Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TAMPA DIVISION

DRAKEN INTERNATIONAL, LLC,

Plaintiff / Counter-Defendant,

v. Case No. 8:25-cv-2206-JSM-AAS

DENEL SOC LTD.,

Defendant / Counter-Plaintiff.

_______________________________________/

ORDER

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Denel SOC Ltd. (Denel) moves for leave to

file under seal the unredacted versions of its Opposition to Draken

International LLC’s Motion to Compel Production of Backup Tapes (the

Opposition) (Doc. 38), the Declaration of Thivian Vadivelu (Exhibit 2) (Doc. 38-

2), and the Declaration of Russel Brown (Exhibit 1) (Doc. 38-1). (Doc. 42). The

motion is unopposed.

The public has a common-law right to access judicial proceedings,

including the right to inspect and copy public records and court documents. See

Chicago Trib. Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1311 (11th Cir.

2001). However, “[t]he common law right of access may be overcome by a

showing of good cause, which requires balancing the asserted right of access

against the other party’s interest in keeping the information confidential.”

1

Romero v. Drummond Co., Inc., 480 F.3d 1234, 1246 (11th Cir. 2007). In

balancing a party’s interest in keeping the information confidential against the

public interest in accessing court documents, the court considers these factors:

(1) whether allowing access would impair court functions or

harm legitimate privacy interests;

(2) the degree and likelihood of injury if made public;

(3) the reliability of the information;

(4) whether there will be an opportunity to respond to the

information;

(5) whether the information concerns public officials or public

concerns; and

(6) the availability of a less onerous alternative to sealing the

documents.

Id.

Here, the party’s interest in keeping the information confidential

outweighs the common law right of access.1 The redacted portions of the

Opposition, Exhibit 1, and Exhibit 2 relate to the “a ransomware attack on

Denel’s data systems[,] . . . the architecture and vulnerabilities of Denel’s data

1 Denel argues the common-law right of access does not apply because the right of

access does not apply to materials filed with discovery motions. (Doc. 42, p. 5) (citing

Chicago Tribune, 263 F.3d at 1312−13 (11th Cir. 2001) (“[The] documents filed in

connection with motions to compel discovery are not subject to the common-law right

of access.”). However, even assuming the common-law right of access does apply

because “discovery material filed in connection with pretrial motions that require

judicial resolution on the merits is subject to the common-law right” the material is

still due to be sealed. Id.

2

environment, . . . and implicates South African national security interests.”

(Doc. 42, p. 4). If the redacted portions were made public, there is a high degree

of likelihood Denel would suffer injury. Further, Denel’s IT infrastructure and

efforts to combat the ransomware attack are not of public concern. See Johnson

v. E. Coast Waffles, No. 6:18-CV-608-JA-LHP, 2023 WL 6621050 at *2 (M.D.

Fla. Oct. 11, 2023) (granting the motion to seal where public disclosure of the

material created a potential security risk).

Therefore, filing the item is necessary, sealing the item is necessary, and

using a redaction, pseudonym, or a means other than sealing is unsatisfactory.

See Local Rule 1.11(b) M.D. Fla.

Accordingly, Denel’s motion to file the unredacted versions of the

Opposition, Exhibit 1, and Exhibit 2 (Doc. 42) is GRANTED.2 Denel is directed

to file the unredacted versions of the Opposition, Exhibit 1, and Exhibit 2 under

seal July 17, 2026. Absent a future order to the contrary, these documents will

remain under seal until ninety days after the case is closed and all appeals

exhausted. See Local Rule 1.11(e), M.D. Fla. To prevent the content of a sealed

item from appearing on the docket after the seal expires, a party or interested

2 The court notes that an exhibit sealed in relation to a motion does not automatically

remain sealed for the purpose of trial. Courts exercise discretion in determining

whether sealed exhibits should remain confidential during trial. In F.T.C. v. AbbVie

Products LLC, the court unsealed previously sealed documents after comparing the

parties’ interests and determining that the sensitivity of the information had

diminished over time. 713 F.3d 54, 71 (2013).

3

non-party must move for relief before the seal expires. Jd.

ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on July 14, 2026.

Aranda, Asnoth Sarang

AMANDA ARNOLD SANSONE

United States Magistrate Judge