Professional Documents
Culture Documents
David Kramer Motion To Seal Deposition in BuzzFeed Lawsuit
David Kramer Motion To Seal Deposition in BuzzFeed Lawsuit
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Defendants.
______________________________________/
Pursuant to Local Rule 5.4 of the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, non-party David J. Kramer respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order sealing his
Motion for Protective Order and in support thereof states the following:
I. MEMORANDUM OF LAW
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(c), Mr. Kramer will be separately filing a
Motion for Protective Order. In the Motion for Protective Order, Mr. Kramer seeks to prevent the
Plaintiffs from sharing his videotaped deposition and accompanying transcript beyond the instant
litigation.
“Unless otherwise provided by law, Court rule, or Court order, proceedings in the United
States District Court are public and Court filings are matters of public record.” S.D. Fla. L.R.
5.4(a). And, as a general matter, the press and the public jointly have a common-law right “to
inspect and copy judicial records.” Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597
(1978); United States v. Rosenthal, 763 F.2d 1291, 1293 (11th Cir. 1985).
1
Case 0:17-cv-60426-UU Document 110 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/17/2018 Page 2 of 5
However, “[t]his right of access may be overcome by a showing of good cause.” MSP
Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. S.-Owners Ins. Co., No. 17-CV-24068-UU, 2017 WL 6622806,
at *1 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 15, 2017) (citing Romero v. Drummond Co., 480 F.3d 1234, 1245 (11th Cir.
2007)). “In determining whether to seal a document, courts must consider, among other factors,
‘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
(S.D. Fla. Oct. 25, 2017) (quoting Romero, 480 F.3d at 1246).
A motion to seal must set forth “the factual and legal basis for departing from the policy
that Court filings are public[.]” S.D. Fla. L.R. 5.4(b)(1). The motion must “describe[] the
information or documents to be sealed (the ‘proposed sealed material’) with as much particularity
as possible, but without attaching or revealing the content of the proposed sealed material.” Id.
Here, the Court should find that good cause exists to seal Mr. Kramer’s Motion for
First, if the Motion for Protective Order is not sealed, it could jeopardize his personal safety
as well as the safety of his family. In his Motion for Protective Order, Mr. Kramer quotes specific
portions of the deposition that he believes could put him and his family in danger if made public.
He also provides, as an attachment, a declaration under penalty of perjury in support of his Motion
for Protective Order. Because Mr. Kramer’s Motion for Protective Order provides specifics about
his deposition and the bases for his concerns about personal safety, permitting public access or
2
Case 0:17-cv-60426-UU Document 110 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/17/2018 Page 3 of 5
sharing of the Motion for Protective Order would effectively defeat the purpose of filing the
motion.
Second, if the Motion for Protective Order becomes public, it could threaten the integrity
of ongoing Congressional investigations. Mr. Kramer has recently provided testimony to both
houses of Congress, testifying in a “closed-door” session before the United States House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and providing additional testimony to the United
States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Mr. Kramer’s testimony before those Committees
is required to be treated as confidential. The substance of Mr. Kramer’s testimony before Congress
is largely repeated in his Motion for Protective Order. Consequently, if the Motion for Protective
Order were to be filed publicly, it could threaten the integrity of the Congressional investigations,
as it would reveal the extent of the Congressional Committees’ knowledge regarding the
information provided by Mr. Kramer in closed-door sessions. Moreover, the Select Committees
of the House and Senate have not authorized public disclosure of this information. Indeed, the
public disclosure of the Protective Order would undermine the very purpose of his testimony
before Congress.
Third, if the Court requires that Mr. Kramer’s Motion for Protective Order be filed publicly,
Mr. Kramer will be hounded by the press. The Court need not speculate here. Because of a filing
submitted in this case by the Plaintiffs’ attorneys, a member of the press has already reached out
to Mr. Kramer’s lawyer. If the Court were to require Mr. Kramer to file his Motion for Protective
As a postscript, consistent with the recently amended Local Rule 5.4, Mr. Kramer will file
a redacted version of his Motion for Protective Order, as the content in that motion “is the subject
of the motion to file under seal.” S.D. Fla. L.R. 5.4(b) (“If, prior to the issuance of a ruling on the
3
Case 0:17-cv-60426-UU Document 110 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/17/2018 Page 4 of 5
motion to file under seal, the moving party elects or is required to publicly file a pleading, motion,
memorandum, or other document that attaches or reveals the content of the proposed sealed
material, then the moving party must redact from the public filing all content that is the subject of
the motion to file under seal.”). If the Court “grants the motion to file under seal[,]” Mr. Kramer
will subsequently file an unredacted Motion for Protective Order “as an attachment to a ‘Notice of
Sealed Filing’ which shall be filed via CM/ECF (using events specifically earmarked for sealed
II. CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, Mr. Kramer respectfully requests that the Court enter an order sealing the
Motion for Protective Order for the duration of this litigation and until further order of this Court.
Certification of Compliance with Local Rule 7.1 of the Southern District of Florida
The undersigned certified that he has conferred with counsel for the Plaintiffs. The
4
Case 0:17-cv-60426-UU Document 110 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/17/2018 Page 5 of 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This motion was filed electronically on January 17, 2018 through CM/ECF and served on
s/ Marcos D. Jimenez
Marcos D. Jimenez