WARRINGTON
v.
PATEL
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.
A court has discretion to seal records, but this discretion is guided by a presumption of public access, which can be overcome by a showing of good cause.
Plaintiff sought to file a motion under seal. The proposed filing contained confidential business and financial information that the court had previou…
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 Presumption Of Public Access cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff Brad Warrington seeks to file a motion under seal. (Doc. 257.) [fn 1]
A court has discretion to determine which parts of the record should be sealed, but its discretion is guided by the presumption of public access. Perez-Guerrero v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 717 F. 3d 1224, 1235 (11th Cir. 2013). “Judges deliberate in private but issue public decisions after public arguments based on public records. . . . Any step that withdraws an element of the judicial process from public view makes the ensuing decision look more like fiat and requires rigorous justification." Id.
Good cause may overcome the presumption of public access. Romero v. Drummond Co., 480 F. 3d 1234, 1246 (11th Cir. 2007). In evaluating whether good cause exists, the court must balance the interest in public access against a party's interest in keeping the material confidential. Id. Considerations include whether allowing access would impair court functions or harm legitimate privacy interests, the degree and likelihood of injury if the documents are 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 restrictive alternative to sealing. Id.
Warrington has overcome the presumption of public access and shown good cause. Sealing is necessary because the proposed filing will include confidential business and financial information, which the Court has already determined should be protected from disclosure (see Doc. 174).
Accordingly, Warrington's Motion to Seal Motion (Doc. 257) is GRANTED. Warrington may file his proposed motion under seal, which will remain until 90 days after the case is closed and all appeals are exhausted.
ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on June 6, 2024.
Kyle C. Dudek United States Magistrate Judge
[fn 1]: Unless otherwise indicated, all internal quotation marks, citations, and alterations have been omitted in this and later citations.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Romero v. Drummond Co., Inc., 480 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2007)
- Perez-Guerrero v. U.S. Attorney General, 717 F.3d 1224 (11th Cir. 2013)