IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND

FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIVIL DIVISION
CASE NO.: 14-23330 CA 15

GE DOE,
Plaintiff,
v.
BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA, INC., a
Congressional Chartered Corporation, authorized
to do business in Florida; and SOUTH FLORIDA
COUNCIL, INC., BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA, a
Florida Corporation,

Defendants.
_____________________________________________/
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DETERMINE CONFIDENTIALITY
This Cause came before the Court on the above motion, and the Court, having reviewed
the motion and response, considered the arguments of counsel, and being otherwise fully advised
in the premises, hereby finds as follows:
FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In 1976 and 1979, Scoutmaster Robert Grumet [Grumet] and Assistant Scoutmaster
Jerold Mackinnon [Mackinnon] respectively joined the Boy Scouts, and between 1983 and 1984,
the Plaintiff was a member of their scouting troop. He was 9-10 years old at the time and is said
to have repeatedly been sexually abused by these individuals. Though the Plaintiff did not report
the abuse, Grumet and Mackinnon ultimately resigned from the Boy Scouts in 1987 for allegedly
abusing other scouts. Pursuant to the Defendants general policies and practices to document
accusations that ultimately render an adult ineligible to volunteer with the Boy Scouts, their
names were also entered into the confidential database the Defendants have maintained for more
than eighty years of Ineligible Volunteer [IV] personnel files.
On September 14, 2014, the Plaintiff filed the instant action for intentional infliction of
emotional distress against the Defendants, who allegedly knew that Grumet and Mackinnon were
pedophiles yet allowed them to remain in scouting. More specifically, the Plaintiff asserts the IV
files familiarized the Defendants with the particular behavioral characteristics and grooming
techniques of pedophiles and child molesters. Am. Compl. 35. Grumets and Mackinnons IV

files were produced via normal discovery, but because these men1 are not parties in the case, the
Defendants moved to seal these particular documents of the court file on May 29, 2015. This
motion went to hearing on June 19, 2015, and because there are reasonable and lesser restrictive
means available to address the Defendants privacy concerns, the motion is DENIED.
DISCUSSION
Florida Judicial Administration Rule 2.420 governs the publics access to court records
as it allows a court to seal case records in order to protect confidential information from public
disclosure. Poole v. S. Dade Nursing & Rehab. Ctr., 139 So. 3d 436, 439 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014).
However, [a] strong presumption of openness exists for all court proceedings. A trial is a public
event, and the filed records of court proceedings are public records available for public
examination. BDO Seidman, LLP v. Banco Espirito Santo Intern., Ltd., 2009 WL 928484 *1
(Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also Rocket Group, LLC v. Jatib, 114 So. 3d 398, 400 (Fla. 4th DCA
2013) (Except 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.) (quoting Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(a)). Accordingly, [a] party
seeking to initially seal the filed records of court proceedings has the burden to establish that (1)
closure is necessary to protect a recognized interest, (2) no reasonable alternatives to closure are
available to achieve the desired result, and (3) the level of closure imposed is the least restrictive
means necessary to accomplish its purposes. Carter v. Conde Nast Publns, 983 So. 2d 23, 25
(Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (citing Barron v. Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc., 531 So. 2d 113, 118
(Fla. 1988) (establishing the test for sealing court records and proceedings)).

The instant

Defendants, though, have failed to satisfy the second and third prongs of this test.
Here, the Defendants seek to seal Grumets and Mackinnons IV files in order to avoid
substantial injury to innocent third parties, which is a recognized confidentiality interest. Fla.
R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(c)(9)(v). More specifically, they wish to protect the privacy rights of these
men and shield them from conviction in the court of public opinion of a heinous crime when no
criminal charges have been filed. The Florida Supreme Court has stated that substantial injury
can include privacy concerns that are protected by article 1, section 23 of Floridas Constitution.
Barron, 531 So. 2d at 118.
1

On July 13, 2015, this Court permitted Mackinnon to intervene in this case for the sole purpose of
asserting his rights regarding the motion at issue.

