Court filing
Order on Motion to Seal — Sport & Wheat CPA v. ServisFirst Bank (N.D. Fla. 2020) (N.D. Fla.)
Filed July 7, 2020 in Sport Wheat v. Servisfirst; one of 6 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2020-07-07 |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT · No. 3:20-cv-05425-TKW-HTC · Doc. 78 · 2020-07-07 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
Page 1 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
SPORT & WHEAT, CPA, PA,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 3:20cv5425-TKW-HTC
SERVISFIRST BANK, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Sport & Wheat, CPA, P.A.’s
motion for leave to file, under seal, certain text messages in connection with
Defendant Synovus Bank’s Motion to Terminate Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition. ECF
Doc. 63. Defendant Synovus Bank objects to the motion and, pursuant to the
Court’s request, has filed a written opposition. ECF Doc. 72. Upon consideration,
and for the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff is directed to submit the redacted text
messages and a complete unredacted set to the Court for in camera inspection.
I.
BACKGROUND
In the most basic terms, Plaintiff, an accounting firm, has sued Defendant for
agent fees Plaintiff alleges it is entitled to under the Coronavirus Aid Relief and
Economic Security Act, Pub. L. No. 116-136 (the “CARES Act”) for assisting a
Case 3:20-cv-05425-TKW-HTC Document 78 Filed 07/07/20 Page 1 of 6
Page 2 of 6
Case No. 3:20cv5425-TKW-HTC
borrower in obtaining a loan under the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”).
Before written discovery responses were due from the Plaintiff, Plaintiff sought to
take a 30(b)(6) deposition of Defendant, which was agreed to by Defendant. The
parties disagree as to the contours of that agreement and, although the deposition
proceeded, it was subsequently terminated by the Defendant after a few hours.
Four (4) days after terminating the deposition, Defendant filed a motion to
terminate under Rule 30(d)(3). One of the primary bases that Defendant raises for
terminating the deposition is that Plaintiff’s counsel sought to ask the deponent
questions relating to text messages, which (1) Plaintiff’s counsel had failed to
produce to Defendant’s counsel in advance of the deposition and (2) contained
redactions – thus, the deponent was deprived of seeing the entire document. That
motion has been set for hearing on July 9, 2020. In anticipation of that hearing,
Plaintiff filed a motion to seal, seeking to file under seal the complete set of the text
messages counsel has in its possession, which Plaintiff contends are relevant to the
Court’s resolution of Defendant’s motion to terminate.
II.
DISCUSSION
“[D]iscovery material filed in connection with pretrial motions that require
judicial resolution of the merits is subject to common-law right” of access to
judicial records. Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d
1304, 1312 (11th Cir. 2001). “There is also a constitutional right of access to
Case 3:20-cv-05425-TKW-HTC Document 78 Filed 07/07/20 Page 2 of 6
Page 3 of 6
Case No. 3:20cv5425-TKW-HTC
discovery materials submitted in connection with substantive motions, governed by
the same standard as the common-law right.” Suell v. United States, 32 F. Supp.
3d 1190, 1192 (S.D. Ala. 2014) (citing id. at 1310, 1313, 1315). “That standard is
‘the Rule 26 good cause balancing test.’” Id. at 1192 (citing Chicago Tribune, 263
F.3d at 1313). The party seeking to maintain secrecy “must establish good cause
for continued protection under Rule 26.” Chicago Tribune, 263 F.3d at 1313. “The
judge is the primary representative of the public interest in the judicial process and
is duty-bound therefore to review any request to seal the record (or part of it),” even
absent a motion to unseal. Suell, 32 F. Supp. 3d at 1192–93.
Pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may,
for good cause, issue a protective order to protect the parties “from annoyance,
embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense,” including “requiring a
trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information
not be revealed or be revealed only in a specified way” and “requiring that the
parties simultaneously file specified documents or information in sealed envelopes”
with the court. Tyndall Fed. Credit Union v. Ravin, No. 5:17-CV-160-MCR/GRJ,
2018 WL 7501291, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 19, 2018) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(c)(1)(G), (H)). Other privacy protections for personal information specified in
Rule 5.2 or additional information specified by the court for good cause must be
made through redactions or the court may order that a filing be made under seal
Case 3:20-cv-05425-TKW-HTC Document 78 Filed 07/07/20 Page 3 of 6
Page 4 of 6
Case No. 3:20cv5425-TKW-HTC
without redaction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(d), (e). Because the public retains a right
of access to documents filed in a court proceeding, courts will order that a particular
document be filed under seal only if authorized by statute or upon a showing of
good cause, after balancing the public's right of access against the parties'
confidentiality interests. See, generally, Romero v. Drummond, 480 F.3d 1234,
1245 (11th Cir. 2007) (citing Chicago Tribune, 263 F.3d at 1304).
Plaintiff seeks to file the text messages under seal because the documents
contain information relating to other persons who are not parties to the litigation,
contain medical information about third parties, and contain information between
Plaintiff and its clients, which are protected by the accountant-client privilege.
Defendant opposes having those documents filed under seal. Defendant argues that
Plaintiff has failed to set forth a sufficient basis justifying having the documents
filed under seal; that Plaintiff has yet to provide the Defendant with a complete set
of the documents; and that the texts messages are irrelevant to the Court’s
determination of Defendant’s motion to terminate.
As an initial matter, given that the redacted text messages and failure to
provide the text messages in advance of the deposition are two (2) grounds on which
the motion to terminate is based, the undersigned finds that the text messages could
be relevant to the Court’s determination of the motion to terminate. While the Court
understands Defendant’s position that the fact that the redactions were made is what
Case 3:20-cv-05425-TKW-HTC Document 78 Filed 07/07/20 Page 4 of 6
Page 5 of 6
Case No. 3:20cv5425-TKW-HTC
matters, and not necessarily the content of the redacted material, that content could
be relevant to whether Plaintiff acted in bad faith, which is one of the bases for
terminating the deposition. Thus, the Court find that it would be beneficial for the
Court to see the documents.
The Court notes, however, that it does not have sufficient information to find
the existence of good cause under Rule 26 for the documents to be filed under seal.
As a general matter, the Court cannot say that references to personal matters,
messages that might paint someone in a bad light, or text messages related to third
parties unrelated to this litigation are necessarily “good cause” for filing the
messages under seal. Likewise, the Court does not have sufficient information
before it to determine whether Fla. Stat. § 90.5055 applies or, as the Defendant
suggests, has been waived. Generally, such privilege considerations are addressed
ahead of time with a protective order and prior to a deposition where the documents
might be used.
Because the Court finds that the unredacted text messages will aid the Court
in resolving the motion to terminate and the Court finds that it has insufficient
information to grant the motion to seal, the Plaintiff is ordered to submit the text
messages to the Court for in camera inspection, both as they were redacted and
presented to the witness, and in unredacted form. The documents can be hand-
delivered to the clerk’s office or can be emailed to chambers at
Case 3:20-cv-05425-TKW-HTC Document 78 Filed 07/07/20 Page 5 of 6
Page 6 of 6
Case No. 3:20cv5425-TKW-HTC
flnd_cannon@flnd.uscourts.gov. The documents are due to the Court by close of
business July 8, 2020. Upon review, the Court will enter a ruling on the motion to
seal.
DONE AND ORDERED this 7th day of July, 2020.
s/ Hope Thai Cannon
HOPE THAI CANNON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:20-cv-05425-TKW-HTC Document 78 Filed 07/07/20 Page 6 of 6File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.flnd.190491.78.0.pdf
- Size
- 60,922 bytes
- SHA-256
- e00b25b025dc8b2e18de295b9f3b2233d52755461279b011a9d1838759a841e0
- Original
- storage.courtlistener.com