# Opinion

> District Court, S.D. Florida · January 26, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11246366

## Case

- **Full name:** Rav Bahamas, Ltd. v. Genting Americas, Inc.
- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Florida
- **Decided:** January 26, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11246366

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating it is “immaterial” whether the parties have agreed to seal the record when determining whether a document should be publicly filed
- noting that depending on the particular circumstances of a case, “the passage of time [may] reduce[] the likelihood” of competitive injury enough to shift the balance such that public access exceeds the value of confidentiality

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 24-CV-23874-LENARD/Elfenbein

RAV BAHAMAS, LTD.,

Plaintiff,

v.

GENTING AMERICAS, INC.,

Defendant.
___________________________/
OMNIBUS ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on: (1) Plaintiff Rav Bahamas, Ltd.’s (“Plaintiff”)
Amended Motion to File Exhibits to the Amended Complaint Under Seal (the “First Motion to
Seal”), ECF No. [86]; and (2) Defendant Genting Americas Inc.’s (“Genting”) Motion to File the
Motion for Leave to Amend and Exhibits to the Proposed Second Amended Complaint Under Seal
(the “Second Motion to Seal”), ECF No. [127]. The Honorable Joan A. Lenard referred the First
Motion to Seal “and all related motions and pleadings” to me “to hear and determine” the issues
therein. ECF No. [91]; see also ECF No. [144]. Judge Lenard likewise referred Plaintiff’s Motion
for Leave to Amend the First Amended Complaint (the “Motion to Amend”), ECF No. [125],
together with “all related motions and pleadings,” to the undersigned “to hear and determine” the
issues presented therein. See ECF No. [144]. The Second Motion to Seal is “related” to both
referrals as it concerns the sealing of exhibits and redactions submitted in connection with the
Motion to Amend, and it substantially overlaps with the First Motion to Seal, which encompasses
the majority of the same exhibits and raises the same confidentiality and notice issues under the
Protective Order.
Having reviewed the Motions, the responses thereto, and the record in this case, the First
Motion to Seal, ECF No. [86], is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part and the Second
Motion to Seal, ECF No. [127], is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
I. INTRODUCTION

This case arises from a failed joint venture to develop and operate a casino resort in Bimini,
Bahamas. See ECF No. [85] at 1-3. Plaintiff, a Bahamian corporation and major landowner in
Bimini, partnered with Genting — a Delaware corporation that operates “Resorts World” branded
properties — after Genting “convinced [Plaintiff] that, together, they could build a world-class
resort and casino in Bimini, which would yield significant returns for [Plaintiff.]” See id. at 2.
Plaintiff contributed the roughly 20 acres on which the resort sits, and the Parties formed BB
Entertainment Ltd. (“BBE”) to develop, own, and operate what became Resorts World Bimini.
See id. at 1-2. Plaintiff alleges the project has been a financial failure with no profit distributions
and nearly $1 billion in illegitimate debt caused by Genting’s fraudulent accounting and self-
dealing. See id. at 2-3. In Plaintiff’s telling, Genting used BBE as a “financial wasteland” to

saddle it with improper debt, depressing the value of Plaintiff’s shares. See id.
II. BACKGROUND
On October 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed the initial Complaint originally only naming Genting
as the singular Defendant. See ECF No. [1]. By April 2025, the Parties alerted the Court to their
disagreement regarding the language for a proposed protective order. See ECF No. [59]. At the
discovery hearing, the Parties informed the Court that, despite Plaintiff’s requests, Genting had
produced no responsive documents and that Genting was withholding all production until the
issuance of a protective order. See ECF No. [68] at 1-2. On May 12, 2025, the Court entered the
Protective Order explaining that “Defendant’s suggestion [at the hearing] that all — or the majority
of — responsive documents will likely be designated confidential raises the specter of
overdesignation.” See id. at 2. The remainder of the Protective Order crafts a tailored sealing
procedure designed to discourage overly broad confidentiality designations and to ensure that
confidentiality designations do not become a de facto sealing mechanism once documents move

from private discovery into the judicial record. See id. Specifically, paragraph 7 of the Protective
Order aims to prevent the burden of establishing good cause for sealing from being “misplaced.”
See id. at ¶7. Paragraph 7 does this by: (1) requiring the filing party to give the designating party
seven (7) days notice of what will be filed, so the designating party has a fair opportunity to seek
protection; (2) requiring the designating party, if it wants documents to be filed under seal, to
petition the Court promptly and justify sealing with specificity; and (3) expressly encouraging
redaction where feasible (i.e., when the confidential portions are not needed for the filing’s
purpose), so the public record remains as open as possible while still safeguarding truly sensitive
content. See id (emphasis added).
A. First Amended Complaint and First Motion to Seal

On July 1, 2025, the Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend to add BBE as a
defendant (“BBE” collectively with Genting, “Defendants”). See ECF No. [77]. On July 29, 2025,
Plaintiff filed the First Motion to Seal requesting that Exhibits 47-48, 50-58, and 60-79 to its
forthcoming First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) be filed under seal based on Genting’s
confidentiality designations and the Protective Order. See ECF No. [86] at ¶¶1, 5. The next day,
Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) with minimal redactions to the body and filed
Exhibits 47-48, 50-58, and 60-79 fully redacted. See ECF No. [89]. On August 11, 2025, Genting
responded to Plaintiff’s First Motion to Seal (“Genting’s Response”) arguing that Plaintiff failed
to comply with the Protective Order’s seven-day notice period and requesting the Court enter an
order requiring Exhibits 47-48, 51-55, 61-63, 66-71, and 74-79 of the FAC (the “FAC Disputed
Exhibits”) to be filed under seal. See ECF No. [98] at 1-2, 17. Genting agreed to de-designate
Exhibits 50, 56-60, 64-65, and 72-73. See id. at 9-10. For the remaining exhibits, Genting provides
an exhibit-by-exhibit chart that characterizes many of the exhibits as internal emails among

