Plaintiff argues that the documents at issue have been designated as Confidential-Attorneys’ Eyes Only (“AEO”) by Defendants and must be filed under seal pursuant to Local Rule 1.09(b), which permits a paper to be filed under seal where sealing is authorized by statute, rule, or order.[1] (Doc. 219 at 3-4.) Plaintiff states that the parties entered into a Stipulation Concerning Discovery on January 11, 2018 (Doc. 219-1) pursuant to Middle District of Florida Discovery Local Rule I(A)(4), which allows parties to “stipulate in writing in accordance with Local Rule 4.15, Middle District of Florida, to alter, amend, or modify any practice with respect to discovery.” Middle District Discovery (2015) at 3. Under the parties Stipulation Concerning Discovery, “[t]o the extent a party needs to file any Confidential Information with the Court, such information must be filed under seal in accordance with the Court's required procedures.” (Doc. 219-1 at 3.) Plaintiff describes the materials to be sealed as deposition testimony and documents that Defendants contend contain “proprietary business information relating to the agreements between Defendants and other business entities, Defendants’ technical information, such as source code, firmware and software, as well as Defendants’ sales, customer, and financial information.” (Id. at 4.) Although Plaintiff presents Defendants’ confidentiality designation of these materials as the basis for its Motion, Plaintiff also states that it does not believe the information is confidential and that it is bringing the instant Motion pursuant to the terms of the parties’ Stipulation Concerning Discovery. (Id. at 4-5.) Plaintiff also requests that the documents remain under seal for the duration of the lawsuit or until Defendants withdraw or alter their confidentiality designations, thus rendering sealing unnecessary. (Id. at 5.)

*2 While the public has “a common-law right to inspect and copy judicial records and public documents,” In re Alexander Grant & Co. Litig., 820 F.2d 352, 355 (11th Cir. 1987) (per curiam), materials filed with discovery motions are not subject to the common law right of access, Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1312 (11th Cir. 2001) (per curiam). Instead, they are “evaluated under the good cause standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)[,] ... [which] requires the court to: (1) determine whether the parties have presented valid grounds for sealing; and (2) balance the public's interest in access against the parties’ interest in confidentiality.” Joao Bock Transaction Sys., LLC v. Fid. Nat. Info. Servs., Inc., No. 3:13-cv-223-J-32JRK, 2014 WL 279656, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 24, 2014) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Although “a stipulated protective order may provide that documents designated confidential are presumptively protected, a party's calling a document confidential pursuant to a protective order ‘does not make it so’ when it comes to filing the document with the court.” Id. (citing Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v. CBS, Inc., 184 F. Supp. 2d 1353, 1362 (N.D. Ga. 2002)). “[C]onsensual protective orders merely delay the inevitable moment when the court will be called upon to determine whether Rule 26(c) protection is deserved, a decision ultimately rooted in whether the proponent demonstrates ‘good cause.’ ” Joao Bock Transaction Sys., 2014 WL 279656, at *1. Moreover, even in the absence of a challenge, the court, as “the primary representative of the public interest in the judicial process,” is bound by duty “to review any request to seal the record (or part of it) [and] may not rubber stamp a stipulation to seal the record.” Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., 184 F. Supp. 2d at 1363.

The Court finds good cause to allow Plaintiff's unredacted Sanctions Motion, the Declaration, as well as Exhibits A-D, G, H, and K, to be filed under seal. Here, Plaintiff's Sanctions Motion concerns discovery disputes between the parties. Furthermore, although Plaintiff relies on Defendant's designation of the materials as confidential in bringing its Motion, the Court finds it is likely that these materials contain confidential business information and proprietary technical information. See Joao Bock Transaction Sys., 2014 WL 279656, at *1. (“Even though Defendant relies only on the parties’ designation of the contentions as confidential, and does not identify the information it alleges is confidential, the Court finds that these materials likely contain, among other things, trade secret information regarding the design, development, and security of the accused banking software products.”). Plaintiff has also shown that filing these documents under seal is necessary for the Court to fully evaluate the issues presented in this case and to protect against disclosure of confidential information to the public. However, Plaintiff has failed to show that it is necessary to seal its Sanctions Motion in its entirety. As such, Plaintiff shall file a redacted Sanctions Motion on the public docket.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

The Motion (Doc. 219) is GRANTED in part. If Plaintiff has not already done so, it shall hand deliver or mail the Confidential Documents to the Clerk's Office. Upon receipt, the Clerk shall file the Confidential Documents under seal. Plaintiff's unredacted Sanctions Motion, John B. Lunseth II's Declaration, as well as Exhibits A–D, G, H, and K, shall remain sealed until final judgment. A redacted version of Plaintiff's Sanctions Motion as well as non-confidential exhibits shall be filed on the public docket. Upon such an occurrence, or beforehand if deemed necessary by the parties, the parties shall move to have these documents returned, or to otherwise unseal them.

DONE and ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida on February 15, 2019.