SAN JUAN PRODUCTS, INC.

v.

RIVER POOLS & SPAS, INC.

Plaintiffs move to file two documents under seal that Defendant River Pools & Spas, Inc. designated as confidential pursuant to the parties’ protective order. (Motion, Dkt. 56.) Specifically, Plaintiffs seek to file under seal “(a) an unredacted version of Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in support of their Motion to Compel, for Forensic Examination, and For Sanctions, and (b) an unredacted version of a letter dated May 11, 2022 from Plaintiffs’ counsel to Defendants’ counsel, regarding an effort to resolve discovery disputes concerning requests for production of documents.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiffs assert that these items “are important and directly relevant to the determination of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, For Forensic Examination, and for Sanctions filed May 31, 2022.” (Id.) Defendant River Pools does not oppose the Motion. (Id. at 3.)

Under Local Rule 1.11(c), a party seeking to file any paper or other matter under seal if not authorized by a statute, rule, or order must: (1) must include in the title “Motion for Leave to File Under Seal”; (2) must describe the item proposed for sealing; (3) must state the reason: (A) filing the item is necessary, (B) sealing the item is necessary, and (C) partial sealing, redaction, or means other than sealing are unavailable or unsatisfactory; (4) must propose a duration of the seal; (5) must state the name, mailing address, email address, and telephone number of the person authorized to retrieve a sealed, tangible item; (6) must include a legal memorandum supporting the seal; but (7) must not include the item proposed for sealing. No order sealing any item shall extend beyond ninety days after a case is closed and all appeals exhausted. M.D. Fla. Local R. 1.11(f). Although a district court has “supervisory power over its own records and files,” that power must be used responsibly to balance the public’s right of access with interests favoring confidentiality. Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597–

Upon consideration, Plaintiffs have met the requirements of Local Rule 1.11 and have shown good cause as to why the identified documents should be filed under seal. Specifically, the items to be sealed are described in the Motion (Dkt. 56), and Plaintiffs have adequately explained why the documents must be filed under seal, as they contain information designated as confidential. See Barkley v. Pizza Hut of Am., Inc., No. 6:14-cv-376-ORL-37DAB, 2015 WL 5915817, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 8, 2015) (granting a motion to file under seal documents that contained confidential information regarding the party’s business operations and confidential and competitively sensitive information); Local Access, LLC v. Peerless Network, Inc., No. 6:14-cv-399-ORL-40TBS, 2015 WL 5897743, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 7, 2015) (“A party’s interest in the privacy of its financial records and the terms of confidential agreements oftentimes outweighs the public’s right of access.”). As such, the court finds good cause to permit the identified documents to be filed under seal. Accordingly: 1. Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion to Seal Under Court Order (Dkt. 56) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are permitted to file, and the Clerk is directed to accept under seal, the documents identified in the Motion. 2. The documents shall remain under seal for 90 days after the case is closed and all appeals are exhausted is granted. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on June 1, 2022.

/ . eo JUEIE $. SNEED

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record