The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
EDST, LLC and QUEXT IOT, LLC,
Plaintiffs,
v. Case No: 8:22-cv-272-CEH-JSS
IAPARTMENTS, INC.,
Defendant.
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on Defendant iApartments, Inc.’s
Unopposed Motion for Leave for Plaintiffs to File Under Seal (Doc. 98). In the
Motion, Defendant seeks to seal several portions and exhibits of Plaintiffs EDST, LLC
and Quext IOT, LLC’s Response in Opposition (Doc. 91) to Defendants’ Renewed
Motion (Doc. 83). Plaintiffs, who do not oppose the Motion to Seal, have redacted
their response in accordance with Local Rule 1.11(d), Middle District of Florida.
Defendant seeks to seal Exhibits 3 to 6 of Plaintiffs’ response in their entirety,
and to redact a portion of the response motion in which they describe the contents of
those exhibits. Doc. 98 at 5-7. Defendant alleges that the exhibits are “highly
confidential” internal presentations that contain “sensitive business, commercial,
financial, and competitive information related to iApartments’ products and business”
or that of a third-party vendor. Id. They further contend that they have kept this
information confidential and have only produced it pursuant to a protective order,
with the information disclosed for “attorneys’ eyes only.” Id. Redaction of the exhibits
would be insufficient because confidential information pervades them. Id.
Upon review and consideration, the Court will deny the motion without
prejudice because Defendant has not established good cause for sealing the material.
DISCUSSION
A motion to seal pursuant to Local Rule 1.11(c):
(1) must include in the title “Motion for Leave to File Under
Seal”;
(2) must describe the item proposed for sealing;
(3) must state the reason:
(A) filing the item is necessary,
(B) sealing the item is necessary, and
(C) partial sealing, redaction, or means other than
sealing are unavailable or unsatisfactory;
(4) must propose a duration of the seal;
(5) must state the name, mailing address, email address, and
telephone number of the person authorized to retrieve a
sealed, tangible item;
(6) must include a legal memorandum supporting the seal;
but
(7) must not include the item proposed for sealing.
Local Rule 1.11(c), Middle District of Florida. The party seeking the seal must ensure
that it sufficiently addresses these requirements as to all the items designated for
sealing.
It has long been established that there is a “presumptive common law right to
inspect and copy judicial records.” United States v. Rosenthal, 763 F.2d 1291, 1293 (11th
Cir. 1985) (citing Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597, (1978)).
“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,
1245 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting Chicago Tribune v. Bridgestone/Firestone, 263 F.3d 1304,
1309 (11th Cir.2001)); Digital Assurance Certification, LLC v. Pendolino, No. 6:17-CV-72-
CEM-TBS, 2017 WL 320830, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 23, 2017) (stating same).
The question of whether good cause exists is decided:
“by the nature and character of the information in
question.” Id. 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, 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. Good cause is established by showing that disclosure will
cause “a clearly defined and serious injury.” Digital Assurance, 2017 WL 320830, at *2.
Here, although Defendant’s motion complies with the procedural requirements
of Local Rule 1.11(c), Defendant has not adequately established that disclosure will
cause a clearly defined and serious injury that overcomes the common law right of
access.
In arguing that the material must be sealed, Defendant repeatedly refers to the
fact that it is subject to the parties’ protective order. Doc. 98 at 2, 5-7. 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 Engineering, 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.”
Local Rule 1.11(a), Middle District of Florida. As one court observed, “[i]f 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.” Ward v. EZCORP, Inc., 6:15-cv-474-ACC-DAB, 2016 WL 7666133, *1 (M.D.
Fla. Feb. 29, 2016). Thus, the fact that the parties agreed to the material’s
confidentiality does not constitute good cause.
As to the material’s contents, Defendant uses only conclusory language,
attesting that the information is “highly confidential,” “sensitive,” and “proprietary.”
Doc. 98. But “conclusory statements…do not establish good cause.” Romero, 480 F.3d
at 1247 (quotation omitted). Rather, the good cause requirement “contemplates a
particular and specific demonstration of fact, as distinguished from stereotyped and
conclusory statements.” Barnello v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLL, 6:14-cv-1383, 2015
WL 5782346, *5 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 2, 2015) (quotation omitted). Defendant has offered
no accompanying details or evidence to establish that the information it wishes to
protect is, indeed, proprietary. See Rodriguez v. Magic Burgers, LLC, 6:19-cv-1656 2021
WL 3017528, *2 (M.D. Fla. March 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. …Defendant has not presented any
evidence, such as a declaration or affidavit, showing that the documents at issue” meet
the requirements of a trade secret), citing Day v. Barnett Outdoors, LLC, 8:16cv2480,
2017 WL 10275971, *3 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 23, 2017) (Whittemore, J.) (“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[.]”);
cf. Proxicom Wireless, LLC v. Macy’s, Inc., 6:18-cv-64, 2018 WL 8344645, *2 (M.D. Fla.
Oct. 29, 2018) (finding, “[a]fter reviewing [the] declaration filed in support of the
Motion to Seal,” that defendants demonstrated good cause for sealing exhibits that
would “harm Defendants’ legitimate privacy interests by exposing its business and
financial information to the public, including competitors.”).
Without more, Defendant has not established that disclosure of the material
would overcome the public’s right to access. Therefore, the motion is denied, without
prejudice to renewal upon a showing of sufficient grounds to find the material to be
entitled to protection.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. Defendant iApartments, Inc.’s Unopposed Motion for Leave for Plaintiffs to
File Under Seal (Doc. 98) is DENIED without prejudice.
2. Defendant may renew its Motion to Seal upon a showing of good cause within
a period of FOURTEEN (14) DAYS from the date of this Order. Following
the expiration of fourteen days, if Defendant has not renewed its motion,
Plaintiffs are directed to re-file their Response in Opposition (Doc. 91)
to Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Stay without redaction.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on January 31, 2023.
Charlene Edwards Honeywell
United States District Judge
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties