Techtronic Industries Company Limited v. Bonilla

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: July 22, 2025
• Docket: 8:23-cv-01734
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

TECHTRONIC INDUSTRIES COMPANY LIMITED and TECHTRONIC INDUSTRIES FACTORY OUTLETS, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No: 8:23-cv-1734-CEH-AEP

VICTOR BONILLA,

Defendant. ___________________________________/ ORDER This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Victor Bonilla’s Motion to Remove Confidentiality Designation from Certain Documents Produced by Techtronic (Doc. 153). In the motion, Defendant requests an Order removing the confidentiality designation from certain deposition transcripts and documents produced in discovery. Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition. Doc. 156. The Court heard argument on the motion on July 3, 2025. The Court, having considered the motion and being fully advised in the premises, will grant in part and deny in part Defendant's Motion to Remove Confidentiality Designation. DISCUSSION In this defamation action, Plaintiffs Techtronic Industries Company Limited and Techtronic Industries Factory Outlets, Inc. (collectively “Plaintiffs” or “TTI”), sue Defendant Victor Bonilla (“Defendant” or “Bonilla”) for state law claims of libel and libel per se arising out of Bonilla’s publication, under the name Jehoshaphat Research, of two reports asserting TTI’s purported corporate malfeasance. For purposes of facilitating discovery, the parties entered into a confidentiality agreement

regarding many of the documents produced in this litigation. In the instant motion, Defendant requests an Order removing the confidentiality designation as to the following: (1) Home Depot-TTI Agreement; (2) all deposition testimony of TTI’s executive Katherine Helf and Home Depot executive Devid Stearns; (3) all deposition testimony of Plaintiff’s expert Jeffrey Kopa; (4) the expert reports of Kopa and

Defendant’s expert Chris Westland; (5) TTI’s accounting policies; (6) redacted compensation vouchers; and (7) correspondence showing an alleged denial of a loan to TTI. At the hearing, defense counsel represented that he would be unable to make his argument on behalf of Defendant without disclosing information from these documents, particularly the Home Depot contract, because its terms are central to the

Plaintiffs’ claims of defamation. As discussed at the hearing, the Home Depot agreement produced in discovery has been highly redacted with only a few paragraphs being disclosed. Notwithstanding, Plaintiffs urge these few paragraphs should remain under seal citing the proprietary and competitively sensitive nature of the business terms of the agreement.

A. Other Documents As it relates to the other documents sought to be de-designated, Plaintiffs’ counsel represented at the hearing that the Home Depot agreement is the only one filed with the Court that TTI has an objection to being publicly reviewed. Doc. 173 at 21. And, as noted by counsel, several of the documents have not even been filed on the docket. As it pertains to items not filed on the docket, including the entire deposition transcripts of Helf and Stearns, the redacted compensation vouchers, and

the loan correspondence, the motion is denied without prejudice. Regarding the accounting policies, the expert reports and expert depositions, the Court has already ruled that the accounting policies and the expert reports are to be unsealed, along with expert depositions in their entirety. See Doc. 164 at 12–13, 16. As for the excerpts of the expert depositions, the parties present no new argument to alter the Court’s prior

ruling that the deposition excerpts may remain under seal. See id. at 12. B. The Home Depot Agreement1 The Eleventh Circuit has identified several factors that courts consider in balancing the public’s interest in accessing court documents against a party’s interest

in keeping the information confidential, 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.” Romero v. Drummond Co., 480 F.3d 1234, 1246 (11th Cir.

1 The parties previously filed motions to seal (Docs. 94, 102, 111), which included a request to seal the Home Depot agreement. The Court deferred ruling on the request pending the hearing on the instant motion. See Doc. 164 at 14–15. 2007). The parties argue the Romero factors support their respective positions regarding disclosure/nondisclosure of the redacted Home Depot Agreement. As discussed at the hearing, only a few paragraphs in the Home Depot

Agreement have been disclosed, with the remainder of the document being heavily redacted. Defendant is not seeking disclosure of the redacted portions, only the ability to have the confidentiality designation lifted as to the unredacted portions, which are essentially two substantive paragraphs labeled “Exclusivity” and “Reconditioned, Obsolete, and Excess Inventory.” Considering the allegations of TTI’s Amended

Complaint and the pending dispositive motions, particularly as it relates to the claims of libel arising out of Bonilla’s statements in the Second Report, the Romero factors weigh in favor of lifting the confidentiality designation as to the unredacted portions of the Home Depot agreement. Defendant must be given the opportunity to respond

to the claims against him and those provisions of the agreement are central to Plaintiffs’ claims of defamation. Given the fact that the document is already heavily redacted, efforts have been made to balance the parties’ privacy interests and the public’s right of access, and TTI fails to demonstrate that further redaction or sealing is necessary, the motion will be

granted as to the unredacted provisions of the Home Depot agreement. Additionally, the Court previously deferred ruling as to the motion to seal the Home Depot agreement. Considering the Court’s ruling at the hearing and in this Order, the motions to file the Home Depot agreement under seal will be denied. The Clerk will be directed to lift the seal of the heavily redacted Home Depot agreement, which has been filed under seal at Doc. 94-13; Doc. 102-2 at 64-92, and Doc. 111-11. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1. Defendant’s Motion to Remove Confidentiality Designation (Doc. 153) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth in this Order. 2. The motions to seal (Docs. 94, 102, 111) as it relates to the Home Depot Agreement are DENIED. 3. The portions of this Order denying the requests to seal are stayed for 14 days to permit withdrawal of the item or for other relief. See M.D. Fla. Local Rule 1.11(d). Absent withdrawal or other request for relief, FIFTEEN (15) DAYS from the date of this Order, the Clerk is directed to unseal the documents at Docs. 94-13; Doc. 102-2 at 64-92, and Doc. 111-11. DONE AND ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on July 22, 2025.

Chaken -_— Aiwarda Mn TDA pl el Charlene Edwards Honeywell United States District Judge

Copies to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties, if any