1 

45085810v1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

NACSO NON-PROFIT BUSINESS 

LEAGUE INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION 

BUREAU, 

Defendant. 

Case No.: 0:20-CV-61010-AHS 

PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO FILE SUPPLEMENT TO IDENTIFY “DOE 

CORPORATION” ALLEGED AT PARAGRAPH 3 

OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT UNDER SEAL 

Plaintiff, Nacso Non-Profit Business League Inc. (“NACSO”), by and through undersigned 

counsel, respectfully requests entry of an order, pursuant to Local Rule 5.4, allowing Plaintiff to 

file under seal a supplement to identify the “Doe Corporation” alleged at paragraph 3 of the 

Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 14) against Defendants, Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”) 

and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the “CFPB”) (collectively, the “Defendants”). The 

CFPB does not oppose entry of such an order. The FTC has not yet been served with a summons 

in this action. In support, NACSO states as follows: 

1. An identification and description of each item proposed for sealing. By way of 

background, this case is about the Defendants’ alleged application of the Telemarketing Sales 

Rule, 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(a)(2)(ii) (the “TSR”) to members of NACSO, which include credit repair 

organizations. NACSO filed its Complaint seeking declaratory relief on May 21, 2020. Since that 

time, NACSO has obtained new information which flows from the CFPB’s non-public 

investigation of, and issuance of Civil Investigative Demands to, some of NACSO’s members. 

Case 0:20-cv-61010-AHS Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2020 Page 1 of 6
2 

45085810v1

This information reflects the Defendants’ substantive application of the TSR against members of 

NACSO. Substantive as-applied challenges may be brought up to six (6) years after the regulation 

was applied. See Florida Keys Citizens Coalition Inc. v. West, 996 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (S.D. Fla. 

1998). As such, on September 15, 2020, NACSO filed its Amended Complaint that alleges, inter 

alia, a member was issued a Civil Investigative Demand in April 2020. See Amended Complaint 

at ⁋ 3. This allegation addresses the Court’s jurisdiction and rebuts any contrary argument that may

be asserted by Defendants. However, in recognition of the generally non-public nature of these 

investigations, the Amended Complaint only identifies the member as “Doe Company” which was 

issued the Civil Investigative Demand in April 2020. See 12 C.F.R. § 1080.14 (“Bureau 

investigations generally are non-public.”); see also 12 U.S.C. § 5562(d)(1). 

Because the CFPB’s investigations “generally are non-public,” 12 C.F.R. § 1080.14, 

NACSO proposes to file a supplement under seal to reveal the identity of the NACSO member 

alleged at paragraph 3 of the Amended Complaint to have been the subject of the CFPB’s nonpublic investigation in order to avoid publically disclosing sensitive and confidential information 

to the detriment of the NACSO member. 

2. The reason that filing each item is necessary. The disclosure of the identity of the 

NACSO member which was the subject of the CFPB’s non-public investigation addresses the 

Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. 

3. The reason that sealing each item is necessary. The CFPB’s investigations, including 

the issuance of Civil Investigative Demands, “generally are non-public.” 12 U.S.C. § 1080.14. The 

disclosure of the identity of the NACSO member proposed for sealing must be sealed in order to 

protect the privacy of, and prevent injury to, the member. 

Case 0:20-cv-61010-AHS Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2020 Page 2 of 6
3 

45085810v1

4. The reason that a means other than sealing is unavailable or unsatisfactory to 

preserve the interest advanced by the movant in support of seal. NACSO is not aware of means 

other than those sought herein that would satisfactorily preserve or protect the interests asserted 

with respect to the NACSO member. 

5. A statement of the proposed duration of the seal. NACSO proposes the duration of the 

relief sought herein be for as long as necessary for the Court to consider and rule on the Amended 

Complaint’s request for declaratory judgment. 

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

The public’s right of access to judicial documents may be overcome by a showing of good 

cause by the party seeking protection. Romero v. Drummond Co., Inc., 480 F.3d 1234, 1246 (11th 

Cir. 2007); Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1313 (11th Cir. 

2001). Generally, good cause “signifies a sound basis or legitimate need to take judicial action.” 

