The opinion
United States District Court
Middle District of Florida
Jacksonville Division
JARED SCHNACKENBERG,
Plaintiff,
v. NO. 3:24-cv-324-MMH-PDB
TOLL BROTHERS MORTGAGE COMPANY,
Defendant.
Order
The defendant moves for leave to file under seal exhibits to a declaration
supporting its motion for summary judgment. Doc. 48; see Doc. 44 (motion for
summary judgment), Doc. 46 (declaration). The plaintiff has no opposition to
sealing. Doc. 48 at 6.
“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). In determining whether a paper
should be sealed, a court’s discretion is guided by the presumption of public
access. Perez-Guerrero v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 717 F.3d 1224, 1235 (11th Cir. 2013).
“Judges deliberate in private but issue public decisions after public arguments
based on public records. … Any step that withdraws an element of the judicial
process from public view makes the ensuing decision look more like fiat and
requires rigorous justification.” Id. (quoted authority omitted).
To decide if the presumption of public access applies, a court
distinguishes documents that “may properly be considered public or judicial
records” from “those that may not; the media and public presumptively have
access to the former, but not the latter.” Perez-Guerrero, 717 F.3d at 1235. The
presumption applies to any paper attached to a document that invokes judicial
resolution on the merits, including a motion for summary judgment. F.T.C. v.
AbbVie Prods. LLC, 713 F.3d 54, 63−64 (11th Cir. 2013).
Local Rule 1.11 summarizes the law on the presumption of public access
to emphasize its importance: “Sealing a docketed item … used in the
adjudication or other resolution of a claim or defense requires a reason
sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of public access. Sealing
is not authorized by a confidentiality agreement, a protective order, a
designation of confidentiality, or a stipulation.” Local Rule 1.11(a). The rule
requires a movant to describe the item and “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[.]” Id. at 1.11(b)(2)–(3).
The presumption applies because the defendant offers the exhibits to
support the motion for summary judgment. See Docs. 44, 46. The Court will
consider the exhibits for “the adjudication or other resolution of a claim or
defense[.]” See Local Rule 1.11(a) (quoted).
The Court denies the motion, Doc. 48, without prejudice. The defendant
fails to sufficiently describe the exhibits and pinpoint the assertedly personal
or protected information and fails to establish that using a redaction or means
other than sealing is unavailable. See Local Rule 1.11(b)(2)–(3). For example,
four exhibits are deposition transcripts in their entirety. See S-Docs. 48-1, 48-
8 to 48-10. The defendant misrepresents that it “has filed a redacted version
on the public docket which endeavored to limit the exhibit redactions to only
those necessary to protect the confidential information at issue.” Doc. 48 at 5.
The defendant has filed only placeholders for the exhibits. See Docs. 46-1, 46-
3 to 46-13, 46-15.
For many exhibits, another reason to deny the motion is that the exhibits
are already on the public docket. See Doc. 49-2 at 1–70 (Exhibit 1), 148–60
(Exhibit 3), 142–44 (Exhibit 4), 161–73 (Exhibit 5), 174–75 (Exhibit 6), 176–95
(Exhibit 7), 121–36 (Exhibit 8); Doc. 49-4 at 1–75 (Exhibit 11).
This order is “automatically stayed for fourteen days to permit a motion
to reconsider, for review, to withdraw the item, or for other relief.” See Local
Rule 1.11(d) (quoted). No earlier than January 24, 2025, the clerk must
unseal the exhibits, S-Doc. 48-1 to S-Doc. 48-13, and:
(1) replace Doc. 46-1 (Exhibit 1 placeholder) with S-Doc. 48-1;
(2) replace Doc. 46-3 (Exhibit 3 placeholder) with S-Doc. 48-2;
(3) replace Doc. 46-4 (Exhibit 4 placeholder) with S-Doc. 48-3;
(4) replace Doc. 46-5 (Exhibit 5 placeholder) with S-Doc. 48-4;
(5) replace Doc. 46-6 (Exhibit 6 placeholder) with S-Doc. 48-5;
(6) replace Doc. 46-7 (Exhibit 7 placeholder) with S-Doc. 48-6;
(7) replace Doc. 46-8 (Exhibit 8 placeholder) with S-Doc. 48-7;
(8) replace Doc. 46-9 (Exhibit 9 placeholder) with S-Doc. 48-8;
(9) replace Doc. 46-10 (Exhibit 10 placeholder) with S-Doc. 48-9;
(10) replace Doc. 46-11 (Exhibit 11 placeholder) with S-Doc. 48-10;
(11) replace Doc. 46-12 (Exhibit 12 placeholder) with S-Doc. 48-11;
(12) replace Doc. 46-13 (Exhibit 13 placeholder) with S-Doc. 48-12;
and
(18) replace Doc. 46-15 (Exhibit 15 placeholder) with S-Doc. 48-138.
To the extent an exhibit provisionally filed under seal contains redacted
account numbers, see S-Doc. 48-13, the redaction must remain in place.
Ordered in Jacksonville, Florida, on January 8, 2025.
PATRICIA D. BARKSDALE
United States Magistrate Judge