The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
EMMA ROBBINS,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No.: 8:25-cv-02688-CEH-AAS
DEAN LEWIS CAMPBELL,
Defendant,
/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Seal
(Doc. 60). In the motion, Plaintiff requests an order permitting her to file under seal
the Notice of Filing the Deposition Transcript and Exhibits of Dean Lewis Campbell.
Id. Plaintiff represents that the pertinent transcript and exhibits contain confidential
information. Id. The Court, having considered the motion and being fully advised in
the premises, will deny Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Seal.
DISCUSSION
“[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy . . .
judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597
(1978); see also Romero v. Drummond Co., Inc., 480 F.3d 1234, 1245 (11th Cir. 2007).
Documents filed in connection with a substantive pretrial motion, unrelated to
discovery, such as a motion for class certification, “[are] subject to the common law
right of access,” which includes the right to inspect and copy public records. Romero,
480 F.3d at 1245.
In some limited circumstances, a court has the discretion to permit materials to
be filed under seal. Romero, 480 F.3d at 1246. Such relief will only be granted upon a
showing of “good cause,” which requires balancing the asserted right of access against
the party’s interest in keeping the information confidential. See id. (describing
balancing considerations). Among other factors, courts consider
whether allowing access would impair court functions or
harm legitimate privacy interests, the degree of and
likelihood of injury if made public, the reliability of the
information, whether there will be an opportunity to
respond to the information, whether the information
concerns public officials or public concerns, and the
availability of a less onerous alternative to sealing the
documents.
Id. at 1246.
Here, Plaintiff’s request to seal is deficient for multiple reasons.
First, Plaintiff did not attach the documents she seeks to seal, as required by
Rule 1.11(b)(8) of the Middle District of Florida Local Rules. Without the ability to
review the documents, the Court cannot properly analyze Plaintiff’s request to seal.
Second, Plaintiff has not provided a specific reason explaining why the
documents need to be sealed. Instead, Plaintiff only provides a blanket, conclusory
statement that characterizes the documents as confidential. See Doc. 60 ¶ 1. Plaintiff
then states that disclosing the confidential information would violate the parties’
stipulated confidential agreement. Id. ¶ 2. However, the fact that the parties have
designated the documents as “confidential” is not a basis for sealing the documents.
The rules of this Court specifically provide that “[s]ealing is not authorized by a
confidentiality agreement, a protective order, a designation of confidentiality, or a
stipulation.” M.D. Fla. Local Rule 1.11(a); see also Reed v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc.,
8:17-cv-199-JDW-CPT, 2018 WL 5077179, *2 (M.D. Fla. April 17, 2018)
(Whittemore, J.), citing Brown v. Advantage Eng’g, 960 F.2d 1013, 1016 (11th Cir. 1992)
(“[t]he parties’ mutual agreement to keep documents confidential or to seal materials
is ‘immaterial’ to a court’s decision regarding the public’s right of access”).
Third, and finally, Plaintiff has not sufficiently shown that redaction is not a
viable, less burdensome means to protect the sensitive information. Plaintiff submits
she has taken reasonable steps to protect the confidentiality of the information, and
redaction is unreasonable given the volume of the documents. Doc. 60 ¶ 4. However,
Plaintiff has not detailed what specific steps she has taken to protect the sensitive
information or why the volume of the documents prohibits redacting only those parts
of the documents that the parties deem confidential. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request to
file the requested documents under seal lacks good cause and is due to be denied
because she has not shown that a less onerous means to protect the information is not
available.
The Court is cognizant that the Motion to Seal is unopposed, but the Court, as
the “primary representative of the public interest in the judicial process, is bound by
duty to review any request to seal the record (or part of it) and may not rubber stamp”
requests to seal. Mobile Shelter Sys. USA, Inc. v. Grate Pallet Sols., LLC, No. 3:10-cv-978-
RBD-JBT, 2011 WL 5357843, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 1, 2011) (internal quotation
marks and alterations omitted). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED:
Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion to Seal (Doc. 60) is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
DONE AND ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on August 24, 2026.
Charlene Edwards Honeywell
United States District Judge
Copies to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties, if any