The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
GENE E. MYERS,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No: 8:19-cv-724-CEH-CPT
PROVIDENT LIFE AND ACCIDENT
INSURANCE COMPANY and
UNUM GROUP,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Gene Myers’ Motion to File
Document Under Seal (Doc. 209). In the motion, Plaintiff seeks to file an exhibit to
his response in opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment under seal,
pursuant to a confidentiality agreement between the parties. Having considered the
motion and being fully advised of its premises, the Court will deny it without prejudice.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff moves to submit under seal an internal memorandum by a director of
Defendant Unum Group, because it is the subject of a confidentiality agreement
between the parties. Doc. 209 at 1. In the confidentiality agreement, the parties agreed
that if one party seeks to file a document that the other party has labeled “confidential,”
the party seeking to file it must either redact the document or file it under seal. Id. at
1-2, citing Doc. 209-1 ¶ 8. Defendants labeled the internal memorandum
“confidential.” Doc. 209-2. Plaintiff explains that he cannot redact it without making
it unusable as an exhibit, and must therefore move to file it under seal. Doc. 209 at 2.
With respect to the confidential nature of the document, Plaintiff states only that “it
contains information designated by the parties as confidential[.]” Id. at 3. Defendants
have not filed a response to Plaintiff’s motion.1
Pursuant to Local Rule 1.11, a motion to seal must establish: “(A) that filing the
item is necessary, (B) that sealing the item is necessary, and (C) that using a redaction,
a pseudonym, or a means other than sealing is unavailable or unsatisfactory[.]” Local
Rule 1.11(b)(3), M.D. Fla. (Apr. 1, 2024). Moreover, the same rule provides that
“sealing is not authorized by a confidentiality agreement, a protective order, a
designation of confidentiality, or a stipulation.” Local Rule 1.11(a).
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 Commc’ns, 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-
1 Plaintiff’s certification pursuant to Local Rule 3.01(g) indicates that Defendants did not
immediately respond to his email requesting their position on the motion, but that he
presumes their agreement with the relief he requests because of the parties’ confidentiality
agreement. Doc. 209 at 3.
CEM-TBS, 2017 WL 320830, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 23, 2017) (stating same). Good
cause is established by showing that disclosure will cause “a clearly defined and serious
injury.” Digital Assurance, 2017 WL 320830, at *2 (citations omitted). 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-CEM-TBS, 2015 WL 5782346, *5 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 2,
2015) (quotation omitted).
Here, the motion to seal does not establish that sealing the internal
memorandum is necessary, see Local Rule 1.11(b)(3)(B), or that the common law right
of access is overcome by good cause. Plaintiff’s motion relies entirely on the fact that
Defendants labeled the document “confidential,” and the parties’ confidentiality
agreement requires him to move to file it under seal. But Local Rule 1.11(a) makes
clear that parties’ agreements do not authorize sealing. On the contrary, “[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), citing
Brown v. Advantage Engineering, 960 F.2d 1013, 1016 (11th Cir. 1992). Thus, the fact
of the parties’ confidentiality agreement does not constitute good cause.
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) Gnternal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Without more, the parties
have not established that disclosure of the internal memorandum would cause a clearly
defined and serious injury that overcomes the public’s night 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. Plaintiff Gene Myers’ Motion to File Document Under Seal (Doc.
209) is DENIED without prejudice.
2. If they choose to do so, either party may file, within fourteen (14)
days, a renewed motion to seal. If the parties do not file a renewed
motion within the time permitted, the Clerk is directed to unseal
the document at Doc. 209-2. Alternatively, Plaintiff may withdraw
the document.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on September 25, 2024.
Chak pias andas No TD pi ell Q_
Charlene Edwards Honeywell
United States District Judge
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties