ORDER

THOMAS B. SMITH, Magistrate Judge.

This case comes before the Court without oral argument on Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Seal Plaintiffs' Renewed Verified Motion to Hold Defendant in Contempt of Sealed Order Enforcing Settlement Agreement (Doc. 394). Defendant does not oppose the motion (Id., at 5).

The reasons why sealing is sought are not new. This is at least the sixteenth motion to seal that has been filed in this case (Docs. 65, 95, 101, 103, 115, 120, 121, 128, 146, 148, 161, 167, 192, 204 and 289). The Court applies the law referred to in the Orders on those earlier motions and finds that there is good cause to seal Plaintiffs' unredacted motion. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' request for sealing is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall file a redacted version of their motion on the public docket and the unredacted version UNDER SEAL.

Plaintiffs propose that the information they are filing be held under seal for a period of six years (Id., at 2). The Court's local rules generally provide for sealing for up to one year which is renewable on motion made before the expiration of the seal. M.D. FLA. 1.09(c). However, this situation involves a confidential settlement that will, as matters now stand, be in effect for years to come (Id.). Accordingly, although the Court is not persuaded that six years is appropriate, the information to be sealed pursuant to this Order shall remain sealed until the earlier of: (1) an order unsealing the information; or (2) November 7, 2022. Prior to the expiration of the seal, any party may file a motion to extend the seal.

DONE and ORDERED.