DOE K.R.

v.

CHOICE HOTELS

Case No: 6:23-cv-1012-JSS-LHP

ORDER (And Direction to Clerk of Court)

Before the Court is Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Seal and Memorandum of Law (Doc. No. 166), Defendants Choice Hotels, Choice Hotels International, Inc., Choice Hotels International Services Corp.'s (collectively, “Choice”) Motion to Seal Brief in Support of Plaintiff's Motion to Seal (Doc. No. 174), [fn¹] and Choice's redacted Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion to Seal (Doc. No. 175). On review,

and for the reasons that follow, the requests to seal the materials at issue in these filings will be DENIED without prejudice to refiling, as discussed below. [fn²]

As has been previously explained in this case, Doc. Nos. 145, 149, a party seeking to file a document under seal must address the applicable requirements set forth in Local Rule 1.11. The moving party must also satisfy the Eleventh Circuit's standard concerning the public's common law interest and right of access to inspect and copy judicial records. See, e.g., Chicago Trib. Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F. 3d 1304, 1311–12 (11th Cir. 2001); United States v. Rosenthal, 763 F. 2d 1291 (11th Cir. 1985). [fn³] ""[T]here is a presumptive right of public access to pretrial motions of a nondiscovery nature, whether preliminary or dispositive, and the material filed in connection therewith.” Romero v. Drummond Co., Inc., 480 F. 3d 1234, 1246 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting Leucadia, Inc. v. Applied Extrusion Techs., Inc., 998 F. 2d 157, 164 (3d Cir. 1993)). As the parties have previously been cautioned, the parties' confidentiality agreement alone does not authorize filing documents under seal, see Local Rule 1.11(a), and merely stating the information is confidential does not make it so for purposes of a motion to seal, see Doc. No. 145, at 7.

At present, Plaintiff seeks to file under seal in support of summary judgment briefing several of Choice's exhibits that Choice designated as confidential during discovery. Doc. No. 166. Because Plaintiff failed to adequately support the motion, the Court ordered Choice to file a brief in support. Doc. No. 169; Local Rule 1.11(c). Choice has now filed a motion to file under seal that supporting brief (Doc. No. 174), a copy of the brief under temporary seal (Doc. No. 174-1, see Local Rule 1.11(b)(8)), and a redacted copy of the brief on the public docket (Doc. No. 175).

Upon review, the Court discerns no legal basis for Choice's request to seal many of the materials at issue. For example, taking the motion to seal Choice's unredacted brief, a review of the redacted information reflects the identity of a third-party corporation and general information about Choice business practices and descriptions of programs and/or discussions regarding anti-trafficking efforts.

1246; Newman v. Graddick, 696 F. 2d 796, 803 (11th Cir. 1983)).

Doc. No. 174-1 (sealed). In its motion to seal, Choice fails to explain why the information would be entitled to protection under governing law - particularly at the summary judgment stage-and the Court questions Choice's representation that the redacted information constitutes “competitively-sensitive business" information subject to protection. Doc. No. 174. Notably, besides general legal standards, Choice cites no legal authority in support. See Doc. No. 174, at 4-5.

In addition, many of the summary judgment exhibits do not appear to be related to the third-party identified or the confidential business arrangements which Choice discusses in its brief, see, e.g., Doc. Nos. 166-3, 166-4, 166-6, 166-8, 166- 9, 166-10, 166-11, 166-13, but because Choice addresses these exhibits collectively and without individual analysis, the Court cannot be sure. Doc. Nos. 174, 175. However, to the extent that Choice claims that the email exhibits contain "confidential information, including competitively sensitive communications" and "proprietary business information,” the Court has serious doubts, considering that the sealed exhibits in large part discuss generalities and do not appear to contain any information that would be subject to sealing under governing law, particularly at the summary judgment stage of this case. See Doc. Nos. 166-3, 166-4, 166-6, 166- 8, 166-9, 166-10, 166-11, 166-13. [fn⁴] Further, insofar as Choice contends that the information contains personally identifiable information of third-party employees, Choice fails to explain why simple redaction of this information would not be appropriate, as it does not appear to have bearing on the substantive issues in this case. See Doc. No. 175, at 5; Doc. No. 174-1, at 5 (sealed). But again, Choice's contention that all this information is of no public concern is unavailing given the presumption of public access, and, as Choice acknowledges, most of the information is directly relevant to the substance of this case and the parties' respective arguments in this litigation. See Doc. No. 175, at 6; see also Doc. No. 145, at 7-8.

While it may be that a small category of the documents at issue may indeed qualify for sealing, e.g., Doc. No. 166-5, the Court declines to make that determination at this time given the deficiencies in Choice's briefing and the large swaths of information at issue. Further, Choice states in its brief that the third party (for which the identity has been redacted) "has a significant interest in establishing the confidentiality of any Email Exhibits in which [it] is a participant," and requests that the third party be given a chance to file a memorandum in support under Local Rule 1.11(c). Doc. No. 175, at 6-7. The Court questions the timeliness of this request, given that the third-party's deadline under Local Rule 1.11(c) has already expired with respect to Plaintiff's motion to seal. Doc. No. 166; Local Rule 1.11(c). However, given the deficiencies in Choice's own briefing, and in an abundance of caution, the Court will permit Choice, along with any interested third parties, to file a joint renewed motion supporting the request to seal the documents at issue, as set forth below.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: