SOUTHWEST FLORIDA VETERINARY SPECIALISTS INCORPORATED
v.
PETVET CARE CENTERS (FLORIDA), 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 defendant's motion to seal and redact a transcript, finding good cause to overcome the presumption of public access.
The defendant filed an unopposed motion to seal and redact a hearing transcript due to confidential information. The plaintiffs did not object to the …
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 To Judicial Records cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Redact and Seal Transcript of a hearing held on March 25, 2024. (Doc. 106.) Defendant asserts that sealing is necessary because the transcript discusses confidential information. (Doc. 109.) Defendant submits a table of proposed redactions (Doc. 109-2) so that the redacted transcript may be filed on the public docket. Defendant says an unredacted version may be filed under seal. Plaintiffs have no objection.
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.
Defendant has overcome the presumption of public access and shown good cause for filing the redacted transcript on the public docket and for filing the unredacted transcript under seal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(d).
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:
1. Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Redact and Seal Transcript of a hearing held on March 25, 2024 (Doc. 109) is GRANTED. The unredacted transcript of the March 25, 2024 hearing will be filed
2
UNDER SEAL. A redacted version, with the redactions outlined at Doc. 109-2, may be filed on the public docket.
2. The transcript will remain under seal until 90 days after the case is closed and all appeals are exhausted.
3. Sealed information may be retrieved on behalf of PetVet by the following authorized persons: Kristen L. Wegner and/or Drew Krieger; counsel for PetVet, mailing address: 1301 Riverplace Boulevard, Jacksonville, FL 32207, email addresses: [email protected], [email protected]; telephone number: (904) 792-8925.
ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on April 30, 2024.
Kyle C. Dudek United States Magistrate Judge
Copies: All Parties of Record Court reporter Shelli Kozachenko, [email protected]
3
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)