Genting intercompany personnel discussing: (i) intercompany financial allocations and expense
allocations including internal-system screenshots and discussions of preliminary, unaudited
financials; (ii) BBE financial performance, such as gaming revenue and other historical results;
(iii) auditor-facing issues and auditor information requests; and (iv) sale and valuation-related
analyses, including potential sale transactions, valuation assessments, and commercially sensitive
internal models and allocations used in modeling. See id. at 10-13. Genting also described several
exhibits as internal payment requisition and transfer forms and related emails reflecting
intercompany transfers and payments involving non-party individuals and entities. See id. at 12-
13.
In its Reply (the “Plaintiff’s Reply”), Plaintiff argues that most of the exhibits Genting
seeks to keep sealed1 (Exhibits 47, 61-63, 67, 70-71, and 74-78) should be filed publicly because

they go to the merits of the FAC (i.e., they purportedly show inaccurate or inconsistent financial
reporting, unexplained allocations, and efforts to justify discrepancies to auditors), and Genting
cannot justify sealing by characterizing alleged wrongdoing as “confidential.” See ECF No. [107]
at 4, 7-11. Plaintiff also contends sealing Exhibit 66 is improper because the documents were
shared with third parties, which Plaintiff says undercuts any claim that the communications are

1 Plaintiff agrees that Exhibits 48, 69, and 79 are confidential and should be filed under seal. See ECF No.
[107] at 2. The Eleventh Circuit rejects parties’ agreements to seal a document as a sufficient basis for
public nondisclosure. See Brown v. Advantage Eng’g, Inc., 960 F.2d 1013, 1016 (11th Cir. 1992) (stating
it is “immaterial” whether the parties have agreed to seal the record when determining whether a document
should be publicly filed). Accordingly, the Court will address the undisputed confidential exhibits as
disputed for the purpose of this analysis.
“confidential.” See id. at 8. Plaintiff further asserts that the information in Exhibits 47, 51-55, 68,
and 71 is already publicly available. See id. at 5-7. And finally, Plaintiff argues that Genting fails
to explain how disclosure of Exhibit 68 would harm Genting as it contains financial information
that is six to ten years old. See id. at 9.

B. Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint and Second Motion to Seal
On September 12, 2025, Genting moved to dismiss the FAC (the “Motion to Dismiss”).
See ECF No. [115]. On October 14, 2025, Plaintiff informed Defendants that it intended to seek
leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (the “SAC”) that would include the exhibits attached
to the FAC. See ECF No. [122] at ¶10. And on October 22, 2025, Plaintiff filed its Motion to
Amend to cure deficiencies and add RICO allegations tied to the Nevada Gaming Control Board’s
complaint against multiple Genting affiliates involving Mathew Bowyer (“Bowyer”), who recently
pled guilty to federal offenses, including money laundering. See ECF No. [125] at 1-2. The SAC
includes ten new exhibits — Exhibits 45, 46, and 80-87. See ECF No. [127] at 1-2.
On October 30, 2025, Genting filed the Second Motion to Seal requesting the Court permit

the FAC Disputed Exhibits and five new exhibits to the SAC, Exhibits 81-83 and 85-86, to be filed
under seal (the “SAC Disputed Exhibits”) and to keep existing redactions in place in the Motion
to Amend and SAC. See id. at 2. Genting incorporates its Response to the First Motion to Seal in
the Second Motion to Seal. See id. at 1-2, n.1, n. 2. Genting argues that Plaintiff failed for a third
time to comply with the Protective Order’s requirement to provide at least seven days’ notice
before filing confidential material, only providing Genting an unredacted copy after filing and
producing the new exhibits days later. See id. at 2. Genting contends that the SAC Disputed
Exhibits include sensitive, non-public financial information and personally identifying
information, such as BBE bank reconciliation statements listing account numbers and transaction
details, a detailed 2018 general ledger with transaction-level casino and hotel financials and third-
party identities, an image reflecting a non-party gambler’s credit limit, and a board paper
discussing proposed write-offs and BBE’s financial condition, so public filing would harm
legitimate privacy and competitive interests and expose non-parties’ personal and/or financial data.

See id. at 9-11.
Plaintiff opposes the Second Motion to Seal (“Plaintiff’s Response”) arguing the filings
and the FAC and SAC Disputed Exhibits (collectively, the “Disputed Exhibits”) contain evidence
central to the merits — alleged fraud and RICO conduct — and therefore should be litigated
publicly under the strong presumption of access to judicial records. See ECF No. [133] at 1-3.
Plaintiff contends Genting has not carried its “good cause” burden because it offers only
conclusory arguments and no affidavit or concrete showing of competitive or privacy harm, and
because many of the “confidential” designations are overbroad, noting Genting marked over 94
percent of its production confidential. See id. at 3-4. Plaintiff reiterates its arguments made in its
Reply to the First Motion to Seal. See id. at 12-16. And Plaintiff specifically agrees that only

Exhibits 48, 69, and 79 warrant redactions but only as to salary and individual personal financial
details. See id. at 4, 21. As to the SAC Disputed Exhibits, Plaintiff asserts that these exhibits
should be filed openly because they show intercompany transfers, disputed allocations,
communications with auditors and third parties, and transactions tied to Bowyer, a “convicted
felon and subject of the widely reported sports betting scandal[,]” and organized-crime-related
activity that Plaintiff says are matters of public concern and widely reported. See id. at 2–4, 9–11,
16–20.
Plaintiff also disputes Genting’s claim that it violated the Protective Order’s seven-day
notice requirement, arguing Genting had timely notice of the intended filings and, in any event,
lack of seven-day notice is not itself a “violation” because the Protective Order simply shifts who
must move to seal depending on timing. See id. at 20-21. Plaintiff asks the Court to grant the
Motion only as to Exhibits 48, 69, and 79, deem it moot for exhibits the Parties agree are non-
confidential, deny sealing for the Disputed Exhibits (or, at most, permit narrow redactions), and

