GUSTAFSON
v.
CAPITAL ONE, N.A.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court denied the plaintiff's motion to compel the defendants to adopt his proposed language for sealing documents in a confidentiality agreement and denied his request for fees and costs.
The plaintiff moved to compel the defendants to adopt his proposed language for sealing documents in a confidentiality agreement. The defendant oppose…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Local Rule 1.11 cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff Paul Gustafson moves to compel Defendants to adopt his proposed language for sealing documents in the parties' confidentiality agreement. (Doc. 68.) [fn 1] Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. responded in opposition. (Doc. 70.)
Plaintiff's motion can be quickly disposed of because the Court's Civil Action Order precludes the relief sought: “The court cannot compel parties to enter into a confidentiality agreement.” (Doc. 5 at 5.) With that, the motion to compel is DENIED. Even so, any dispute about the competing language can be avoided by simply requiring compliance with Local Rule 1.11 (addressing how to seal documents) in the confidentiality agreement. Plaintiffs concerns
about who can (or should) move to seal an item are allayed by Local Rule 1.11(c).
Finally, Plaintiff seeks “fees and costs for having to bring this Motion under Rule 37(a)(5).” (Doc. 68 at 7.) But as Experian points out, sanctions are inappropriate here because Rule 37 concerns motions "for an order compelling disclosure or discovery." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). There is no request for outstanding discovery. And to the extent Plaintiffs motion seeks a protective order under Rule 26, and corresponding costs through Rule 37, there is still no basis for awarding fees. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(B). "Discovery conduct is substantially justified under Rule 37 if it is a response to a genuine dispute, or if reasonable people could differ as to the appropriateness of the contested action.” Liberty Int'l Underwriters v. Landstar Ranger, Inc., No. 3:08-cv-01079-J-25JRK, 2010 WL 11507988, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 30, 2010). Here, there is a “genuine dispute" concerning the confidentiality agreement's language that Experian has a good faith basis for opposing.
ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on May 12, 2025.
Kyle C. Dudek United States Magistrate Judge
[fn 1]: Unless otherwise indicated, all internal quotation marks, citations, case history, and alterations have been omitted in this and later citations.