ROGERS
v.
MINNESOTA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

M.D. Fla. | 2022-06-09
No. 8:07-cv-350
District Court, M.D. Florida (2022) Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court

This case is before the Court for consideration of Defendants’ unopposed motion to file documents under seal. (Doc. 72). Defendants recite that confidential documents were inadvertently filed as exhibits to Plaintiff’s reply brief in support of her motion to compel, and that those documents and the brief itself are within the scope of the parties’ confidentially agreement and also constitute confidential, proprietary, and sensitive industry information. (Doc. 72). Plaintiff does not oppose the motion to seal. The right of access to judicial records pursuant to common law is well established. See Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978).

Thus, when parties request an order restricting access to pleadings and evidence filed with the court, such a request warrants heightened scrutiny. Indeed, when a request for filing under seal is made, Eleventh Circuit precedent setting forth the governing standard and the public's interests, as well as the requirements of the Local Rules, should be addressed. See U.S. v. Rosenthal, 763 F. 2d 1291, 1293 (11th Cir. 1985); Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978); Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F. 3d 1304, 1311-12 (11th Cir. 2001); Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court for Norfolk County, 457 U.S. 596, 606-07 (1982); Microlumen, Inc. v. Allegrati, Case No. 8:07-cv-350-T-17TBM, 2007 WL 1247068 (M.D. Fla. April 30, 2007).

Upon a finding that the requirements of Local Rule 1.11 are satisfied, the unopposed motion to file documents under seal (Doc. 72) is GRANTED. In the interests of efficiency, the Clerk is directed to take all steps necessary to strike Plaintiff's reply and exhibits (Docs. 71, 71-1, 71-2 & 71-3) and to re-file them under seal. The documents shall remain sealed during the pendency of this action, including on appeal, if applicable, and the duration of the seal shall be governed by Local Rule 1.11. The parties are reminded that requests to seal documents warrant heightened scrutiny, and that they should make every effort to minimize such requests. DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on June 9, 2022.

SL ercsn

PHILIP R. LAMMENS

United States Magistrate Judge Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Zap Aviation, LLC v. NXT Jet, Inc. (M.D. Fla. 2025)
    …the filings at issue are entitled to protection prior version of the Local Rules and presented different circumstances because it was a patent infringement case. NXT cites one additional case, Microlumen, Inc. v. Allegrath, No. 8:07-cv-350-T-17TBM, 2007 WL 1247068 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 30, 2007), but that case not only did not address sealing at the summary judgment stage, but the court also denied the request to seal for failure to provide sufficient detail. ⁷ Although NXT's motions include a request to file unde…
  • Sesame Workshop v. SeaWorld Parks & Ent., Inc. (M.D. Fla. 2025)
    …(1978); Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1311-12 (11th Cir. 2001); Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court for Norfolk County, 457 U.S. 596, 606-07 (1982); Microlumen, Inc. v. Allegrati, Case No. 8:07-cv-350-T-17TBM, 2007 WL 1247068 (M.D. Fla. April 30, 2007). Upon due consideration, and for the reasons articulated in the Court's prior Order (Doc. 25), the undersigned finds that the requirements of Local Rule 1.11 are satisfied. The parties have demonstrated a sufficient basis…
  • Goldhoff v. Saunders (M.D. Fla. 2024)
    …(1978); Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1311-12 (11th Cir. 2001); Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court for Norfolk County, 457 U.S. 596, 606-07 (1982); Microlumen, Inc. v. Allegrati, Case No. 8:07-cv-350-T-17TBM, 2007 WL 1247068 (M.D. Fla. April 30, 2007). Local Rule 1.11(a) expressly provides: (a) PUBLIC RIGHT OF ACCESS. Because constitutional law and common law afford the public a qualified right of access to an item filed in connection with the adjudication…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw