UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-21240-Civ-SCOLA/TORRES

GLOBAL LIFE TECHNOLOGIES

CORP., a Delaware corporation, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

MEDLINE INDUSTRIES, L.P.,

Defendant.

 / 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL AND

MAINTAIN CONFIDENTIALITY

This matter is before the Court on Medline Industries, L.P.’s (“Medline” or 

“Defendant”) unopposed motion to maintain the retraction status of the hearing 

transcript of March 23, 2022 [D.E. 67], as well as on Medline’s motions to seal the 

Declaration of Alan Cecola dated August 4, 2022 [D.E. 71], and to approve certain 

redactions to the hearing transcript of July 7, 2022 [D.E. 74]. Global Life 

Technologies Corp. (“GLTC” or “Plaintiff”) filed timely responses in opposition 

[D.E. 75] [D.E. 79], to which Medline did not reply. Therefore, Defendant’s motions 

are now ripe for disposition.1 After careful consideration of the motions, responses, 

relevant authority, and for the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motions are

GRANTED. 

1 On March 18 and August 5, 2022, the Honorable Darrin P. Gayles referred the 

subject Motions to the Undersigned Magistrate for disposition. [D.E. 51], [D.E. 76]. 

Case 1:20-cv-21240-RNS Document 85 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 1 of 5
I. ANALYSIS

GLTC, a company involved in the manufacturing of pharmaceutical products, 

brought this action against Medline, a competitor, seeking enforcement of a 

settlement agreement executed by the parties in a patent infringement case that 

GLTC previously filed against Medline. According to GLTC, Defendant has 

continued to sell certain nasal swabs in breach of the terms of the settlement 

agreement. [D.E. 40-1]. During the course of the proceedings, this Court has 

granted both parties leave to file their briefs under seal, [D.E. 38] [D.E. 54], and has 

held two hearings relevant to the motions at hand, one on March 23, 2022, and one 

on July 7, 2022.

Defendant first moves this Court for an order directing the Clerk to maintain 

the docket restriction that has been applied to the transcript of the hearing held on 

March 23, 2022, [D.E. 60]. Plaintiff did not file a response in opposition to 

Defendant’s motion. Medline asserts that the transcript reflects information that 

the parties have designated confidential, including extensive discussions on the 

substance of the confidential settlement agreement between the parties. After 

careful review of the motion and the hearing transcript, we find good cause to 

maintain the restriction of the transcript. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is 

GRANTED.

Next, Medline moves this Court for an order that allows it to file the 

declaration of its Vice President of Product Management, Alana Cecola, under seal. 

[D.E. 71]. Because the motion makes a sufficient showing that the order to seal is 

Case 1:20-cv-21240-RNS Document 85 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 2 of 5
warranted, and Plaintiff has failed to provide good cause to rule otherwise, we grant 

Defendant’s motion. 

First, and as noted earlier, this Court has previously granted the parties leave 

to file their respective briefs under seal in this case, [D.E. 38] [D.E. 54], and Plaintiff’s 

opposition falls short of establishing good cause to depart from our prior

determinations on the confidential contents of the materials at issue. Second, and 

contrary to Plaintiff’s claims, Medline’s motion does articulate multiple reasons 

justifying the filing under seal. Among other things, Medline posits that Ms. 

Cecola’s declaration discusses confidential information regarding Medline’s hold 

implementation and operating procedures, as well as sales volumes information, 

competitive pricing details, number of distribution centers, and settlement 

agreement provisions that the parties designated as confidential. [D.E. 71 at 2]. 

After full consideration of the arguments presented, we are not persuaded by 

Plaintiff’s conclusory view that this seemingly sensitive business information does 

not warrant confidentiality protection at this point in time. See MSP Recovery 

Claims, Series LLC v. Ameriprise Ins. Co., No. 17-Civ-24033, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

2941, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 8, 2018) (sealing of information proper where “there is a 

possibility that” its disclosure would adversely affect Plaintiff’s business). 

Indeed, a balancing of the competing interests presented by the parties weighs 

clearly in favor of granting Defendant’s motion to seal. See F.T.C. v. AbbVie Prod. 

LLC, 713 F.3d 54, 62 (11th Cir. 2013) (“The test for whether a judicial record can be 

withheld from the public is a balancing test that weighs ‘the competing interests of 

Case 1:20-cv-21240-RNS Document 85 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 3 of 5
the parties’”) (citation omitted). Medline has articulated material concerns about 

the public disclosure of what is potentially sensitive and competitive business

information. Plaintiff, on the other hand, unsuccessfully tries to overcome this 

confidentiality interest by making generalized references to principles of public 

access and fails to identify any tangible prejudice that would result from the sealing 

of Ms. Cecola’s declaration: Plaintiff will receive a copy of the full declaration, and 

the public will have access to a redacted version filed on the Court’s public docket. 

As such, we hold that Medline has made a sufficient showing of good cause to warrant 

the filing of Ms. Cecola’s declaration under seal.

Yet the Court does not agree with Medline’s view that the declaration must be 

deemed “permanently sealed.” [D.E. 71 at 3]. Rather, the declaration will remain 

sealed until this Court determines, pursuant to good cause, that unsealing the 

declaration and removing its confidentiality designation is warranted. 

Furthermore, Defendant must serve a copy of Ms. Cecola’s declaration on Plaintiff 

and file a redacted version of the declaration on the public docket.

Finally, and for the same reasons discussed above, Medline’s motion to retain 

the restricted status of the hearing transcript of July 7, 2022, [D.E. 74] is GRANTED. 

A review of the motion and the transcript reveals that the proposed redactions are 

narrowly tailored to information the parties have previously designated confidential 

and that are consistent with this Court’s prior orders allowing for the filing of 

documents under seal in this action. See [D.E. 38] [D.E. 54]. As such, we find that,

at this point in time, the transcript warrants confidentiality protection. 

Case 1:20-cv-21240-RNS Document 85 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 4 of 5
II. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Medline’s motions are GRANTED as follows:

1. The unopposed motion to retain the restricted status of the hearing 

transcript of March 3, 2022, [D.E. 67], is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court 

is directed to maintain the restriction on the unredacted transcript on the 

docket (i.e., [D.E. 60]) and to remove the restriction only as to the redacted 

copy (i.e., [D.E. 61]). 

2. Defendant’s motion to file Ms. Cecola’s declaration under seal, [D.E. 71], is 

GRANTED. Defendant must serve an unredacted copy of the declaration 

on Plaintiff and file a redacted version of the declaration on the Court’s 

public docket. 

3. Defendant’s motion to retain the restricted status of the hearing transcript 

of July 7, 2022, [D.E. 74], is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to 

maintain the restriction on the unredacted transcript on the docket 

(i.e., [D.E. 69]) and to remove the restriction only as to the redacted copy 

that Medline provided to the Clerk. [D.E. 74 at 4]. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 29th day of 

November, 2022.

/s/ Edwin G. Torres 

 EDWIN G. TORRES

 United States Magistrate Judge

 

Case 1:20-cv-21240-RNS Document 85 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 5 of 5