In re Alexander Grant & Co. Litig., 820 F.2d 352, 355 (11th Cir. 1987). Whether good cause exists 

is “decided by the nature and character of the information in question.” Romero, 480 F.3d at 1246 

(quoting Chicago Tribue, 263 F.3d at 1315). “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. Research 

in Motion, Ltd., No. 6:120cv0498-Orl-22TBS, 2013 WL 4402833, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 15, 2013) 

(quoting Vista India, Inc. v. Raaga, LLC, No. 07-1262, 2008 WL 834399, at *2 (N.D.J. Mar. 27, 

2009)). Courts must also balance the competing interests of the protection of confidential 

information and the public’s right of access to the confidential information. See Chicago Tribune 

Co., 263 F.3d at 1313. Courts consider the following factors in balancing these interests: 

whether allowing access would impair court functions or harm legitimate privacy 

interests, the degree of an likelihood of injury if made public, the reliability of the 

information, whether there will be an opportunity to respond to the information, 

Case 0:20-cv-61010-AHS Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2020 Page 3 of 6
4 

45085810v1

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 1245. 

A party’s privacy interest in information is sufficient to overcome the public’s interest in 

accessing such information. Romero, 480 F.3d at 1246. And “[t]here is little question that 

disclosing the identity of targets of law-enforcement investigations can subject those identified to 

embarrassment and potentially more serious reputational harm.” SafeCard Services, Inc. v. S.E.C., 

926 F.2d 1197, 1206 (D.C. 1991) (citing Senate of Puerto Rico v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 823 F.2d 

574, 588 (D.C. 1987)). 

The factors weigh in favor of sealing the anticipated supplement to the Amended 

Complaint. In this declaratory action, NACSO intends to disclose, once the Court rules on this 

Motion to Seal, the identity of one of its members which was issued a Civil Investigative Demand 

as evidence in support of the Court’s jurisdiction. The parties recognize the general “non-public” 

nature of such investigations. The public disclosure of the NACSO member’s identity likely will 

subject the member to embarrassment and to reputational harm. In addition, allowing public access 

to the identity of the NACSO member could significantly harm the legitimate privacy interests the 

member has in protecting against the disclosure of its identity in the context of the CFPB’s 

investigation through this litigation. The likelihood of injury in the event of disclosure is almost 

certain, and the degree of that injury could be severe. 

The identity of the NACSO member does not concern public officials or public concerns, 

and the sealing of that identity would not impair the Court’s function. CFPB presumably is in 

possession of the identity of the NACSO member that CFPB issued a Civil Investigative Demand, 

and, in any event, NACSO does not seek to shield that information from Defendants. 

Case 0:20-cv-61010-AHS Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2020 Page 4 of 6
5 

45085810v1

Finally, there is no alternative to sealing the identity of the NACSO member subject to a 

non-public Civil Investigative Demand. A basis for this Court’s jurisdiction is established by the 

enforcement actions taken against the NACSO member by the CFPB. In light of the recognized 

“non-public” nature of Civil Investigative Demands and the irreparable harm that would result 

from the public disclosure of the identity of the NACSO member, the Court should exercise its 

discretion to seal the supplement that will be limited to the identification of the alleged “Doe 

Corporation” for the duration of the case. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Nacso Non-Profit Business League Inc. respectfully requests the 

Court to enter an order granting this Motion to Seal, directing NACSO to file its supplement to 

identify the “Doe Corporation” alleged at paragraph 3 of the Amended Complaint under seal, and 

awarding such other and further relied as this Court deems just and proper. 

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERRAL

Pursuant to Rule 7.1(a)(3) of the Local Rules, I certify that counsel for Plaintiff, Nacso 

Nonprofit Business League Inc., has conferred with counsel or Defendant, Consumer Financial 

Protection Bureau, in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised in this Motion. Counsel for 

Defendant has indicated that Defendant does not oppose this Motion. 

Dated: September 23, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ Beth-Ann E. Krimsky 

Beth-Ann E. Krimsky 

Florida Bar No. 968412 

Lawren A. Zann 

Florida Bar No. 42997 

GREENSPOON MARDER LLP 

200 E. Broward Blvd., Suite 1800 

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 

Tel: (954) 527-6296 

Fax: (954) 333-4027 

Counsel for Plaintiff 

Case 0:20-cv-61010-AHS Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2020 Page 5 of 6
6 

45085810v1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Motion to File Supplement to Identity “Doe 

Corporation” Alleged at Paragraph 3 of the Amended Complaint Under Seal was served on 

September 23, 2020, by transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF on all 

counsel of record. 

/s/ Beth-Ann E. Krimsky 

Beth-Ann E. Krimsky 

Case 0:20-cv-61010-AHS Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2020 Page 6 of 6