TOHO CO., LTD.
v.
THE INDIVIDUALS, CORPORATIONS, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES, PARTNERSHIPS, AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED IN SCHEDULE A
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 district court denied plaintiff's sealed ex parte motion to keep court filings confidential, finding the plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause to overcome the presumption of public access to civil litigation. The court permitted plaintiff to refile the motion on the open docket.
Plaintiff did not meet its burden to establish good cause for sealing the motion. The court denied the sealed motion but granted plaintiff leave to refile it on the open docket.
[1] A court must balance the asserted right of access against a party's interest in keeping information confidential to determine if good cause exists to seal a filing.
[2] There is a general presumption that civil actions should be conducted publicly.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Once a matter is brought before a court for resolution, it is no longer solely the parties' case, but also the public's case.”
Establishes the foundational principle supporting the presumption of public access to litigation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff filed a sealed ex parte motion on December 11, 2025, seeking to keep certain court filings confidential. The court reviewed the motion and t…
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 Good Cause For Sealing cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiff's Sealed Ex Parte Motion (ECF 6) filed on December 11, 2025.
THE COURT has considered the motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is
ADJUDGED that the motion is DENIED with leave to refile on the open docket. “Once a matter is brought before a court for resolution, it is no longer solely the parties' case, but also the public's case.” Brown v. Advantage Eng’g., Inc., 960 F. 2d 1013, 1016 (11th Cir. 1992).
There is a “general presumption that criminal and civil actions should be conducted publicly.” FTC v. Abbvie Prods., LLC, 713 F. 3d 54, 62 (11th Cir. 2013)(quoting Chi. Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F. 3d 1304, 1311 (11th Cir. 2001)). To overcome the presumption in favor of access, the Court must examine whether Plaintiff has shown good cause. Romero v. Drummond Co., Inc., 480 F. 3d 1234, 1246 (11th Cir. 2007). This requires the Court
to "balance[] the asserted right of access against the other party's interest in keeping the information confidential.” Id. (quoting Chi. Tribune Co., 263 F. 3d at 1309). “Whether good cause exists is decided by the character and nature of the information in question.” Id. (quoting Chi. Tribune, 263 F. 3d at 1315). In this case, Plaintiff does not meet its burden to establish good cause why the Court should seal the motion. The Court, however, grants Plaintiff leave to file the motion on the open docket.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 21st of January 2026.
FEDERICO A. MORENO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2001)
- Romero v. Drummond Co., Inc., 480 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2007)
- Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Abbvie Prods. LLC, 713 F.3d 54 (11th Cir. 2013)
- Brown v. Advantage Eng'g, Inc., 960 F.2d 1013 (11th Cir. 1992)