“[M]aterial filed with discovery motions is not subject to the common-law right of access....”
How later courts described this case
- “[M]aterial filed with discovery motions is not subject to the common-law right of access....”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
TINA BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No: 6:23-cv-1925-JSS-LHP
BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION
INC. and BP AMERICA
PRODUCTION COMPANY,
Defendants
ORDER
Before the Court is BP Defendants’ Motion for Relief Pursuant to Local Rule
1.11(e). Doc. No. 89. At issue is whether a previously sealed discovery exhibit, a
report from Dr. Naomi Oreskes (Doc. No. 49-1), and a sealed discovery hearing
transcript regarding in camera proceedings (Doc. No. 75), shall remain under seal
following closure of this case. Id.; see also Doc. Nos. 74, 87. Plaintiff opposes the
request to maintain the Oreskes report under seal, but does not oppose maintaining
the sealed hearing transcript under seal. Doc. No. 89, at 2; Doc. No. 90.
Defendants have also filed a Court-ordered reply. Doc. No. 92.
Upon consideration, for the reasons argued by Defendants in reply, Doc. No.
92, and for reasons previously set forth by the Court, Doc. No. 74, the motion (Doc.
No. 89) will be GRANTED. See generally Chicago Tribune Co. v.
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1312 (11th Cir. 2001) (“[M]aterial filed with
discovery motions is not subject to the common-law right of access....”). □□ is
ORDERED that the documents addressed in the motion (Doc. Nos. 49-1, 75), will
remain under seal absent further Order of the Court ordering the documents
unsealed.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on January 5, 2026.
LESLIE 3 AN PRICE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record