Full Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed March 4, 2020. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D19-1222 Lower Tribunal No. 17-3624 ________________ Hotel Association of New York City, Inc., Petitioner, vs. Airbnb, Inc., et al., Respondents. A Case of Original Jurisdiction-Petition for Review. Mitrani, Rynor, Adamsky & Toland, P.A., and Karen Williams Kammer, P.A., for petitioner. Joel S. Perwin, P.A. and Joel S. Perwin; Buckner + Miles, and David M. Buckner, for respondents. Before HENDON, MILLER, and LOBREE, JJ. HENDON, J. The petitioner, Hotel Association of New York City (“HANYC”), petitions for review pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100(d). We deny the petition. HANYC filed a motion to unseal judicial records and/or to vacate sealing orders in the complex commercial litigation between Aimco and Airbnb, Inc. See Bay Parc Plaza Apartments, L.P., et al. v. Airbnb, Inc., et al., Case No. 2017- 003624-CA-01. During that litigation, Aimco and Airbnb entered into a carefully negotiated and court-approved protective order, pursuant to which certain Airbnb documents qualified as competitively sensitive and confidential, and were thus filed under seal. The Bay Parc parties settled in 2018, and the trial court granted the parties’ stipulation for dismissal with prejudice. Soon after the Bay Parc parties settled, non-party HANYC filed its motion to unseal those Airbnb records that the trial court had ordered sealed in compliance with Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420. After hearing arguments from counsels for HANYC and Airbnb,1 and pursuant to Airbnb’s consent to unseal and/or redact certain of those sealed documents, the trial court granted in part and denied in part HANYC’s motion to unseal. HANYC filed this petition. HANYC contends the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by failing to unseal all of the requested records below. We reject HANYC’s 1 Fla. R. Jud. Proc. 2.420(e)(5). 2 contention that Florida law requires that records once sealed may not remain sealed because they were entered into evidence and became an “integral part” of the proceedings below. As explained in Rocket Group, LLC v. Jatib, 114 So. 3d 398, 400 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013), [e]xcept as provided in Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420, concerning “Public Access to Judicial Branch Records,” “[t]he public shall have access to all records of the judicial branch of government.” Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(a). “Confidential” information, which is exempt from public access, includes “information that is confidential ... under a court order entered pursuant to this rule.” Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(b)(4). Subdivision (c) of the rule lists records that are required to be kept confidential. Confidential business documents are not specifically included, but any court record may be determined to be confidential if doing so is necessary to “avoid substantial injury to a party by disclosure of matters protected by a common law or privacy right not generally inherent in the specific type of proceeding sought to be closed[,]” Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(c)(9)(A)(vi), or to “comply with established public policy set forth in the Florida or United States Constitution or statutes or Florida rules or case law[.]” Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(c)(9)(A)(vii). (Emphasis added). We conclude that the trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law, and deny the petition. Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.410(c)(9)(A)(i)-(vii). Petition denied. 3