United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Dublin Division
K. EPFS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the Court are Defendant Peter Wrobel's Motion to File
under Seal (doc. no. 47) and Plaintiff's Motion for
Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants' Motions for
Summary Judgment (doc. no. 51). Under Local Rule 79.7(d),
“part[ies] seeking to have any matter placed under seal
must rebut the presumption of the openness derived from the
First Amendment by showing that closure is essential to
preserve some higher interest and is narrowly tailored to
serve that interest.” As the Local Rules reflect, the
filing of documents under seal is generally disfavored,
because “[t]he operations of the courts and the
judicial conduct of judges are matters of utmost public
concern, and the common-law right of access to judicial
proceedings, an essential component of our system of justice,
is instrumental in securing the integrity of the
process.” Romero v. Drummond Co., 480 F.3d
1234, 1245 (11th Cir. 2007) (internal quotations and
citations omitted). “The common law right of access may
be overcome by a showing of good cause, which requires
balancing the asserted right of access against the other
party's interest in keeping the information
confidential.” Id. at 1246. (citing
Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/ Firestone, Inc.,
263 F.3d 1304, 1309 (11th Cir. 2001)).
Wrobel states he “wishes to protect Plaintiff's
privacy.” (Doc. no. 47, p. 2.) However, Plaintiff
vigorously opposes the motion and “would prefer,
instead, that said records be easily obtainable . . .
.” (Doc. no. 52, pp. 6-7.) Accordingly, the Court
DENIES Defendant Wrobel's Motion to File
Under Seal (doc. no. 47) and ORDERS him to
file on the docket the medical records in support of his
motion for summary judgment within seven days of this Order.
to Plaintiff's Motion for Extension, the Court
GRANTS Plaintiff's request. (Doc. no.
51.) Plaintiff shall have through and including July 27,
2018, to respond to Defendants' motions for summary
judgment. To make sure Plaintiff fully understands the
ramifications of Defendants' motions for summary judgment
should he not file a response, the Court will now reiterate
to Plaintiff the consequences of a motion for summary
motion for summary judgment is filed, the opponent should be
afforded a reasonable opportunity to counter the affidavits
of the movant. Griffith v. Wainwright, 772 F.2d 822,
825 (11th Cir. 1985). The reasonable opportunity encompasses
not only time to respond, but notice and an explanation of
rights that may be lost if a response is not filed.
judgment should be granted “if the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The party seeking summary judgment always
bears the initial responsibility of informing the court of
the basis for its motion, and demonstrating that there is an
absence of any dispute as to a material fact. Adickes v.
S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970). Also the
moving party may be granted summary judgment if they show the
Court there is an absence of evidence to support the
non-moving party's case. Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). If the moving party
makes this showing, then they are entitled to a judgment as a
matter of law because the non-moving party has failed to make
a sufficient showing on an essential element of his case with
respect to which he has the burden of proof. Id.
Court in ruling on a summary judgment motion must determine
whether under the governing law there can be but one
reasonable conclusion as to the verdict. See Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). Moreover,
a mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of
Plaintiff's position is not sufficient to defeat a
summary judgment motion; there must be evidence on which the
jury could reasonably find for Plaintiff. See id. at
252. All reasonable doubts, however, must be resolved in
favor of the party opposing summary judgment. Casey
Enters., Inc. v. American Hardware Mutual Ins. Co., 655
F.2d 598, 602 (5th Cir. Unit B Sept. 1981). When, however,
the moving party's motion for summary judgment has
pierced the pleadings of the opposing party, the burden then
shifts to the opposing party to show that a genuine issue of
fact exists. This burden cannot be carried by reliance on the
conclusory allegations contained within the complaint.
Morris v. Ross, 663 F.2d 1032, 1033 (11th Cir.
Plaintiff not express opposition to Defendants' motions,
the consequences are these: Any factual assertions made in
the affidavits of the party moving for summary judgment will
be deemed admitted by this Court pursuant to Loc. R. 7.5 and
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 unless Plaintiff contradicts the movant's
assertions through submission of his own affidavits or other
documentary evidence, and the motion for summary judgment
will be granted on the grounds that said motion is unopposed.
See Loc. R. 7.5.
the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file any
opposition to Defendants' motions for summary judgment,
with appropriate supporting affidavits, or to inform the
Court of his decision not to object to Defendants' motion
by July 27, 2018. To ensure that Plaintiff's response is
made with fair notice of the requirements of the summary
judgment rule, the Clerk of Court is
INSTRUCTED to attach a copy of Fed.R.Civ.P.
56 to the copy of this Order that is served on Plaintiff.
Plaintiff was first informed of the
consequences of a summary judgment motion in the Court's
May 5, 2017 Order. (Doc. no. 2, pp. 4-5.)
In Bonner v. City of Prichard,
the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all Fifth
Circuit decisions that were handed down prior to the close of
business on September 30, 1981. 661 F.2d ...