Doe v. Grindr, LLC

M.D. Florida

Doe v. Grindr, LLC

DecidedMay 1, 2025

Docket5:23-cv-00193

StatusUnknown

This text of Doe v. Grindr, LLC (Doe v. Grindr, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Doe v. Grindr, LLC, (M.D. Fla. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA OCALA DIVISION MOTHER DOE, on behalf of JOHN DOE, Plaintiff, Vv. Case No. 5:23-cv-193-JA-PRL GRINDR, LLC and GRINDR HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendants.

ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiffs unopposed motion (Doc. 55) to seal four exhibits that pertain to Plaintiffs motion (Doc. 57) for approval of a minor settlement. Plaintiff states that these exhibits contain personal identifying information of the minor and parent as well as the confidential settlement amount and payout schedule. To seal a docketed item, such as a settlement agreement, a party must show good cause that is sufficient to overcome a “presumptive common law right to inspect and copy judicial records.” United States v. Rosenthal, 763 F.2d 1291, 1293 (11th Cir. 1985); see Romero v. Drummond Co., Inc., 480 F.3d 1234, 1246 (11th Cir. 2007); see also M.D. Fla. Local Rule 1.11(a). A showing of good cause requires balancing the public right of access against the party’s interest in

keeping the information confidential. Romero, 480 F.3d at 1246. In so balancing, courts consider factors including: whether allowing access would impair court functions or harm legitimate privacy interests, the degree of and likelihood of injury if made public, the reliability of the information, whether there will be an opportunity to respond to the information, whether the information concerns public officials or public concerns, and the availability of a less onerous alternative to sealing the documents.

Id. Here, Plaintiff has shown good cause to seal the exhibits. Allowing access to the information would harm the minor’s legitimate privacy interests given that the case involves allegations of sexual abuse. It appears that there is a high degree and likelihood of injury if the information is made public. And Plaintiff submits that less onerous options to sealing, such as redaction, are inadequate because the sensitive and confidential information is necessary for the Court to evaluate the settlement agreement. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 55) is granted. On or before May 6, 2025, Plaintiff shall file the exhibits under seal as a separate docket entry. The seal shall remain in place indefinitely. bk DONE and ORDERED on May _! _, 2025.

eee, JOHN ANTOON II United States District Judge

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA OCALA DIVISION MOTHER DOE, on behalf of JOHN DOE, Plaintiff, Vv. Case No. 5:23-cv-193-JA-PRL GRINDR, LLC and GRINDR HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendants.

ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiffs unopposed motion (Doc. 55) to seal four exhibits that pertain to Plaintiffs motion (Doc. 57) for approval of a minor settlement. Plaintiff states that these exhibits contain personal identifying information of the minor and parent as well as the confidential settlement amount and payout schedule. To seal a docketed item, such as a settlement agreement, a party must show good cause that is sufficient to overcome a “presumptive common law right to inspect and copy judicial records.” United States v. Rosenthal, 763 F.2d 1291, 1293 (11th Cir. 1985); see Romero v. Drummond Co., Inc., 480 F.3d 1234, 1246 (11th Cir. 2007); see also M.D. Fla. Local Rule 1.11(a). A showing of good cause requires balancing the public right of access against the party’s interest in

keeping the information confidential. Romero, 480 F.3d at 1246. In so balancing, courts consider factors including: whether allowing access would impair court functions or harm legitimate privacy interests, the degree of and likelihood of injury if made public, the reliability of the information, whether there will be an opportunity to respond to the information, whether the information concerns public officials or public concerns, and the availability of a less onerous alternative to sealing the documents.

Id. Here, Plaintiff has shown good cause to seal the exhibits. Allowing access to the information would harm the minor’s legitimate privacy interests given that the case involves allegations of sexual abuse. It appears that there is a high degree and likelihood of injury if the information is made public. And Plaintiff submits that less onerous options to sealing, such as redaction, are inadequate because the sensitive and confidential information is necessary for the Court to evaluate the settlement agreement. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 55) is granted. On or before May 6, 2025, Plaintiff shall file the exhibits under seal as a separate docket entry. The seal shall remain in place indefinitely. bk DONE and ORDERED on May _! _, 2025.

eee, JOHN ANTOON II United States District Judge

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Doe v. Grindr, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doe-v-grindr-llc-flmd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack