5D07-3389 5D07-3390 Carter v. Conde Nast

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Fifth District Court » 2008 » 5D07-3389 5D07-3390 Carter v. Conde Nast

State: Florida

Court: Florida Fifth District Court

Docket No: 5D07-3389

Case Date: 04/14/2008

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2008

NICK CARTER, HOWARD D. DOROUGH, BRIAN LITTRELL, ALEXANDER J. McLEAN, KEVIN RICHARDSON, BACKSTREET BOYS, INC., An Administratively Dissolved Florida Corporation, BACKSTREET BOYS, INC., A Delaware Corporation, BACKSTREET MANAGEMENT, INC., BACKSTREET PRODUCTIONS, INC., and SYBIL "GALLER" HALL, Appellants, v. Case No. 5D07-3389 5D07-3390

CONDE NAST PUBLICATIONS, DENISE McLEAN, LOUIS J. PEARLMAN, TRANSACTION, L.C., TRANSCONTINENTAL MEDIA, INC., TRANSCONTINENTAL RECORDS, INC. Appellees. ________________________________/ Opinion filed April 18, 2008 Non Final Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Renee A. Roche, Judge. Jason L. Turner, of Lassiter, Tidwell, Davis, Keller & Hogan, PLLC, Nashville, TN, for Appellants Nick Carter, Howard D. Dorough, Brian Littrell, Alexander J. McLean, Kevin Richardson, Backstreet Boys, Inc., An Administratively Dissolved Florida Corporation, Backstreet Boys, Inc., A Delaware Corporation, Backstreet Management, Inc., and Backstreet Productions, Inc.

Clay M. Townsend and Keith R. Mitnik, of Morgan & Morgan, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant Sybil Hall. Judith M. Mercier, of Holland & Knight LLP, Orlando, for Appellee Conde Nast Publications. No Appearance for Appellees Denise McLean, Louis J. Pearlman, Transaction, L.C., Transcontinental Media, Inc., Transcontiental Records, Inc. EVANDER, J. Appellants appeal from an order granting Conde Nast Publications' motion to vacate an order sealing court records. We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(4); see also Fla. R. App. P. 9.100(d). We affirm, in part, and reverse, in part. In 2002, Sybil Hall filed an action for damages against Nick Carter, Howard D. Dorough, Brian Littrell, Alexander J. McLean, Denise McClean, Kevin Richardson, Backstreet Boys, Inc., An Administratively Dissolved Florida Corporation, Backstreet Boys, Inc., A Delaware Corporation, Backstreet Management, Inc., Backstreet Productions, Inc., Trans-Action, L.C., Transcontinental Media, Inc., and

Transcontinental Records, Inc. The parties to the 2002 action subsequently entered into a confidentiality agreement for the stated purpose of preventing the improper disclosure or use of confidential information. The agreement authorized any party to designate a document (including a deposition) as "confidential." Once a document was so designated, its contents could only be disclosed to a limited group of individuals. The agreement also authorized any party to file a document designated as confidential with the court "under seal." Significantly, the agreement recognized that the designation of a document as

2

confidential did not prevent another party from contesting its alleged confidentiality. If a party challenged the alleged confidentiality of a document, the document would remain confidential until the court ruled otherwise: The agreement of the parties to this Order shall not be construed as a binding agreement or admission that any Confidential Discovery Material designated as being "CONFIDENTIAL" is, in fact, confidential or comprises a trade secret, and each party expressly reserves all rights to challenge as improper the designation by the other of information as "CONFIDENTIAL". However, until such time as the dispute is resolved by agreement or by order of the court, the Confidentiality Discovery Material shall be treated as if the designation were valid. On September 30, 2003, the trial court accepted the parties' agreement and ordered the parties to comply with its terms ("the 2003 order"). Numerous documents designated as confidential were filed with the court "under seal" pursuant to the agreement. In 2006, the parties reached a settlement and Hall voluntarily dismissed the case. On July 5, 2007, Conde Nast Publications filed a motion to intervene and a motion to vacate the order sealing records. The motion to intervene was unopposed. At a

hearing held on August 8, 2007, the parties advised the trial court that the Clerk of the Court had improperly sealed the entire court file

Download 5D07-3389 5D07-3390 Carter v. Conde Nast.pdf