require the Motion to Amend and proposed SAC to be filed without redactions. See id. at 21-22.
In the Reply (“Genting’s Reply”), Genting reiterates that the Disputed Exhibits contain
the type of confidential information courts in this District routinely protect, such as detailed bank
records with non-party identifying information, general ledgers and other granular financial
documents, and internal business correspondence reflecting sensitive decision-making that could
harm the business if disclosed to competitors. See ECF No. [135] at 2, 5-6. Genting contends
Plaintiff’s opposition does not meaningfully rebut these confidentiality concerns and instead relies
on inflammatory, unsupported accusations, while also reneging on prior commitments to protect
BBE’s confidential information. See id. at 2-3. Genting also disputes Plaintiff’s interpretation of
the Protective Order’s seven-day notice requirement, insisting the order does not create an

alternative “fallback” path to sealing under the Local Rules when notice is not given; rather, it
requires notice and then obligates the designating party to move to seal within that window. See
id. at 3-4. Genting further rejects Plaintiff’s claim that it has no competitors in the Bahamas,
asserting the sealed materials include competitively sensitive financial performance and
discounting information that other casinos in the area could exploit. See id. at 5. Finally, Genting
argues Plaintiff understates privacy concerns because the documents include far more than
addresses and account numbers — such as names, transaction amounts, dates, and casino/hotel
activity of individuals — much of which Genting says has little to no relevance to Plaintiff’s
theory. See id. at 6.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
“The common-law right of access ‘establish[es] a general presumption that criminal and
civil actions should be conducted publicly’ and ‘includes the right to inspect and copy public

records and documents.’” F.T.C. v. AbbVie Products LLC, 713 F.3d 54, 62 (11th Cir. 2013)
(quoting Chi. Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1311 (11th Cir. 2001)
(per curiam)). “It is ‘an essential component of our system of justice” and “is instrumental in
securing the integrity of the process.’” Id. (quoting Chi. Tribune, 263 F.3d at 1311). Courts “have
discretion to determine which portions of the record should be placed under seal, but [such]
discretion is guided by the presumption of public access to judicial documents.” Perez-Guerrero
v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 717 F.3d 1224, 1235 (11th Cir. 2013) (alteration added). Indeed, this District’s
Local Rules reflect this presumption stating “[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.” See S.D. Fla. L.R. 5.4(a).

“[A] judge’s exercise of discretion[, however,] in deciding whether to release judicial
records should be informed by a ‘sensitive appreciation of the circumstances that led to ... [the]
production [of the particular document in question].’” Chicago Tribune, 263 F.3d at 1311 (quoting
Nixon v. Warner Comm., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)) (alterations added); AbbVie, 713 F.3d at
62. “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.” Perez-Guerrero, 717
F.3d at 1235 (quoting Hicklin Eng’g, L.C. v. Bartell, 439 F.3d 346, 348 (7th Cir. 2006), abrogation
on other grounds recognized by RTP LLC v. ORIX Real Estate Cap., Inc., 827 F.3d 689 (7th Cir.
2016)) (alteration in original).
Since the common-law right of access only applies to public or judicial records, courts first
determine whether the document may be properly considered a public or judicial record. See

Callahan v. United Network for Organ Sharing, 17 F.4th 1356, 1361–62 (11th Cir. 2021); AbbVie,
713 F.3d at 62; Chi. Tribune, 263 F.3d at 1311. Discovery materials alone are not automatically
treated as judicial records for purposes of the common-law right of access; however, once they are
filed in support of a substantive motion, they become judicial records subject to that right. See id.
at 1362. Indeed, “[t]his Circuit has held that ‘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.’” Id. at
1361–62 (quoting Chi. Tribune, 263 F.3d at 1311).
If found to be a judicial record, the court then considers the merits if withholding that
document from public view. “The test for whether a judicial record can be withheld from the

public is a balancing test that weighs ‘the competing interests of the parties’ to determine whether
there is good cause to deny the public the right to access the document.” AbbVie, 713 F.3d at 62
(quoting Chi. Tribune, 263 F.3d at 1312). The Eleventh Circuit has listed several factors to
consider, including: whether the records are sought for illegitimate or improper purposes; whether
disclosure would promote public understanding of historically significant events or the judicial
process more broadly; and whether changed circumstances over time reduce sensitivity or
competitive harm, warranting modification or unsealing. See id. at 61-62 (quoting Newman v.
Graddick, 696 F.2d 796, 803 (11th Cir. 1983)). The Eleventh Circuit has also considered other
factors including: whether disclosure would impair court functions or the administration of justice;
whether disclosure would invade legitimate privacy interests, trade secrets, proprietary
commercial information; the likelihood of injury from disclosure; whether substantial access has
already been provided; and whether a less onerous alternative (e.g., targeted redaction) can protect
the interests without full sealing. See Callahan, 17 F.4th at 1363; Romero v. Drummond Co., Inc.,

480 F.3d 1234, 1246 (11th Cir. 2007).
IV. ANALYSIS
The Court begins its analysis by determining whether the Disputed Exhibits here are
judicial records. The Eleventh Circuit has long held that pleadings and their attachments are
treated as “judicial records” subject to the common-law presumption of access. See Callahan, 17
F.4th at 1361–62; AbbVie, 713 F.3d at 62. Accordingly, the Disputed Exhibits — attached to the
FAC and being submitted in connection with Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend the SAC —
are judicial records.
Next, the Court must decide, exhibit-by-exhibit, whether “good cause” justifies restricting
public access after balancing the competing interests.2 The Court begins this analysis with the

strong presumption that judicial filings are public, and a party seeking to depart from that norm
must follow the governing procedures and carry the burden to justify sealing. See S.D. Fla. L.R.
5.4(a) (court filings are matters of public record absent law, Court rule, or Court order to the
contrary); Chicago Tribune, 263 F.3d 1304. The Court, however, balances the presumption of

