CAROL MIRANDO, Magistrate Judge.
This matter comes before the Court upon review of Defendant Daniel Carter's ("Carter") Unopposed Motion to File Document under Seal pursuant to Order (Doc. 446) filed on November 14, 2016 and Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Exceed Twenty-Five (25) Pages (Doc. 448) filed on November 18, 2016. Carter seeks to file under seal his response to Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 444), and Plaintiff seeks to exceed the page limit and file a reply. Docs. 446, 448. Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendants do not oppose Carter's motion to file under seal. Doc. 446 at 3. Carter opposes Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 448). Doc. 449.
On October 25, 2016, Plaintiff filed under seal a Motion to Compel Complete Compliance with the Court's Order [DE 309]. Doc. 444. Plaintiff's motion seeks to compel Carter's compliance with the Court's Order (Doc. 309) and Carter's production of documents and to impose sanctions on Carter for his violation of the Court's Order (Doc. 309). Doc. 444 at 1.
Carter seeks to file under seal his response to Plaintiff's motion to compel compliance. Doc. 446 at 2. Carter states that his proposed response relates to his deposition, taken on October 5, 2016, which is associated with the parties' adversary proceedings in the United States Bankruptcy Court. Id. During the adversary proceedings, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge K. Rodney May entered an Agreed Order and Stipulation Regarding Confidential and Privileged Information. Id.; Agreed Order and Stipulation Regarding Confidential and Privileged Information, In re: Fiddler's Creek, LLC, Case. No. 8:11-ap-522-KRM, Doc. No. 141 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2013). Carter states that his deposition falls under the protections of the Agreed Order and Stipulation Regarding Confidential and Privileged Information. Doc. 446 at 2. Based on the above reason, Carter's motion to file under seal is due to be granted.
Before the Court ruled on Carter's motion to file his response under seal, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Exceed Twenty-Five (25) Pages. Doc. 448. Plaintiff states that United States District Judge Paul A. Magnuson
Here, Plaintiff's motion is premature for two reasons: first, Plaintiff has not sought the Court's leave to file a reply pursuant to Local Rule 3.01(c), and second, Carter has not filed a response to Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 444). Plaintiff should be aware that the undersigned will continue to hear the parties' motions related to discovery, such as Plaintiff's motion to compel compliance with the Court's discovery order (Doc. 444).
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
1. Defendant Daniel Carter's Unopposed Motion to File Document under Seal pursuant to Order (Doc. 446) is
2. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Exceed Twenty-Five (25) Pages is