# Opinion

> District Court, M.D. Florida · July 14, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11412220

## Case

- **Full name:** Draken International, LLC v. Denel SOC Ltd.
- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Florida
- **Decided:** July 14, 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/11412220

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11412220. Public record. Not legal advice.