2 The Court treats the Parties’ agreement that certain exhibits need not be sealed as dispositive. Here, the
Parties agree that Exhibits 50, 56-60, 64-65, 72, and 73 need not remain confidential; those exhibits
therefore will be filed publicly and without sealing. See ECF No. [127] at 8; ECF No. [133] at 4.
Conversely, the Parties agree that Exhibits 48, 69, and 70 contain individual compensation information and
should receive protection on that basis, but Plaintiff contends that sealing in full is not necessary. See ECF
No. [127] at n.3; ECF No. [133] at 4. As previously noted, however, the Eleventh Circuit rejects agreements
to seal a document as a sufficient basis for public nondisclosure. See Brown, 960 F.2d at 1016 (stating it is
“immaterial” whether the parties have agreed to seal the record when determining whether a document
should be publicly filed). As noted above, the Court will address the undisputed confidential exhibits as
disputed for the purpose of this analysis.
access against the countervailing interests in confidentiality, with careful attention to the “nature
and character of the information” at issue. See Chicago Tribune, 263 F.3d 1304; Romero, 480
F.3d at 1246. In performing that balancing, courts consider, among other factors, whether
disclosure would harm legitimate privacy interests, the degree and likelihood of injury if made

public, and whether a less onerous alternative to sealing (such as targeted redactions) is available.
See Romero, 480 F.3d at 1246 (citing In re Alexander Grant & Co. Litig., 820 F.2d 352, 356 (11th
Cir. 1987)). “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).
For the reasons explained below, the Court finds that Genting has failed to satisfy its burden
to show that any of the Disputed Exhibits should be sealed in full and instead adopts a uniform
redaction protocol applicable across the disputed exhibits, which streamlines the analysis and
ensures narrow tailoring. Under Eleventh Circuit precedent, the Court must balance the public’s
right of access against legitimate privacy or proprietary interests and must consider “the
availability of a less onerous alternative to sealing,” most commonly by way of targeted redaction.

See Romero, 480 F.3d at 1246 (citing In re Alexander Grant, 820 F.2d at 356). Thus, prior to
filing, Plaintiff shall redact the information contained within the Disputed Exhibits as follows: (1)
names of non-party individuals and non-party entities and other personal identifiers, such as
addresses; (2) financial amounts reflected in transaction-level entries reflecting BBE and/or non-
party transactions (including amounts paid, received, owed, or written off); and (3) bank account
numbers and similar financial identifiers reflected in the transaction records.3 If, after applying
the redactions required by this Order, an exhibit would be rendered substantially unintelligible or

3 The Court is optimistic that, with this guidance, the Parties will meaningfully meet and confer in the future
regarding any other documents designated as Confidential that require filing with the Court to avoid using
scarce judicial resources to resolve a dispute over whether documents should be filed under seal, de-
designated, or simply redacted.
the redactions would obscure nearly all substantive content, Plaintiff may instead file the exhibit
under seal in its entirety. In that event, Plaintiff shall file a publicly available placeholder
identifying the exhibit, the basis for sealing and explaining why redaction is not practicable, and
(if feasible) a summary of the non-sensitive portions of the exhibit.

Turning now to each individual exhibit, the Parties’ briefing frames two recurring themes:
(1) Non-Party Financial Information and (2) BBE’s Proprietary Information. The Court will
address each in turn.
A. Non-Party Financial, Private, and/or Proprietary Information
Here, many Disputed Exhibits reflect transaction-level information involving non-parties,
including non-party individuals, businesses, and Genting-related entities, and the disclosure of
their financial information without consent presents heightened privacy and confidentiality
concerns. Courts in this District have held that where sensitive information pertains to non-parties
who are not public figures, the balancing of interests in favor of protecting the privacy of the non-
parties and against uninhibited access to the records is strengthened.” See Rossbach v. Rundle,

128 F. Supp. 2d 1348, 1352 (S.D. Fla. 2000); Houston Specialty Ins. Co. v. Fenstersheib, No. 20-
CV-60091, 2022 WL 190050, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 21, 2022), report and recommendation adopted,
No. 20-CV-60091, 2022 WL 484858 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 16, 2022). For example, a court in this District
held that the parties’ agreed-upon limited redactions — showing only a customer’s first initial and
last name and redacting the listed addresses — were sufficient to address the defendants’ privacy
concerns while still permitting the plaintiff to challenge the defense’s merits. See Echevarria v.
Expedia Group, Inc., No. 19-CV-22620, 2024 WL 3969198, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 28, 2024). The
Court also notes that the non-parties’ identities and specific transaction amounts are not necessary
at this juncture to permit Plaintiff to litigate the operative allegations based on these exhibits. See
Ready2Go Aviation LLC v. Galistair Trading Ltd., No. 23-CV-23318, 2023 WL 7545327, at *2
(S.D. Fla. Nov. 14, 2023).
As further explained below, the Court finds that narrow redactions would protect the
sensitive identifying information at issue while preserving the exhibits’ usefulness for the Parties’

competing merits arguments and would, therefore, adequately address both sides’ concerns.
Accordingly, the Court finds good cause to shield only: (1) names of non-party individuals and
non-party entities and other personal identifiers like addresses; (2) financial amounts reflected in
transaction-level entries reflecting BBE and/or non-party transactions (including amounts paid,
received, owed, or written off); and (3) bank account numbers and similar financial identifiers
reflected in the transaction records. See Rossbach, 128 F. Supp. 2d at 1352; Houston, 2022 WL
190050, at *3; Echevarria, 2024 WL 3969198, at *3. The Court explains its rationale as to each
Exhibit below.
i. Non-Party Individuals’ Personal and Financial Information (Exhibits
48, 69, 79, 81-83, 85-86)
Genting seeks protection for documents that implicate third-party personal financial
privacy, including individual compensation, personal credit limits, and individual debtor
information — materials that, even when relevant to the parties’ disputes, contain sensitive
personal financial information about non-parties or individuals. As previously stated, the Parties
agree that Exhibits 48, 69, and 79 contain individual compensation information and should receive
protection on that basis; although Plaintiff contends that sealing in full is not necessary. See ECF

No. [127] at n.3; ECF No. [133] at 4. Because these exhibits are, by the Parties’ description,
fundamentally personal compensation records, the privacy interest is substantial, and the public
value of the individuals’ identities and granular amounts is minimal for this case’s particular claims
and at the pleading stage. See Rossbach, 128 F. Supp. 2d at 1352; Ready2Go, 2023 WL 7545327,
at *2 (giving particular weight to the fact that the information does not appear central to plaintiff’s
claims).
Genting describes Exhibits 81 and 82 as bank reconciliation statements for BBE as of
December 2017 and June 2017, respectively. See ECF No. [127] at 9-10. Genting states that

