TINA BROWN
v.
BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INC. AND BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court granted BP Defendants' motion to maintain sealing of discovery materials, including an expert report by Dr. Naomi Oreskes and a sealed hearing transcript, following case closure, despite plaintiff's opposition to sealing the expert report.
The court granted defendants' motion to maintain the seal on both the Oreskes expert report and the sealed hearing transcript, ordering that both documents remain under seal absent further court order.
“[M]aterial filed with discovery motions is not subject to the common-law right of access”
Establishes the legal foundation for sealing discovery materials and denying public access rights
This case involves a dispute between Tina Brown (plaintiff) and BP Exploration & Production Inc. and BP America Production Company (defendants). Durin…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
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 . . . ."). It 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.
Uslis Hexan Price LESLIE HOFFMAN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record
-2-
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2001)