Case Information
*1 U N ITED STA TES D ISTR ICT C O URT SO UTH ERN DISTR ICT O F FLO R IDA M IAM I DIV ISIO N
CA SE N O. 12-24449-C1V -11m 6 VICTORIA G IRALD O and V ICTORIA
GIM LDO,
Plaintiffs,
BAL HARBOUR QUARZ ,0 LLC, JUAN G.
ARCIL ,A CARLO S M AH ECHA , SYNERGY
CAPITAL G RO UP, LLC, OA DEVELOPM ENTS,
INC., LUN A D EV ELOPM ENTS GROUP, LLC,
Defendants.
/
ORDER DENYING STIPULATED M OTION FOR ENTRY OF STIPULATED CO NFID EN TIA LITY O RD ER
TH IS CA U SE com es before the Court upon the parties' Stipulated M otion for Entry of Stipulated Confidentiality Order (the ûiM otion'') (DE 103), filed August 14, 2015. Therein, the parties submitted a proposed Stipulated Confidentiality Order (DE 103-1), which they would have govern discovery and other proceedings during this litigation.
A fter a review of the parties' M otion and proposed order, the Court finds that the parties have offered no com pelling basis to overturn the Court's long-standing principle and practice of m aintaining Court proceedings and docum ents as public. tû-l-he Federal *2 Judiciary has zealously protected the right of al1 citizens to free, open and public trials.'' Dorsman v. Glazer, No. 03-22861, 2004 W L 1368866, at # 1(S.D. Fla. M ar. 10, 2004), Open judicial proceedings are rooted in ç:gtlhe principle that justice cannot survive behind w alls of silence,'' and in lsthe (Anglo-Am erican distrust for secret trials.''' Sheppard v. sfaxwell, 384 U,S. 333, 349 (1966) (quoting In re Oliver, 333U.S. 257, 268 (1948)). Except in rare instances, it is the right of every A m erican to see the public's business 1 d this precedent conducted in an open forum. Un er , judicial documents are presumptively available to the public but m ay be sealed if the right to access is outw eighed by other higher interests favoring non-disclosure. See Nixon v.Warner Comm c 'ns, Inc., 435 U .S. 589, 602 (1978). This Court has broad discretion in evaluating such a m otion. In re Alexander Grant t:t Co. Litig., 820 F.2d 352, 357 (1 1th Cir. 1987). llcases have been closed on rare occasions w here, for example, disclosure of certain inform ation w ould threaten national security or place an individual in grave physical danger.'' D orsm an, 2004 W L 1368866, at *2.
Such rare occasions are not present in the above-styled action, which arises out of an alleged Ponzi schem e. Though the public has no First A m endm ent right of access to pretrial discovery m aterials, the parties m ust show good cause for a protective order. In re Alexander Grant (:t' Co. L itig., 820 F.2d at 357. W hile the M otion itself m akes no effort to justify its entry, the Court can glean from a review of the proposed Stipulated l The State of Florida in 1967, enshrined the sam e principle by passage of Florida's Governm ent in Sunshine Law , the expansive scope of which was confirm ed by this Judge in Berns v. City ofM iami Beach, (unpublished opinion), aff'd 231 So. 2d 847 (F1a. 3d DCA 1970), writ discharged by 245 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1971).
Confidentiality Order that the parties are concerned certain discovery requests Stm ay require disclosure of inform ation and production of docum ents com prom ising consdential comm ercial, proprietary, trade secret, personnel and/or financial inform ation.'' See D E 103- 1 at 1. These sw eeping statem ents are insufficient to show good cause for the pum oses of a protective order.
ln addition, the parties elected to seek (and defend) relief in a publicly operated forum , nam ely the United States D istrict Court for the Southern D istrict of Florida. The proceedings held in federal and state courts are open to public observation by any interested party. Pursuant to Local Rule 5.4 for the Southern D istrict of Florida, absent some extraordinary need for secrecy, the judicial acts performed should be open to public scrutiny . 2
The Court tsnds that the parties have not shown good cause to justify their desire for secrecy. Therefore, the Court cannot, and does not, approve the entry of a stipulated conidentiality order.
2 ûiunless otherw ise provided by law Court rule, or Court order, proceedings in the United States D istrict Court are public and Court filings are m atters of public record.'' S.D. Fla. L.R. 5.4(a).
3
A ccordingly, it is O R DERED, ADJU DG ED and DECR EED that the parties' Stipulated M otion for Entry of Stipulated Consdentiality Order (DE 103) be, and the sam e is, hereby D EN IED .
DO N E and O RD ER ED in Cham bers at the Jam es Lawrence K ing Federal Justice Building and U nited States D istrict Courthouse, M iam i, Florida, this 18th day of August, 2015.
J M ES LA W NCE K IN G ITED STA TES DISTRICT D GE SOU THERN D ISTRICT OF ORIDA Cc: A 11 counsel of Record