Exhibits 81 and 82 include BBE’s bank account number and line-item transfers, payments, and
purchases and identifying information for non-party individuals reflected in the transactions, i.e.,
names, bank account information and personal addresses. See id. Plaintiff responds that Exhibits
81 and 82 are spreadsheets with four of five tabs containing only debit and credit amounts and
dates with no transaction descriptions, personal identifiers, or competitively sensitive details. See
ECF No. [133] at 16-17. Plaintiff argues that the final “winnings” tab does name individuals paid
for casino winnings or airfare, but Plaintiff argues that the “winnings” tab should not be treated as
confidential because casino patrons may observe wins on the casino floor. See id. The Court does
not find that argument persuasive. See id. Even assuming that a win may be publicly observable
within the casino, Plaintiff identifies no basis to conclude that BBE publicizes or disseminates

these individuals’ specific identities and specific payment amounts beyond the fact that casino
patrons may observe another unknown casino patron win money on the casino floor. To the extent
Exhibits 81 and 82 contain non-party transactional information, the Court concludes that such
information would not be publicly available. With that said, Genting has not shown why full
sealing is necessary and why redaction of the names of such non-parties as well as their bank
account and address information would not suffice to ensure their privacy.
Similarly, Genting describes Exhibit 83 as a detailed 2018 general ledger reflecting
transaction-level casino and hotel payments involving non-party individuals, including names and
personal bank identifiers. See ECF No. [127] at 10. Plaintiff reiterates its arguments for Exhibits
81 and 82, stating that casino winnings are public information. See id. at 17. The same ruling
made for Exhibits 81 and 82 applies here. Accordingly, Exhibits 81-83 shall be filed in accordance
with the threshold redaction ruling for the Disputed Exhibits.
Genting describes Exhibit 85 as an image detailing Bowyer’s credit limit. See ECF No.

[127] at 11. Plaintiff responds that the core Bowyer-related financial facts Genting invokes are
already in the public domain. See ECF No. [133] at 2, 19. In support, Plaintiff submits a publicly
filed Nevada Gaming Control Board complaint that recounts, inter alia, that Bowyer submitted a
credit application that was later converted to a $1 million front-money application, and it further
details Bowyer’s gaming activity and losses in dollar terms and notes contemporaneous media
reporting about Bowyer. See ECF No. [133-1]. The Court agrees with Plaintiff. Information that
is already public cannot be retroactively cloaked in confidentiality simply because it was produced
in discovery; the Protective Order expressly rejects retroactive confidentiality for publicly
available information, and Eleventh Circuit authority likewise cautions against sealing material
that is already public or that would cause no harm if disclosed. See OJ Commerce, 34 F.4th at

1246–47; Synchrony Bank v. Cabinets to Go, LLC, No. 21-CV-21828-KMM, 2022 WL 19300397,
at *2 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 13, 2022) (allowing redacted versions publicly where portions were already
disclosed, with unredacted portions under seal). That public disclosure materially reduces the
privacy interest in keeping the existence and general magnitude of Bowyer’s casino credit and
front-money status from the public record in this case. At the same time, the Court recognizes that
Exhibit 85 — as an image drawn from casino credit materials — may contain personal identifiers
or account-related details (or other nonpublic personal financial particulars) that are not reflected
in the publicly filed Nevada complaint. Nevertheless, Genting failed to meet its burden to show
good cause that the entire document must be sealed. Accordingly, the Court finds good cause to
protect Exhibit 85 only to the extent it contains account or bank information or other personal
identifiers, and the Court will not maintain Exhibit 85 under seal merely because it references
Bowyer and a credit limit, which is already public information. Exhibit 85 shall be filed in
accordance with the threshold redaction ruling for the Disputed Exhibits.

Genting describes Exhibit 86 as a board paper about proposed write-offs of uncollectible
debt, containing information about BBE’s financial condition and the names of non-party
individuals owing money to BBE. See ECF No. [127] at 11. As previously stated with Exhibits
81-83, because the information concerns non-parties who are not public figures, the privacy
interest is heightened. See Rossbach, 128 F. Supp. 2d at 1352. Exhibit 86 shall, therefore, be filed
in accordance with the threshold redaction ruling for the exhibits.
ii. Non-Party Business’ Proprietary Information (Exhibits 51-55, 62, 68, 70,
74-78)
For Exhibits 51–55, 62, 68, 70, and 74–78, Genting asserts that the materials contain
nonparty entities’ sensitive, non-public financial information, including intercompany allocations,
transfers, or payment requisitions involving non-parties. See ECF No. [98] at 10-13. For Exhibits
51–55 and 68, Genting’s descriptions identify intercompany allocation discussions, resolutions,
internal financial screenshots, and allocation charts involving non-party entities. See id. at 10-11,
12. Exhibit 62, which Genting describes as auditor-related communications that purportedly
include descriptions of internal processes of non-party Genting Malaysia, presents a similar issue.
See id. at 11-12. Genting describes Exhibit 70 as a valuation of preferred shares in BBIH, which
Genting also characterizes as a non-party. See id. at 12. Finally, Exhibits 74–784 are payment

