Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

DOREEN TRUNNELL,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:11-cv-38-SPM-GRJ

ADVANCE STORES COMPANY, INC.

d/b/a ADVANCED AUTO PARTS,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion to Seal. (Doc. 42.) 

Defendant requests the Court to enter an order sealing certain nonparty pay and

personnel records, as well as Defendant’s region-specific pay scales, to the extent such

records are filed by Plaintiff in her anticipated motion for summary judgment, or by the

parties in response or reply memoranda. Plaintiff has not filed a response and the time

for doing so has passed. 

1

On September 30, 2011 the Court entered a protective order (Doc. 41), which

endorsed Defendant’s proposed Consent Order Governing the Protection and

Exchange of Confidential Information and Documents. Defendant advises that it has

produced certain nonparty pay and personnel records, which it contends are

confidential and must be filed under seal to the extent these documents need to be

considered by the Court in resolving motions for summary judgment.

Defendant advises in its motion that Defendant’s counsel conferred with counsel for Plaintiff and

1

that although Plaintiff’s counsel does not object to the filing of the motion, Plaintiff does not agree that

there is sufficient cause to seal the requested documents.

Case 1:11-cv-00038-SPM-GRJ Document 47 Filed 10/31/11 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

In determining whether materials filed in conjunction with a motion may be

sealed despite the presumptive common-law and/or First Amendment rights of access

to certain court records, the Court must assess whether there is good cause to seal the

records. See, e.g. Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304,

1310-15 (11 Cir. 2001). Legitimate privacy interests are implicated where, as here, the

th

records concern private individuals who are not parties to the lawsuit. Luzzi v. ATP

Tour, Inc., 2011 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 747796, *9 (M.D. Fla. 2011). 

The records produced in this case include compensation information,

performance evaluations, disciplinary notices, and wage information. In addition, the

records produced pursuant to the Confidentiality Order include region specific wage

rate tables. The disclosure of wage information – and particularly region specific wage

information – to competitors could provide a competitor with an unfair competitive

advantage. On the other hand, there does not appear to be any compelling interest by

the public in such information. Therefore, the Court concludes that Defendant has

demonstrated sufficient good cause for sealing the requested documents. 

Accordingly, upon due consideration, it is ORDERED that:

(1) Defendant’s Motion to Seal (Doc. 42) is GRANTED. 

(2) To the extent Plaintiff files any nonparty employee wage and personnel

records produced by Defendant or Defendant’s proprietary region-specific wage scales,

in conjunction with a motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff shall files these records

under seal. 

(3) When referencing the employee-specific sealed information in her motion for

summary judgment and/or memoranda, Plaintiff shall refer to the relevant nonparty

Case No: 1:11-cv-38-SPM -GRJ

Case 1:11-cv-00038-SPM-GRJ Document 47 Filed 10/31/11 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

employees as “Employee A,” “Employee B,” “Employee C,” etc. The sealed record must

contain a “key,’ which matches each employee to his applicable letter designation.

(4) To the extent Plaintiff references information from the sealed documents in

her motion for summary judgment and/or related memoranda, Plaintiff must limit her

description of the records only to that which is relevant to prove her claim. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 31 day of October, 2011. st

s/ Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case No: 1:11-cv-38-SPM -GRJ

Case 1:11-cv-00038-SPM-GRJ Document 47 Filed 10/31/11 Page 3 of 3