800 Adept, Inc.v.Murex Securities, Ltd.

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando DivisionMay 26, 2006
Case No. 6:02-cv-1354-Orl-28DAB (M.D. Fla. May. 26, 2006)

Case No. 6:02-cv-1354-Orl-28DAB.

May 26, 2006


ORDER


DAVID BAKER, Magistrate Judge

This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motions filed herein:

MOTION: MOTION BY DEFENDANTS FOR LEAVE TO FILE LIMITED MATERIALS UNDER SEAL (Doc. No. 236)

FILED: May 19, 2006 THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED without prejudice.

MOTION: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CERTAAIN DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL (Doc. No. 241)

FILED: May 19, 2006 THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED without prejudice.

As is clear from the motions, and the response (Doc. No. 250), neither side believes that the majority of the documents sought to be submitted under seal are, in fact, truly confidential. Nevertheless, each side seeks to file documents under seal, even though they concede that the designations of confidentiality are probably not appropriate as to many of the documents. The Court has addressed this issue twice before, and each time it was made clear that filing under seal is not a matter of right but of grace and is available only upon a proper showing of necessity. The half-hearted showing here falls short of the mark.

It is apparent that the parties are competitors and some information relating to, for example, customer relationships, source code, or nonpublic financial documents, is truly confidential and worthy of submission under seal. Wholesale submission of depositions under seal because a deponent may have touched on one or two tender areas however, is clearly not warranted. One robin does not make it Spring. The Court trusts that counsel as experienced and professional as those involved here are capable of cooperating in the not-so-difficult task of reviewing the submissions with a fair minded eye, and tendering to the Court only that which truly merits sealing. The motions are denied, without prejudice to one more opportunity to resubmit.

MOTION: MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR MARKMAN RULING (Doc. No. 251)

MOTION: DEFENDANT'S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW "MOTION" AT DOC. NO. 238 (Doc. No. 252)

FILED: May 25, 2006 THEREON ORDERED GRANTED. FILED: May 25, 2006 THEREON ORDERED GRANTED.

The Memorandum docketed at Doc. No. 239 is deemed a combined motion and memorandum for partial summary judgment.

DONE and ORDERED.