1925 Hooper LLC v. The National Association of Realtors
1:23-cv-05392
| N.D. Ga. | Jun 4, 2025|
Check Treatment|
Docket
1925 HOOPER LLC, et al.,
Vv.
THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF REALTORS, et al.,
Case 1:23-cv-05392-MHC Document184 Filed 06/04/25 Page1of6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
Plaintiffs,
CIVIL ACTION FILE
NO. 1:23-CV-5392-MHC
Defendants.
ORDER
This case comes before the Court on the Proposed Intervenors Don Gibson,
Laura Criss, John Meiners, and Daniel Umpa’s Motion for Leave to File Under
Seal [Doc. 177].
I.
LEGAL STANDARD
Although this Court permits “the sealing of documents that contain
information protected from disclosure by statute, personal information (such as
Social Security numbers), trade secrets, or sensitive security data,” the filing of
documents under seal is generally disfavored as all documents filed with the Court
are presumptively public. Standing Order Regarding Civil Litigation (“Standing
Order’) [Doc. 53] at 13-14. This is consistent with the United States Court of
Case 1:23-cv-05392-MHC Document184 Filed 06/04/25 Page 2of6
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s position that court records are presumptively
public: “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).
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has explained that “[t]he operations
of the courts and the judicial conduct of judges are matters of utmost public
concern and the common-law right of access to judicial proceedings, an essential
component of our system of justice, is instrumental in securing the integrity of the
process.” Romero v. Drummond Co., 480 F.3d 1234, 1245 (11th Cir. 2007)
(internal punctuation omitted) (quoting Landmark Comme’ns, Inc. v. Va., 435 U.S.
829, 839 and Chi. Trib. Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1311
(11th Cir. 2001)). “The common-law right of access includes the right to inspect
and copy public records and documents.” Chi. Trib. Co., 263 F.3d at 1311 (citing
Nixon v, Warner Comme’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) (referencing
specifically the right to inspect and copy “judicial records and documents.”)).
“Material filed in connection with any substantive pretrial motion, unrelated to
discovery, is subject to the common law right of access.” Romero, 480 F.3d at
1245. A substantive pretrial motion is “[a] motion that is presented to the court to
invoke its powers or affect its decisions, whether or not characterized as
2
Case 1:23-cv-05392-MHC Document184 Filed 06/04/25 Page 3of6
dispositive, [and it] is subject to the public right of access.” Id. at 1246 (quotation
marks and citation omitted). The common-law right of access, however, is not
absolute as it does not apply to all discovery materials. Id. at 1245; see also Chi.
Trib. Co., 263 F.3d at 1311.
A party seeking to have material sealed can overcome the common law right
of access by a showing of good cause where there exists “a sound basis or
legitimate need to take judicial action.” In re Alexander Grant & Co. Litig., 820
F.2d 352, 356 (11th Cir. 1987). Such good cause “is established by the moving
party when disclosure will cause the party to suffer a clearly defined and serious
injury.” NXP B.V. v. Rsch. In Motion, Ltd., No. 6:12-CV-498-ORL-22TBS, 2013
WL 4402833, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 15, 2013). A good cause determination
“requires balancing the asserted right of access against the other party’s interest in
keeping the information confidential.” Romero, 480 F.3d at 1246 (internal
punctuation omitted) (quoting Chi. Trib. Co., 263 F.3d at 1309); see also FED. R.
CIv. P. 26(c)(1)(G) (authorizing the trial court to issue a protective order upon a
showing of good cause “requiring that a trade secret or other confidential research,
development, or commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in a
specified way.”). Essentially, good cause exists where “[a] party’s privacy or
Case 1:23-cv-05392-MHC Document184 Filed 06/04/25 Page 4of6
proprietary interest in information ... overcomes the interest of the public in
accessing the information.” Romero, 480 F.3d at 1246.
The decision of whether good cause exists rests with the sound discretion of
the district court judge, is based on the “nature and character of the information in
question,” and “should be informed by a sensitive appreciation of the
circumstances that led to the production of the particular document in question.”
Chi. Trib. Co., 263 F.3d at 1311, 1315 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 603) (internal
punctuation omitted). Factors for the Court’s consideration in making such a
determination include
whether allowing access would impair court functions or harm
legitimate privacy interests, the degree of and likelihood of injury if
made public, the reliability of the information, whether there will be an
opportunity to respond to the information, whether the information
concerns public officials or public concerns, and the availability of a
less onerous alternative to sealing the documents.
Romero, 480 F.3d at 1246 (citation omitted).
II. DISCUSSION
In their motion to seal, the Proposed Intervenors seek to seal portions of a
proposed Surreply in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Settlements with Defendants Weichert of North America, Inc., and eXp World
Holdings, Inc., along with four accompanying exhibits: Docket Numbers 176 and
176-1 through 176-4. The Proposed Intervenors seek to protect non-public
4
Case 1:23-cv-05392-MHC Document184 Filed 06/04/25 Page5of6
information about settlement communications between the parties. No party has
filed any opposition to any of the motion to seal.
This Court finds that the parties’ legitimate interests protecting non-public
settlement agreements outweigh the public right of access to that information. See
Chemence Med. Products, Inc. v. Medline Indus., Inc., No. 1:13-CV-500-TWT,
2015 WL 149984, at *5 (N_D. Ga. Jan. 12, 2015) (granting motions to seal, inter
alia, exhibits with “terms of a confidential agreement,” and “information regarding
confidential business negotiations.”); Graphic Packaging Int’], Inc, v. C.W.
Zumbiel Co., No. 3:10-CV-891-J-JBT, 2010 WL 6790538, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Oct.
28, 2010) (“Courts have found that a company’s interest in the privacy of... the
terms of confidential agreements . . . often outweigh the public right of access.”).
Further, the Court finds that the publicly available versions of the documents at
issue represent the least onerous manner of protecting the information. See
MEDAL Inc., 2012 WL 2512007, at *2 (“[T]here is not a ‘less onerous’ alternative
to sealing the documents that would ensure its contents remain confidential while
allowing the Court to review it as necessary to reach a decision on the merits.”)
I. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the Proposed
Intervenors Don Gibson, Laura Criss, John Meiners, and Daniel Umpa’s Motion
5
Case 1:23-cv-05392-MHC Document184 Filed 06/04/25 Page 6of6
for Leave to File Under Seal [Doc. 177] is GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED
to maintain Docket Numbers 176 and 176-1 through 176-4 under seal.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of June, 2025.
Muah I lilo
MARK H. COHEN
United States District Judge