4 The Parties do not clearly identify whether Exhibits 74–78 reflect BBE’s own internal proprietary
information or instead consist primarily of non-party payment documentation and intercompany materials
attributable to other non-party entities. Because that threshold issue is not developed in the briefing, the
Court does not treat Exhibits 74–78 in the section addressing BBE’s proprietary information, and instead
requisition forms and related emails reflecting intercompany expenses and transfers involving non-
party entities. See id. at 12-13. As previously stated, Exhibits 51-55, 62, 68, 70, and 74-78 concern
non-parties who are not public figures, which heightens the privacy interest. See Rossbach, 128
F. Supp. 2d at 1352. Therefore, Exhibits 51-55, 62, 68, 70, and 74-78 may be filed in accordance

with the threshold redaction ruling for the exhibits.
B. BBE’s Proprietary Financial Information (Exhibits 47, 51-55, 61-63, 66-68, 70-71, 79,
81-83, 85-86)
For Exhibits 47, 51-55, 61-63, 66-68, 70-71, 79, 81-83, and 85-86, Genting argues that
these exhibits present potential competitive harm because they reflect nonpublic internal financial
strategy and decision-making — particularly valuation and sales analysis, internal models, and
budgets — where the asserted sensitivity is not limited to identifiers, but rather to the substance of
the financial analysis itself. See ECF No. [127] at 9-12. Courts in this District will seal or restrict
access to truly proprietary commercial and financial strategy (e.g., pricing, negotiated terms,
internal financials, strategic planning) when a party shows disclosure would give competitors an
unfair advantage — particularly at early stages when the public can understand the dispute without
specific figures. See Ready2Go, 2023 WL 7545327, at *2 (good cause at the dismissal stage where
documents reflect confidential commercial and financial information related to their business
operations including pricing process, payment terms and schedules, lease and employee rates;
especially because the information does not appear to be central to the plaintiff's claims and
disclosure could give competitors unfair advantage); CRubin, LLC v. Escoriaza, No. 19-CV-

22261, 2020 WL 2542629, at *2 (S.D. Fla. May 19, 2020) (good cause at the summary judgment
stage where documents reflect “trade secrets and other confidential information, such as attorney

addresses them only under the narrower redaction principles applicable to non-party identifiers and
transaction-level details.
correspondence relating to third parties, technical infrastructure, business strategy, commercially
sensitive transactional, marketing, technical, research, development, business strategy, and
otherwise non-public and proprietary information”). But the remedy is usually targeted redaction,
not blanket sealing, unless the exhibit is essentially nothing but sensitive business material. See

Romero, 480 F.3d at 1246 (considering “the degree of and likelihood of injury” and “availability
of a less onerous alternative to sealing”).
The burden to demonstrate that sealing is warranted rests with the proponent, requiring that
it “‘describe the alleged harm it will suffer from any disclosure with a particular and specific
demonstration of fact, as distinguished from stereotyped and conclusory statements.’” See
PayCargo, LLC v. CargoSprint LLC, No. 19-CV-22995, 2021 WL 2072446, at *2 (S.D. Fla. May
24, 2021) (quoting Procaps S.A. v. Patheon Inc., No. 12-CV-24356, 2015 WL 4430955, at *6
(S.D. Fla. July 20, 2015)). A protective order or confidentiality designation “does not eliminate a
party’s burden to show good cause to overcome the common-law right of access if those materials
are then used as part of a pre-trial motion requiring judicial resolution of the merits.” See id. And

the court will not seal based on conclusory labels. See id.
On the required showing, the Court’s analysis is guided by decisions in this District holding
that the proponent of confidentiality must do more than label information sensitive or harmful. In
PayCargo, the court rejected a sealing request where the defendants argued disclosure would cause
competitive injury but “provided no basis” for that conclusion. See Paycargo, at *3. The court
held that “conclusory assertion[s]” of sensitivity and competitive injury “deprive[] the Court of
any facts (or evidence)” from which to find good cause. See id. Relatedly, in CRubin, the court
declined to seal merits briefs “in their entirety” on the sole asserted reason that they contain
“confidential and non-public information” absent a “compelling factual or legal basis.” See
CRubin, 2020 WL 2542629, at *2.
In this category, Genting describes Exhibits 47, 71, and 66 as internal correspondence
regarding intercompany financial allocations relating to a proposed sale transaction and

commercially sensitive information harmful in the event of a sale. See ECF No. [98] at 10, 12.
Plaintiff explains that 47 and 71 are communications regarding BBE’s corporate structure, the
related Genting-entity relationships in Bimini, and whether Genting Americas could retain sale
proceeds in light of BBE’s debt and more intercompany financial information. See ECF No. [107]
at 5-6. Plaintiff explains that, although the communications reference a term sheet tied to a
potential sale of BBE, the term sheet is not attached. See id. at 5. Plaintiff next explains that
Exhibit 66 is Genting’s communications with Spectrum Gaming Capital and Citi Bank, attaching
the 2023 Audited Financials for BBE and the RWBB Companies. See id. at 8. Plaintiff argues
that Exhibits 47, 71, and 66 are publicly available and/or disclosed to third parties. See id. As
previously stated, information that is already public cannot be retroactively cloaked in

confidentiality simply because it was produced in discovery. See OJ Commerce, 34 F.4th at 1246–
47; Synchrony Bank, 2022 WL 19300397, at *2 (allowing redacted versions publicly where
portions were already disclosed, with unredacted versions under seal). BBE and Genting’s
corporate structure is disclosed on the docket. See ECF No. [30]; ECF No. [89-2]. Additionally,
Genting waived its right to argue that BBE’s audited financial statements “for all years” should be
filed under seal as Genting “does not oppose the public filing of the 2023 BBE Audited Financial
Statements” because Plaintiff already “elected to file all previous years’ Audited Financial
Statements publicly on the docket[.]” See ECF No. [98] at n. 4. That public disclosure materially
reduces the privacy interest in keeping the existence of such materials from the public in this case.
Genting failed to meet its burden to show good cause that the entire documents must be sealed.
Accordingly, Exhibits 47, 66, and 71 shall be filed in accordance with the threshold redaction
ruling for the Disputed Exhibits.
For Exhibits 51–55 and 68,5 Genting’s descriptions identify intercompany allocation

discussions, resolutions, internal financial screenshots, and allocation charts. See id. at 10-11, 12.
On this record, Genting has not explained — beyond a generalized sensitivity characterization —
why targeted redactions would not sufficiently protect any legitimate proprietary interest or how
redacted disclosure would be harmful with the kind of exhibit-specific explanation that PayCargo
requires (i.e., what competitive or commercial injury is likely to occur and why). That is
particularly important at the pleading and amendment stage, where the public has a substantial
interest in understanding the evidentiary basis for allegations presented to the Court and where
sealing must be narrowly tailored. See Callahan, 17 F.4th at 1361–62; AbbVie, 713 F.3d at 62.
Given that the intercompany transfers are directly at issue in this matter, the Court finds that these
narrow redactions would protect the sensitive identifying information at issue while preserving the

exhibits’ usefulness for the Parties’ competing merits arguments. In line with PayCargo and
CRubin, the Court finds full sealing is not justified for these exhibits, but narrowly targeted

