SHULTZ
v.
MAHALATI
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 district court denied plaintiff's motion to seal records and protect confidential information on both procedural and substantive grounds. The court held that the plaintiff failed to comply with local rules and did not demonstrate good cause to overcome the strong common-law right of public access to judicial proceedings.
The motion was denied on four independent grounds: (1) non-compliance with Local Rule 1.08 regarding typeface, size, and spacing requirements; (2) non-compliance with Local Rule 3.01(a) requiring a legal memorandum; (3) non-compliance with Local Rule 1.11 requiring specific information about the items to be sealed; and (4) failure to show good cause on the merits to overcome the strong common-law right of access to judicial proceedings.
[1] A motion to seal records must comply with local rules regarding formatting, content, and supporting legal memoranda.
[2] A motion to seal must identify the specific item to be sealed and explain why sealing is necessary for the prosecution of claims or defenses.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”
Establishes the strong presumption of public access to judicial records and proceedings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Shultz filed a motion to seal records and protect confidential information in this case. The motion was referred to a magistrate judge for c…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Balancing Privacy Interests Against Public Access cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter is before the Court without oral argument on Plaintiff's Motion to Seal Records and Protect Confidential Information (Dkt. 8), filed on August 8, 2025. The motion has been referred to a magistrate judge for consideration.
The motion is denied without prejudice for four reasons. First, all pleadings, motions, and other papers filed in this Court must comply with the requirements of Local Rule 1.08. That rule requires filings to be typewritten papers, using certain typefaces and sizes. See Local Rule 1.08(a)-(b). The rule also requires the use of double-spacing for a filing's main text. See id. 1.08(a).
Second, Local Rule 3.01(a) requires that every motion "include-in a single document no longer than twenty-five pages inclusive of all parts a concise statement of the precise relief
requested, a statement of the basis for the request, and a legal memorandum supporting the request.” The motion does not include a legal memorandum and so does not comply with the requirements of Local Rule 3.01(a).
Third, the motion does not comply with the requirements of Local Rule 1.11. That rule requires parties who wish to seal an item to include certain information in any such motion, including (among other things) the item the litigant wishes sealed and the reason filing and sealing the item is necessary for prosecution of the party's claims or defenses. See Local Rule 1.11(b).
Fourth, the motion is due to be denied on the merits. “Once a matter is brought before a court for resolution,” says the Eleventh Circuit, "it is no longer solely the parties' case, but also the public's case.” Brown v. Advantage Eng'g, Inc., 960 F. 2d 1013, 1016 (11th Cir. 1992). The Eleventh Circuit has explained that "[t]he operations of the courts and the judicial conduct of judges are matters of utmost public concern and the common-law right of access to judicial proceedings, an essential component of our system of justice, is instrumental in securing the integrity of the process.” Romero v. Drummond Co., 480 F. 3d 1234, 1245 (11th Cir. 2007) (internal punctuation omitted) (quoting Landmark Commc'ns, Inc. v. Va., 435 U.S. 829, 839 (1978), and Chi. Trib. Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F. 3d 1304, 1311 (11th Cir. 2001)). "The common-law right of access includes the right to inspect and copy public records and documents.” Chi. Trib. Co., 263 F. 3d at
1311 (citing Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns. Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) (referencing specifically the right to inspect and copy "judicial records and documents.")).
"The 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." Romero, 480 F. 3d at 1245 (quoting Chi. Trib. Co., 263 F. 3d at 1313). In balancing these interests “courts consider, among other factors, 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.
Plaintiff has not shown good cause for sealing the complaint or any other filing here. He does not establish why the information he wishes to seal is required for the Court's adjudication of his claims. Nor does he discuss the interests the Eleventh Circuit identified in Romero. Nor does he establish there are no less onerous alternatives to sealing.
And to the extent that Plaintiff wishes to seal all or most of the filings in this matter, he must show that "the denial [of access] is necessitated by a compelling governmental interest, and is narrowly
tailored to that interest." Wilson v. Am. Motors Corp., 759 F. 2d 1568, 1571 (11th Cir. 1985) (citation omitted).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Seal Records and Protect Confidential Information (Dkt. 8) is
DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on August 13, 2025.
ROBERT M. NORWAY
United States Magistrate Judge
Copies to: Matthew Gary Shultz 8245 Curry Ford Road Orlando, Florida 32822
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (U.S. 1978)
- Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2001)
- Romero v. Drummond Co., Inc., 480 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2007)
- Brown v. Advantage Eng'g, Inc., 960 F.2d 1013 (11th Cir. 1992)