ORDER

CHARLENE EDWARDS HONEYWELL, District Judge.

This cause comes before the Court upon Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Seal Unredacted Summary Judgment Exhibits (Doc. 140), Defendants' Unopposed Motion to Seal Summary Judgment Filings (Doc. 143), Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Seal Unredacted Response to Summary Judgment and Exhibits (Doc. 147), and Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Seal Portions of the Parties' Joint Stipulation of Facts (Doc. 175). By their motions, the parties seek to file under seal various summary judgment filings and exhibits. Specifically, it appears1 from a comparison of the redacted and unredacted filings and exhibits that the parties generally seek to file under seal those documents which include or refer to certain retainer agreements, joint partnership agreements, and information related to Defendant David Oppenheim's compensation. In addition, the parties seek to file under seal those documents that refer to certain mediation-privileged2 discussions in separate class action lawsuits. Doc. 195, p. 6.

Upon consideration, the Court will deny-in-part and grant-in-part the motions. As indicated in the Case Management and Scheduling Order (Doc. 70), motions to seal are disfavored and will be denied unless they comply with Local Rule 1.09. Middle District of Florida Local Rule 1.09 requires that a motion to seal include, among other things, "the reason that sealing each item is necessary" and "the reason that a means other than sealing is unavailable or unsatisfactory to preserve the interest advanced by the movant in support of the seal." Local Rule 1.09(a).

Here, the motions all suffer the same defects: they (1) wholly fail to explain why means other than sealing are unavailable or unsatisfactory and (2) fail to adequately explain why sealing each item is necessary. The only argument advanced in support of the necessity of sealing is that the relevant documents were deemed confidential pursuant to the parties' agreed confidentiality and protective order.3 However, just because the parties have designated documents produced in discovery as "confidential" does not mean that they should be sealed. Doc. 70, p. 6; Local Rule 1.09.

As discussed at the April 2, 2018 hearing on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgement, the Court is concerned with limiting the public's common law right of access to court operations and to inspect and copy public records and documents. "[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy . . . judicial records and documents." Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978); see also Romero v. Drummond Co., Inc., 480 F.3d 1234, 1245 (11th Cir. 2007). In some limited circumstances, a court has the discretion to permit materials to be filed under seal. Romero, 480 F.3d at 1246. However, such relief is to be granted only upon a showing of "good cause," which requires balancing the asserted right of access against the party's interest in keeping the information confidential. See id. (describing balancing considerations).

Upon careful consideration, the Court finds good cause to file under seal only those specific portions of documents, if any, to which the statutory mediation privilege applies. Fla. Stat. § 44.405.4 The Court finds the parties have not established good cause to file under seal any other documents or portions of documents, and the parties have failed to overcome the presumption in favor of public right of access to these documents.

According, it is hereby ORDERED:

DONE and ORDERED.