Alexander R. Cifuentes v. SID Tool Co., Inc.

M.D. Florida

Alexander R. Cifuentes v. SID Tool Co., Inc.

District Court, M.D. Florida·Decided March 23, 2026·No. 6:25-cv-01651·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

ALEXANDER R. CIFUENTES,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 6:25-cv-01651-JSS-LHP

SID TOOL CO., INC.,

Defendant,

ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion to Seal Physician Accommodation Letter and for In Camera Review. Doc. No. 61. On review, the motion will be DENIED without prejudice. First, the motion fails to comply with Local Rule 3.01(g). Plaintiff states that conferral was not practicable because “the motion concerns private medical documentation and seeks the Court’s direction regarding confidential submission procedures.” Doc. No. 61, at 4. But motions to seal are not exempted from the conferral requirements, see Local Rule 3.01(g)(1), and the conferral requirements do not necessarily require, at this time, Plaintiff to disclose “private medical documentation” to Defendant. Second, the motion does not include a memorandum of legal authority as required by Local Rules 1.11(b)(4) and 3.01(b). Relatedly, it is not clear from the motion why Plaintiff is seeking to file a physician accommodation letter with the Court at this time. Plaintiff references previous requests for “accommodation- related communication procedures,” but the Court has already issued rulings on his motions requesting accommodations, and there is no accommodation request currently pending. See Doc. Nos. 35, 42, 56, 58. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not established that filing the item under seal is necessary. Local Rule 1.11(b)(3)(B). Any renewed motion must comply in full with the Local Rules, and must address why the filing of the documentation under seal is necessary. See also Moon

v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 863 (1989) (pro se litigants are “subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure”). DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on March 23, 2026.

LESLIE HOFFMAN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

ALEXANDER R. CIFUENTES,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 6:25-cv-01651-JSS-LHP

SID TOOL CO., INC.,

Defendant,

ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion to Seal Physician Accommodation Letter and for In Camera Review. Doc. No. 61. On review, the motion will be DENIED without prejudice. First, the motion fails to comply with Local Rule 3.01(g). Plaintiff states that conferral was not practicable because “the motion concerns private medical documentation and seeks the Court’s direction regarding confidential submission procedures.” Doc. No. 61, at 4. But motions to seal are not exempted from the conferral requirements, see Local Rule 3.01(g)(1), and the conferral requirements do not necessarily require, at this time, Plaintiff to disclose “private medical documentation” to Defendant. Second, the motion does not include a memorandum of legal authority as required by Local Rules 1.11(b)(4) and 3.01(b). Relatedly, it is not clear from the motion why Plaintiff is seeking to file a physician accommodation letter with the Court at this time. Plaintiff references previous requests for “accommodation- related communication procedures,” but the Court has already issued rulings on his motions requesting accommodations, and there is no accommodation request currently pending. See Doc. Nos. 35, 42, 56, 58. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not established that filing the item under seal is necessary. Local Rule 1.11(b)(3)(B). Any renewed motion must comply in full with the Local Rules, and must address why the filing of the documentation under seal is necessary. See also Moon

v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 863 (1989) (pro se litigants are “subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure”). DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on March 23, 2026.

LESLIE HOFFMAN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties

Alexander R. Cifuentes v. SID Tool Co., Inc., (M.D. Fla. 2026).

Pincite

Alexander R. Cifuentes v. SID Tool Co., Inc. (Alexander R. Cifuentes v. SID Tool Co., Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.