UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-22423-CV-UNGARO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE REID

SH GROUP GLOBAL IP HOLDINGS, L.C.C., 

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, 

v. 

2399 COLLINS AVENUE CONDOMINIUM 

ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida corporation, 

and JOHN P. BOSTANY, an Individual, 

 Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. 

______________________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SEAL [ECF No. 58]

This matter is before the Court on Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs 2399 Avenue 

Condominium Association, Inc. and John P. Bostany’s Motion to Seal. [ECF No. 58]. This cause 

has been referred to the Undersigned to take all necessary and proper action as required by law 

with respect to the Motion. [ECF No. 43]. 

In the Motion, Defendants seek to seal certain statements in Declarations made by Nicole 

Salcedo [ECF No. 46] and John P. Bostany [ECF No. 47], filed in response to Plaintiff’s Motion 

to Compel. Defendants state that these statements contain attorney-client privileged 

communications with their counsel regarding documents sought by Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel

and that the communications were inadvertently disclosed. 

A hearing was held on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and Defendants’ Motion to Seal on 

November 12, 2020 [ECF No. 69] and the Motion to Seal was also discussed at a second hearing 

regarding discovery matters before the Undersigned on December 16, 2020, where the 

Case 1:20-cv-22423-UU Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2020 Page 1 of 3
2 

Undersigned orally denied the Motion to Seal. [ECF No. 79]. However, upon further consideration, 

the Motion [ECF No. 58] should instead be GRANTED. 

There are two reasons for this change. First, now that the Motion to Compel and the 

payment of Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees related to that motion has been resolved, the Declarations 

and the statements made in them are no longer relevant to this case and have no bearing on the 

claims or defenses of either party. Second, a further review of the pleadings and the Eleventh 

Circuit’s binding holding in Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 

1311-13 (11th Cir. 2001), reveals that the proposed sealed material is not subject to the commonlaw right of public access because it was filed in connection with a discovery motion, rather than 

in connection with a pretrial motion that required judicial resolution of the merits of the case. As 

such, sealing the Declarations is proper when balancing the respective interests of the parties. 

In opposition to the Motion to Seal, Plaintiff argues that the Motion: (1) was incorrectly 

filed in violation of the Local Rules; (2) is not protected by attorney-client privilege or waived 

such privilege; and (3) that Plaintiff would be prejudiced by sealing the statements because they 

“go to the heart of the issues the Court must determine in deciding the Motion to Compel” and

Defendants cannot use them as both a sword to defend against the Motion to Compel, while also 

hiding behind the shield of the privilege to protect themselves. [ECF No. 62]. 

Plaintiff’s first argument is that the Motion to Seal fails to comply with S.D. Fla. L.R. 5.4 

because the Motion was not filed on the public docket, was inadvertently not served on Plaintiff 

until some time after it was filed, and did not contain all content required under 5.4(b)(1), such as 

the duration for which the material should be sealed and an adequate basis for sealing such filings. 

Plaintiff is correct; however, Defendants’ non-compliance was inadvertent and did not prejudice 

Case 1:20-cv-22423-UU Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2020 Page 2 of 3
3 

Plaintiff because it was cured shortly after the Motion to Seal was filed. Thus, this non-compliance

does not require denial. 

Plaintiff’s second argument is that the Motion to Seal should be denied because the 

statements from the Declarations are not protected by attorney-client privilege or waived such 

privilege. Plaintiff states that “the Declarations merely confirm that SH Group should never have 

had to file the Motion to Compel, thus going to the heart of the issues the Court must determine in 

deciding the Motion to Compel.” Similarly, Plaintiff’s third argument is that Plaintiff would be 

prejudiced by the sealing of the statements in the Declarations because of it would be unfair to 

allow Defendants to use them as both as sword and a shield as they relate to the then-pending 

Motion to Compel. 

However, as previously mentioned, because the Motion to Compel was granted and the 

issue of attorneys’ fees incurred by Plaintiff has been resolved, any prejudice has been remedied. 

Further, the fact that the statements go to the heart of the Motion to Compel, as opposed to the 

substantive claims or defenses in the case, favors sealing them pursuant to the Eleventh Circuit in 

Chicago Tribune, 263 F.3d at 1312-13. Thus, while prejudice to Plaintiff may have been a 

sufficient basis to deny the Motion to Seal when it was first filed, these arguments can no longer 

support the denial of the Motion. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion to Seal [ECF No. 58] is 

GRANTED, and that the Declarations remain under seal until further ordered by the Court. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of December, 2020. 

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

cc: U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro; and 

All Counsel of Record via CM/ECF

Case 1:20-cv-22423-UU Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2020 Page 3 of 3