RUIZ

v.

SHARKNINJA OPERATING LLC

BUSINESS RECORDS (Doc. No. 65) FILED: June 13, 2023

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. On May 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to Defendants’ Daubert motion to exclude the expert testimony of John Hyatt, Plaintiff’s expert. Doc. No. 58. See also Doc. No. 42. With the response, Plaintiff filed several exhibits, to include three placeholder exhibits for Defendant SharkNinja Operating LLC’s (“SharkNinja”) Design Qualification Test Procedure Report (“DQTP Report”) (Doc. No. 58-3); SharkNinja’s Ongoing Reliability Test Report (“ORT

Report”) (Doc. No. 58-4); and SharkNinja’s Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (“Construction FMEA”) (Doc. No. 58-5). Now, by the above-styled motion, SharkNinja seeks to have these documents filed under seal pursuant to Local Rule 1.11(d). Doc. No. 65. Plaintiff has filed a response stating that she has no opposition. Doc. No. 68. A party seeking to file a document under seal must address the applicable requirements set forth in Local Rule 1.11 and the Eleventh Circuit’s standard concerning the public’s common law interest to inspect and copy judicial records. See, e.g., Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F. 3d 1304, 1311-12 (11th Cir. 2001); U.S. v. Rosenthal, 763 F. 2d 1291 (11th Cir. 1985). Relevant here, “material filed with discovery motions is not subject to the common-law right of access,

whereas discovery material filed in connection with pretrial motions that require judicial resolution of the merits is subject to the common-law right[.]” Chicago Tribune, 263 F. 3d at 1312. “The right of access creates a rebuttable presumption in favor of openness of court records,” Gubarev v. Buzzfeed, Inc., 365 F. Supp. 3d 1250, 1256 (S.D. Fla. 2019), which “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. Whether good cause exists is decided by the nature and character of the information in question.” Romero v. Drummond Co., Inc., 480 F. 3d 1234, 1246 (11th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks, citation, and alterations omitted).¹ Here, because the exhibits SharkNinja wishes to file under seal are attached to a response to a Daubert motion—a pretrial motion requiring judicial resolution on the merits—the common law right of access applies. However, SharkNinja contends that the three documents at issue contain non-public, confidential business information about its business and products, and more specifically, product designs and testing, the results of such testing, and the methodologies implemented. Doc. No. 65, at 2, 4, 5. These documents have been marked “confidential” pursuant to the parties’ confidentiality agreement. Id. at 2. According to SharkNinja, public disclosure of these materials would be irreparably

Based on these representations, to which Plaintiff raises no objection, the Court finds that SharkNinja has demonstrated good cause to seal the exhibits at issue based on the proprietary nature of the documents, and that SharkNinja’s competitive interests could be harmed by public disclosure. Accordingly, the

Court will permit SharkNinja, at this stage of the litigation, to file the documents at issue under seal. See, e.g., Local Access, LLC v. Peerless Network, Inc., No. 6:14-cv- 399-Orl-40TBS, 2017 WL 2021761, at *3-4 (M.D. Fla. May 12, 2017); Mobile Shelter Sys.

USA, Inc. v. Grate Pallet Sols, LLC, No. 3:10-cv-978-J-37JBT, 2011 WL 5357843, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Nov.¹, 2011). Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. SharkNinja’s Motion to File Under Seal, Certain Confidential and

Proprietary Business Records (Doc. No. 65) is GRANTED. 2. On or before July 5, 2023, SharkNinja shall file under seal the DQTP Report (Doc. No. 58-3); ORT Report (Doc. No. 58-4); and Construction FMEA (Doc. No. 58-5). 3. After review of the documents, the Court may require that some or all of the information filed under seal be filed in the public record, if it determines that the documents are not properly subject to sealing. Otherwise, this seal shall not extend beyond ninety (90) days after the case is closed and all appeals exhausted. See Local Rule 1.11(f).? DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on June 27, 2023.

Lybut hegrar Hica

LESLIE AN PRICE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties

3.