Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:08cv865-MHT (WO).
December 17, 2009
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Lucile Askew, personal representative for the estate of her deceased husband, brings this suit against defendants Kenneth Holt and R L Transfer, Inc. for the wrongful death of her husband. Plaintiff's husband was killed when a tractor trailer, allegedly owned by R L Transfer and driven by Holt, collided with his vehicle in Chambers County, Alabama. Plaintiff charges defendants with multiple state-law claims asserting negligence and wantonness. This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity of citizenship). This case is currently before the court on R L Transfer's motion for entry of protective order. For the reasons that follow, this motion will be denied.
In resolving a pending summary-judgment motion, the court requested that R L Transfer file information explaining its corporate structure and that of its affiliates. The company complied with this request, but asks that the court issue a protective order to shield this information from being made available to the public.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(1)(G) states that "The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including . . . requiring that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in a specified way." "Before entering any protective order, the Court must find that good cause warrants the entry of the order with respect to each category of documents or information sought to be included in the order." In re Alexander Grant Co. Litigation, 820 F.2d 352, 355-57 (11th Cir. 1987).
R L Transfer has not shown good cause to warrant entry of the protective order. While the corporate structure of R L Transfer may be confidential commercial information, the disclosure of this information must "likely . . . result in a clearly defined and very serious injury" to warrant protection. Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Boeing Co., 2005 WL 5278461, at *2 (M.D. Fla. 2005) (Spaulding, M.J.); see In re Alexander Grant Co. Litigation, 820 F.2d at 356 ("ascertaining the existence of good cause" generally includes an inquiry into "`the severity and the likelihood of the perceived harm. . . .'") (citation omitted);see also 8 C. Wright, A. Miller R. Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2043, at 556-57 (2d ed. 1994) ("Besides showing that the information qualifies for protection, the moving party must also show good cause for restricting dissemination on the ground that it would be harmed by its disclosure.").
While R L Transfer asserts that it wants to prevent this information from being "used or disclosed outside the litigation" and fears that the "information might be misused," defendant's brief (doc. no. 51) at 4-5, it has offered no evidence that specific or actual harm would result from the dissemination of its corporate structure to the public. Indeed, the company itself offers information about its corporate structure on its public website. The website explains that the company is family-owned and operated and that R L Carriers controls Gator Freightways. The R L Family, http://www.rlcarriers.com/history.asp (last visited Dec. 7, 2009).
R L Transfer has failed to offer a sufficient showing of "good cause" for a protective order for this evidence, as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(1)(G).
For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that defendant R L Transfer, Inc.'s motion for entry of protective order (Doc. No. 48) is denied.
A copy of this checklist is available at the website for the USCA, 11th Circuit at www.ca11.uscourts.gov Effective on April 9, 2006, the new fee to file an appeal will increase from $255.00 to $455.00. CIVIL APPEALS JURISDICTION CHECKLIST1. Appealable Orders : Appeals from final orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291: 28 U.S.C. § 158Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Mestre 701 F.2d 1365 1368 28 U.S.C. § 636 In cases involving multiple parties or multiple claims, 54Williams v. Bishop 732 F.2d 885 885-86 Budinich v. Becton Dickinson Co. 108 S.Ct. 1717 1721-22 100 L.Ed.2d 178LaChance v. Duffy's Draft House, Inc. 146 F.3d 832 837 Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a): Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and Fed.R.App.P. 5: 28 U.S.C. § 1292 Appeals pursuant to judicially created exceptions to the finality rule: Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. 337 U.S. 541 546 93 L.Ed. 1528Atlantic Fed. Sav. Loan Ass'n v. Blythe Eastman Paine Webber, Inc. Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp. 379 U.S. 148 157 85 S.Ct. 308 312 13 L.Ed.2d 199 2. Time for Filing Rinaldo v. Corbett 256 F.3d 1276 1278 4 Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1): 3 THE NOTICE MUST BE RECEIVED AND FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT NO LATER THAN THE LAST DAY OF THE APPEAL PERIOD — no additional days are provided for mailing. Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(3): Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4): Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5) and 4(a)(6): Fed.R.App.P. 4(c): 28 U.S.C. § 1746 3. Format of the notice of appeal : See also 3pro se 4. Effect of a notice of appeal : 4
Courts of Appeals have jurisdiction conferred and strictly limited by statute: (a) Only final orders and judgments of district courts, or final orders of bankruptcy courts which have been appealed to and fully resolved by a district court under , generally are appealable. A final decision is one that "ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment." , , (11th Cir. 1983). A magistrate judge's report and recommendation is not final and appealable until judgment thereon is entered by a district court judge. (c). (b) a judgment as to fewer than all parties or all claims is not a final, appealable decision unless the district court has certified the judgment for immediate review under Fed.R.Civ.P. (b). , , (11th Cir. 1984). A judg ment which resolves all issues except matters, such as attorneys' fees and costs, that are collateral to the merits, is immediately appealable. , 486 U.S. 196, 201, , , (1988); , , (11th Cir. 1998). (c) Appeals are permitted from orders "granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions . . ." and from "[i]nterlocutory decrees . . . determining the rights and liabilities of parties to admiralty cases in which appeals from final decrees are allowed." Interlocutory appeals from orders denying temporary restraining orders are not permitted. (d) The certification specified in (b) must be obtained before a petition for permission to appeal is filed in the Court of Appeals. The district court's denial of a motion for certification is not itself appealable. (e) Limited exceptions are discussed in cases including, but not limited to: , , , 69S.Ct. 1221, 1225-26, (1949); , 890 F.2d 371, 376 (11th Cir. 1989); , , , , , (1964). Rev.: 4/04 : The timely filing of a notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional. , , (11th Cir. 2001). In civil cases, Fed.R.App.P. (a) and (c) set the following time limits: (a) A notice of appeal in compliance with the requirements set forth in Fed.R.App.P. must be filed in the district court within 30 days after the entry of the order or judgment appealed from. However, if the United States or an officer or agency thereof is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed in the district court within 60 days after such entry. Special filing provisions for inmates are discussed below. (b) "If one party timely files a notice of appeal, any other party may file a notice of appeal within 14 days after the date when the first notice was filed, or within the time otherwise prescribed by this Rule 4(a), whichever period ends later." (c) If any party makes a timely motion in the district court under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of a type specified in this rule, the time for appeal for all parties runs from the date of entry of the order disposing of the last such timely filed motion. (d) Under certain limited circumstances, the district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal. Under Rule 4(a)(5), the time may be extended if a motion for an extension is filed within 30 days after expiration of the time otherwise provided to file a notice of appeal, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause. Under Rule 4(a)(6), the time may be extended if the district court finds upon motion that a party did not timely receive notice of the entry of the judgment or order, and that no party would be prejudiced by an extension. (e) If an inmate confined to an institution files a notice of appeal in either a civil case or a criminal case, the notice of appeal is timely if it is deposited in the institution's internal mail system on or before the last day for filing. Timely filing may be shown by a declaration in compliance with or a notarized statement, either of which must set forth the date of deposit and state that first-class postage has been prepaid. Form 1, Appendix of Forms to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, is a suitable format. Fed.R.App.P. (c). A notice of appeal must be signed by the appellant. A district court loses jurisdiction (authority) to act after the filing of a timely notice of appeal, except for actions in aid of appellate jurisdiction or to rule on a timely motion of the type specified in Fed.R.App.P. (a)(4).