DOE
v.
GRINDR, LLC
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 the plaintiff's unopposed motion to seal exhibits containing personal identifying information and settlement details.
Plaintiff sought to seal four exhibits attached to a motion for approval of a minor settlement. These exhibits contained personal identifying informat…
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 Right to Inspect and Copy Judicial Records cases and more on FLexlaw
MOTHER DOE, on behalf of JOHN DOE, Plaintiff, Case No. 5:23-cv-193-JA-PRL v.
GRINDR, LLC and GRINDR HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendants.
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff's unopposed motion (Doc. 55) to seal four exhibits that pertain to Plaintiffs motion (Doc. 57) for approval of a minor settlement. Plaintiff states that these exhibits contain personal identifying information of the minor and parent as well as the confidential settlement amount and payout schedule.
To seal a docketed item, such as a settlement agreement, a party must show good cause that is sufficient to overcome a "presumptive common law right to inspect and copy judicial records." United States v. Rosenthal, 763 F. 2d 1291, 1293 (11th Cir. 1985); see Romero v. Drummond Co., Inc., 480 F. 3d 1234, 1246 (11th Cir. 2007); see also M.D. Fla. Local Rule 1.11(a). A showing of good cause requires balancing the public right of access against the party's interest in keeping the information confidential. Romero, 480 F. 3d at 1246. In so balancing, courts consider factors including:
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.
Here, Plaintiff has shown good cause to seal the exhibits. Allowing access to the information would harm the minor's legitimate privacy interests given that the case involves allegations of sexual abuse. It appears that there is a high degree and likelihood of injury if the information is made public. And Plaintiff submits that less onerous options to sealing, such as redaction, are inadequate because the sensitive and confidential information is necessary for the Court to evaluate the settlement agreement.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 55) is granted. On or before May 6, 2025, Plaintiff shall file the exhibits under seal as a separate docket entry. The seal shall remain in place indefinitely.
DONE and ORDERED on May 1st, 2025.
JOHN ANTOON II
United States District Judge
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Romero v. Drummond Co., Inc., 480 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2007)
- United States v. Rosenthal, 763 F.2d 1291 (11th Cir. 1985)