5 The Court notes that Exhibits 51-55 and 68 are all more than five years old. That age matters. Courts
applying the good-cause framework recognize that, as time passes, commercial and financial information
may cease to be competitively sensitive, reducing the likelihood of the “serious injury” needed to justify
sealing. The Eleventh Circuit in AbbVie expressly notes that depending on the particular circumstances of
a case, “the passage of time [may] reduce[] the likelihood” of competitive injury enough to shift the balance
such that public access exceeds the value of confidentiality. See AbbVie, 713 F.3d at 69. And in this
District, the court in Echevarria explained that even where pricing and revenue information could be
sensitive in the abstract, information over four years old “is just too old to create a competitive
disadvantage,” emphasizing that older financial information does not retain the same level of sensitivity.
Echevarria, 2024 WL 3969198, at *2. The Court, therefore, factors this temporal issue into its balancing
of interest.
redactions are. Accordingly, Exhibits 51-55 and 68 shall be filed in accordance with the threshold
redaction ruling for the exhibits.
According to Genting, Exhibit 616 involves “BBE’s gaming revenue and historical
financial results not made public.” See ECF No. [98] at 11. Plaintiff responds that Exhibit 61

consists of communications discussing “how to explain inaccurate financial information provided
to auditors.” See ECF No. [133] at 13. Plaintiff argues this information supports the allegations
in this case and shows that Genting “was actively concealing financial information from BBE’s
auditors.” See id. at 14. The Court agrees with Plaintiff’s rationale for not sealing the document.
While internal discussions regarding financials may be proprietary, Genting has not explained —
beyond a generalized sensitivity characterization — why public filing with targeted redactions
would not sufficiently protect any legitimate proprietary interest. Because the intercompany
transfers are directly at issue in this matter, the Court finds that these narrow redactions would
protect the sensitive identifying information at issue while preserving the exhibits’ usefulness for
the Parties’ competing merits arguments. Consistent with its ruling above and PayCargo and

CRubin, the Court finds full sealing is not justified for this exhibit; instead, it will require narrowly
tailored redactions. Accordingly, Exhibit 61 shall be filed in accordance with the threshold
redaction ruling for the exhibits.
Genting describes Exhibit 62 as auditor-related communications regarding BBE’s
financials and a description of internal financial process of non-party Genting Malaysia. See ECF
No. [98] at 11-12. Plaintiff responds that Exhibit 62 consists of communications whereby

6 The Court notes that Exhibits 61 and 62 are almost four years old. See AbbVie, 713 F.3d at 69 (noting
that depending on the particular circumstances of a case, “the passage of time [may] reduce[] the likelihood”
of competitive injury enough to shift the balance such that public access exceeds the value of
confidentiality); Echevarria, 2024 WL 3969198, at *2 (finding that information over four years old “is just
too old to create a competitive disadvantage,” emphasizing that older financial information does not retain
the same level of sensitivity). The Court again factors this temporal issue into its balancing of interest.
Genting’s personnel “attempts to explain several financial discrepancies discovered by BBE’s
auditors, including why the forecasts varied significantly from the actual results.” See ECF No.
[133] at 14. Again, while internal discussions regarding financials may be proprietary, Genting
has not explained — beyond a generalized sensitivity characterization — why public filing with

targeted redactions would not sufficiently protect any legitimate proprietary interest. Consistent
with its prior rulings, the Court finds that narrow redactions strike the right balance of protecting
the sensitive information at issue while preserving the exhibits’ usefulness for the Parties’
competing merits arguments. Accordingly, Exhibit 62 shall be filed in accordance with the
threshold redaction ruling for the exhibits.
Genting describes Exhibit 63 as communications regarding BBE’s 2023 budget containing
detailed nonpublic financial information. See ECF No. [98] at 12. Plaintiff responds that Exhibit
63 are communications whereby Genting’s personnel attach “BBE financials showing adjusted
EBITDA for 2019-2023” and “[t]he 2022 Net Revenues on those financials were higher than those
reflected in BBE 2022 Audited Financials.” See ECF No. [133] at 14. Plaintiff argues this

information supports the FAC and SAC’s allegations and “shows inaccuracies in BBE’s
financials.” See id. Again, Genting, as the proponent that must establish good cause for sealing,
offers only generalized assertions of sensitivity and does not explain why redactions of non-party
identifiers and line-item amounts would be insufficient. Given that the intercompany transfers and
financial accuracy issues are central to the pleadings, targeted redactions adequately protect any
legitimate proprietary interest while preserving public access to the merits. Accordingly, Exhibit
63 shall be filed in accordance with the threshold redaction ruling for the exhibits.
Genting describes Exhibit 67 as communications comparing BBE’s “internal models” and
“allocations to financial statements based on modeling.” See ECF No. [98] at 12. Plaintiff explains
that Exhibit 67 are Genting personnel communications explaining “that their files contain different
sets of financials, and that their internal Profit-and-Loss Statements contain variances from BBE’s
Audited Financials. Genting []explained that it uses BBE’s Audited Financials because that is what
[Plaintiff] had.” See ECF No. [133] at 14. Plaintiff argues this information supports the FAC and

SAC’s allegations and “shows inaccuracies in BBE’s financials, and Genting America’s efforts to
conceal same.” See id. This exhibit is similar to Exhibit 63 in that it purportedly shows financial
inaccuracies. Also similar to Exhibit 63’s analysis, the Court finds that Genting fails to show why
narrow redactions are insufficient and how this information would cause harm. Accordingly,
Exhibit 67 shall be filed in accordance with the threshold redaction ruling for the exhibits.
Next, Genting describes Exhibit 70 as communications discussing the valuation of
preferred shares in BBIH. See ECF No. [98] at 12. Plaintiff describes Exhibit 70 as containing
information about the valuation of BBIH’s shares, “deadlines to conduct an impairment assessment
of Bimini” and “a snapshot of money flowing in and out of BBE, the snapshot contains the date of
the transfer, the amounts, and the entity transferring money in and out of BBE.” See ECF No.

[107] at 10; ECF No. [133] at 15. Plaintiff argues that this exhibit shows “money being taken out
of BBE and into BSO or to BBIH is germane to showing dissipation of BBE’s assets.” See id. See
id. As this information is central to Plaintiff’s claims and Genting fails to sufficiently address why
filing under a full seal is necessary to protect its privacy interest, Exhibit 70 shall be filed in
accordance with the threshold redaction ruling for the exhibits.
Turning to Exhibit 79, Genting describes it as communications discussing a “2023 bonus
accrual worksheet which demonstrates individual compensation information.” See ECF No. [98]
at 13. Plaintiff does not dispute the description or the confidential nature of Exhibit 79 but argues
that full sealing is unnecessary and narrow redactions of individuals’ identities and salary
information. See ECF No. [107] at 2. Genting fails to argue that this information has any other
privacy implications other than non-party individual privacy concerns. Accordingly, Exhibit 79
shall be filed in accordance with the threshold redaction ruling for the exhibits.
As previously discussed, Exhibits 81 and 82 are 2017 bank reconciliation spreadsheets for

BBE containing line-item transfers, payments, and purchases of debit and credit amounts while
Exhibit 83 is a detailed 2018 general ledger reflecting transaction-level casino and hotel payments
involving non-party individuals, including names and personal bank identifiers.7 See ECF No.
[127] at 9-10; ECF No. [133] at 16-17. In addition to seeking to file these Exhibits under seal
because they involve information belonging to non-parties, Genting also seeks to file them under
seal as their own proprietary information. Plaintiff responds that Exhibits 81 and 82 disclose no
transaction descriptions, personal identifiers, or competitively sensitive details. See ECF No. [133]
at 16-17. Plaintiff also argues that the casino “winnings” are public information. See id. For the
reasons stated in Section A.i supra, the Court does not find persuasive Plaintiff’s argument that
the information contained within these exhibits are publicly available and the exhibits should,

therefore, be publicly filed. See id. With that said, Genting has not explained, beyond generalized
and conclusory statements, how redacted disclosures would be harmful with the kind of exhibit-
specific explanation that PayCargo requires (i.e., what competitive or commercial injury is likely
to occur and why) or why targeted redactions would not sufficiently protect any legitimate
proprietary interest. Consistent with the Court’s ruling above, Exhibits 81-83 will be subject to
the threshold redactions requirements prior to filing.

7 The Court notes that Exhibits 81 and 82 are at least eight years old and Exhibit 83 is about six years old.
As explained in the preceding footnotes, the Court factors this temporal issue into its balancing of interest.
As for Exhibit 85, which Genting describes as an image detailing Bowyer’s credit limit,
Genting seeks to maintain the document under seal because it involves non-parties’ information
(addressed above) and because it implicates its own financial proprietary information. See ECF
No. [127] at 11. For the reasons stated in Section A.i supra, the Court finds that the information

in Exhibit 85 is already public information. That public disclosure materially reduces Genting’s
own privacy interest in keeping the existence and general magnitude of Bowyer’s casino credit
and front-money status from the public record in this case. However, because Exhibit 85 may
contain other nonpublic financial particulars that are not reflected in the publicly filed Nevada
complaint and because Genting failed to meet its burden to show good cause that the entire
document must be sealed, Exhibit 85 shall be filed in accordance with the threshold redaction
ruling for the exhibits.
Finally, Genting describes Exhibit 868 as a board paper about proposed write-offs of
uncollectible debt, containing information about BBE’s financial condition and the names of non-
party individuals owing money to BBE. See ECF No. [127] at 11. Genting also seeks to protect

this document from disclosure, citing its own financial proprietary concerns. Once again, because
Genting failed to meet its burden to show good cause that the entire document must be sealed,
consistent with its prior ruling, Exhibit 86 shall be filed in accordance with the threshold redaction
ruling for the exhibits.
V. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the First Motion to Seal, ECF No. [86], is GRANTED in part and DENIED
in part and the Second Motion to Seal, ECF No. [127], is GRANTED in part and DENIED in
part as follows:

8 The Court notes that Exhibit 86 is five years old. As it has done for other exhibits, the Court factors this
temporal issue into its balancing of interest.
1. Plaintiff SHALL file the exhibits at issue (Exhibits 47-48, 51-55, 61-63, 66-71, 74-79,
81-83, and 85-86) as well as the Motion for Leave and the proposed SAC with the
following information redacted:
(1) names of non-party individuals and non-party entities and other personal

identifiers like addresses;
(2) financial amounts reflected in transaction-level entries reflecting BBE
and/or non-party transactions (including amounts paid, received, owed, or
written off); and
(3) bank account numbers and similar financial identifiers reflected in the
transaction records.
2. If, after applying the redactions required by this Order, an exhibit would be rendered
substantially unintelligible or the redactions would obscure nearly all substantive
content, Plaintiff SHALL instead file the exhibit under seal in its entirety. In that event,
Plaintiff SHALL file a publicly available placeholder identifying the exhibit, the basis

for sealing and explaining why redaction is not practicable, and a summary of the non-
sensitive portions of the exhibit.
3. The request to file Exhibits 50, 56-60, 64-65, 72, and 73 is DENIED as moot as the
Parties agree that these exhibits need not be filed under seal. Accordingly, Plaintiff
SHALL file these exhibits publicly on the docket.
4. Plaintiff shall comply with the provisions of this Order, making the necessary
redactions, and file all Exhibits no later than February 5, 2026.
CASE NO. 24-CV-23874-LENARD/Elfenbein

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida on January 26, 2026.

MARTY FULGUEIRA ELFENBEIN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ce: All Counsel of Record

27

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11246366. Public record. Not legal advice.