Opinion
CIV. ACT. 1:20-cv-598-TFM-N
01-14-2022
RAFAEL LIMA AND JAVIER GRACE, Plaintiffs, v. RANGER ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, LLC Defendant.
ORDER
TERRY F. MOORER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
On December 15, 2021, Plaintiffs Rafael Lima and Javier Grace filed a Motion for Leave to File Motion to Conditionally Certify FLSA Collective Action Class and Facilitate Notice Under Seal. Docs. 39, 40. Plaintiffs cite to the protective order of confidentiality that was adopted by the Court on November 12, 2021, to justify filing the motion, associated memoranda and exhibits under seal. Doc. 35. On December 21, 2021, the Court ordered the Plaintiffs to file an amended motion for leave to seal that addresses the Chicago Tribune, Romero, and their progeny as to any matters they wish to keep under seal. Doc. 43. On January 5, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Motion for Conditional Class Certification with Redacted Exhibits. Doc. 44. Upon consideration of the balancing test in Romero v. Drummond, Co., 480 F.3d 1234, 1245 (11th Cir. 2007), the parties agree that it is not necessary to seal the entire motion and all exhibits because lesser means may be used to protect the nature of the information they are seeking to keep confidential. The parties have agreed to file the motion and exhibits into the public record with the names of Defendant's clients redacted. The parties reason that these names are of people who are not parties to this litigation and therefore may wish to remain confidential. Accordingly, the Court finds that the parties have established good cause for the Court to allow Plaintiff to file the motion and redacted exhibits into the record. Thus, Plaintiffs' motion (Doc. 44) is GRANTED to the extent the Court finds that the parties' performing redactions as opposed to sealing is approved. As such, Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to electronically file their new motion for conditional certification and redacted exhibits within one week of this order.
It is therefore ORDERED that the motion for leave to seal (Doc. 39) is DENIED as moot and the previously filed sealed motion and exhibits (Docs. 39, 40) are STRICKEN given that they will be replaced by redacted public versions.
Also pending before the Court are Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses (Doc. 41, filed 12/15/21) and Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Leave to File First Amended and Supplemental Complaint (Doc. 42, filed 12/15/21). For good cause shown, the Court finds that these motions (Docs. 41, 42) are GRANTED. To ensure the docket and pleadings are clear, it is further DIRECTED as follows: Plaintiffs shall docket their amended complaint within one week of this order. Defendants shall then file their responsive pleading/answer in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(3).
DONE and ORDERED.