Emess Capital, LLC v. Rothstein
841 F. Supp. 2d 1251
S.D. Fla.2012Background
- Magistrate Judge Goodman denied Emess Capital's two motions to seal and ordered unsealing of documents 85–88.
- Emess sought to seal its response to TD Bank's motion to compel and attached materials, plus its certificate of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement.
- Agreed Protective Order (DE 51) defines confidential information and lists non-confidential categories and limitations.
- Emess sought to seal four names of Emess's members/managers, arguing they are crime victims; only these names allegedly require protection.
- TD Bank opposed sealing, arguing the materials fall outside the protective order and that the four names are publicly available or otherwise not confidential.
- The court held the materials do not fall within the protective order, denied sealing, and directed the Clerk to unseal 85–88.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the materials fall within the protective order | Emess contends the materials are confidential under DE 51. | TD Bank asserts the materials are outside the protective order and redaction is unnecessary. | No; materials do not fall within the protective order. |
| Whether the four names are confidential crime-victim information | Emess seeks to redact four names as crime victims. | TD Bank argues names are not identified as victims and not covered by the order. | No; names are not confidential under the order given public availability. |
| Whether public availability overrides sealing considerations | Public interest supports sealing to protect victims. | Public records and prior disclosures make the information non-confidential. | Yes; publicly available information falls outside the protective order. |
| Whether redaction would be burdensome or prejudicial to filing | Redaction would protect confidentiality and not prejudice. | Redaction would be burdensome and hinder electronic filings. | Not dispositive; does not justify sealing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (protective orders and good cause standard for confidential material)
- Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108 (3d Cir. 1986) (principles governing confidentiality and discovery materials)
- Rushford v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 846 F.2d 249 (4th Cir. 1988) (non-dispositive materials filed with court and sealing considerations)
- Leucadia Inc. v. Applied Extrusion Techs., Inc., 998 F.2d 157 (3d Cir. 1993) (protective orders and confidential information standards)
- Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2001) (district court broad latitude to protect confidential discovery materials)
- Farnsworth v. Procter & Gamble Co., 758 F.2d 1545 (11th Cir. 1985) (good cause and balancing interests in protective orders)
- Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020 (11th Cir. 2004) (diversity and public-record considerations in pleadings)