Local Access, LLC v. Peerless Network, Inc., 6:14-cv-00399

Plaintiffs Local Access, LLC and others moved to file seven deposition transcripts under seal in support of a motion for partial summary judgment.
Defendant Peerless Network had previously designated significant portions of those transcripts as “Confidential” under the case protective order.
The plaintiffs’ motion to file under seal was unopposed, but plaintiffs stated they did not necessarily agree the material was confidential.
Local Rule 1.09 requires detailed justification for sealing, including identification of items, reasons, alternatives, duration, and a memorandum of law.
The court applied the common-law right of access framework and the “good cause” balancing test from Eleventh Circuit precedent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the seven deposition transcripts should be filed under seal	Transcripts are designated “Confidential” and the parties agreed confidential material would be filed under seal	Designation of confidentiality supports sealing (implicit by designation)	Denied: plaintiffs failed to show good cause or explain why confidentiality outweighs public access; parties’ agreement to seal is immaterial

Romero v. Drummond Co., Inc., 480 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2007) (articulates common-law right of access and good-cause balancing test)
Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2001) (presumption of public access to judicial records and factors for balancing)
Landmark Commc'ns, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829 (1978) (public concern in court operations and judicial conduct)
Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) (right to inspect and copy public records and documents)
Brown v. Advantage Eng'g, Inc., 960 F.2d 1013 (11th Cir. 1992) (parties’ agreement to seal is immaterial to the public’s right of access)