’ Stipulated Protective Order (DE
18), filed July 14, 2022, which I will construe as a motion (“Motion”). While I find good cause to
enter the Order, I caution that the mere designation as “Confidential Information” (or any other
similar designation, for that matter) by a party will not influence my decision to seal a court filing
on a subsequent motion. If either party later seeks approval to submit a document under seal, such
party should support a motion to file under seal with the specific reasons that justify it.
Pursuant to the Local Rules of the Southern District of Florida, “[u]nless otherwise
provided by law, Court rule or Court order, proceedings in the United States District Court are
public and Court filings are matters of public record.” S.D. Fla. L. R. 5.4(a). It is clearly established
that the general public possesses a common-law right to access judicial records and that judicial
records are presumed to be public documents. See Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589,
597 (1978); see also Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1311
(11th Cir. 2001).
Judicial records are presumed to be public documents because “[o]nce a matter is brought
before a court for resolution, it is no longer solely the parties’ case, but also the public’s case.”
See Brown v. Advantage Eng’g, Inc., 960 F.2d 1013, 1016 (11th Cir. 1992). With respect to
discovery material, “material filed with discovery motions is not subject to the common-law right
of access, whereas discovery material filed in connection with pretrial motions that require judicial
resolution of the merits is subject to the common-law right.” Chicago Tribune, 263 F.3d at 1312.
“The common law right of access may be overcome by a showing of good cause, which
requires ‘balanc[ing] the asserted right of access against the other party’s interest in keeping the
information confidential.’” Romero v. Drummond Co., Inc., 480 F.3d 1234, 1246 (11th Cir. 2007)
(quoting Chicago Tribune, 263 F.3d at 1309). When determining whether good cause to seal exists,
a district court must first look to “the nature and the character of the information in question.” Id.
(quoting Chicago Tribune, 263 F.3d at 1315). When balancing the public’s common-law right to
access judicial records “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.” Id. (citing In re Alexander Grant & Co. Litig., 820 F.2d 352,
356 (11th Cir. 1987)). The Eleventh Circuit ruled that a “party’s privacy or proprietary interest in
information sometimes overcomes the interest of the public in accessing the information.” Id.
(citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598).
In attempting to file something under seal with the Court, the parties shall bear in mind
these standards and comply with Local Rule 5.4. Specifically, the Parties must provide the Court
2
with more than just the existence of an agreement between them. The Protective Order binds the
parties, not the Court, and good cause must still be shown before a filing is sealed.
Further, the Court advises the parties that it will consider sanctioning a party if the
Protective Order is abused or a designation is found to be frivolous.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Parties’ request that the Court adopt the Stipulated
Protective Order (DE 18) is GRANTED. The Parties’ Protective Order (DE 18) is adopted and
incorporated in its entirety.
SIGNED in Chambers in West Palm Beach, Florida, this 17th day of July, 2022.
# / i 4 FZ, ie a 7
Co
Donald M. Middlebrooks
United States District Judge
Copies to: Counsel of Record