However, a review of the IV files at bar reveals that sealing these records in their entirety
is inappropriate. There, for instance, are file entries that do not mention the alleged misconduct,
or they only generally mention allegations without specifying the issue; these items include
generic cover letters to reports, acknowledgment of receipt letters, and general suspension
notices to Grumet and Mackinnon. There is no basis for sealing these particular documents.
Nevertheless, these files also contain the names of alleged child abuse victims and other
identifying information about them. Such information must be redacted. Fla. R. Jud. Admin.
2.420(d)(1)(B)(xiii) (stating that [p]rotected information regarding victims of child abuse or
sexual offense must be maintained as confidential).
As for the remaining file entries, this Court concludes that they must be released as well.
Several courts, after all, have reviewed these same materials against the same arguments made in
this case, and only one has denied production. See, e.g. Doe 6 v. Boy Scouts of Am., 2013 WL
1092146 (Del. Super. 2013); Jack Doe 1 v. Corp. of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-Day Saints, 280 P.3d 377 (Or. 2012); Doe v. Corp. of the Presiding Bishop of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 2012 WL 2061417 (D. Idaho 2012); T.S. v. Boy
Scouts of Am., 138 P.3d 1053 (Wash. 2006); but see Juarez v. Boy Scouts of Am., Inc., 97 Cal.
Rptr. 2d 12 (Ct. App. 2000). Due to these decisions, all of the Boy Scouts IV files between
1948 and 1985 are public record, and some were published without redaction. Against this
backdrop of already public IV files, the documents under review are relevant in determining
whether the Defendants had specialized knowledge of child sex abuse. In addition, the Court
finds that since child abuse thrives in secrecy, there is a compelling interest in producing these
files as it increases transparency on the potential mishandling of sex abuse claims.2 See T.S.,
138 P.3d at 1059 ([A] society interested in protecting children from criminal assaults would not
reasonably leave to the discretion of a childrens social club the disclosure of information
regarding criminal assaults on children.).
The Court, nonetheless, is cognizant of the stigma that child abuse allegations have on
ones life, and thus, in recognition of their due process rights, it considered redacting Grumets
and Mackinnons names from the IV files like other courts have done. See Doe 6, 2013 WL
2

The Florida Legislatures recent modifications to Florida law regarding child abuse is further evidence
of this compelling interest; it, for instance, is judicially noticed that the Legislature has repealed the
statute of limitation for child abuse crimes, instituted new mandatory reporting requirements, and changed
Floridas evidentiary code to allow child abuse recordings to be entered into evidence.

1092146 at *4. However, a review of the court file reveals that Grumets and Mackinnons
names are on numerous other docket entries. These other items include obviously public
documents such as the complaint, the Defendants October 17, 2014, motion to dismiss and/or
strike the complaint, and the Defendants May 19, 2015, response to the Plaintiffs April 23,
2015, motion to compel. See Banco 2009 WL 928484 *1 (refusing to seal the verdict form,
final judgment, civil supersedeas bonds, pleadings and hearing transcripts); Tracfone Wireless,
Inc., v. Ghaly, Case No. 14-704-CA-22 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. Feb. 26, 2015) (denying unopposed
motion to seal court file consisting of subpoena notices and objections, various court motions
and requests for hearings, and court orders). Redacting the IV files at issue, therefore, would be
an empty gesture as it would not shield their identities.
Moreover, because the Defendants themselves published Grumets and Mackinnons
names in their other court filings before moving for a protective order eight months after the
complaint was filed, the Court finds that they waived the confidentiality as to whom they
investigated for sexual misconduct in this case. See Kavanaugh v. Stump, 592 So. 2d 1231,
1232 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (holding that petitioners waived the confidentiality of the customers
names they listed in counterclaim); see also Kimmick v. U.S. Bank Nat. Assn, 83 So. 3d 877,
880 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (stating the three-part waiver test); Miami Dolphins, Ltd. v. Genden &
Bach, P.A., 545 So. 2d 294, 296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (Generally, one can waive any
contractual, statutory or constitutional right. The doctrine of waiver can encompass not only the
intentional or voluntary relinquishment of known rights, but also conduct that warrants an
inference of the relinquishment of those rights.). However, the Court also recognizes that the
inclusion of Grumets and Mackinnons names in the IV files is far more damaging evidence of
abuse than the other docket entries. Therefore, because nothing in Rule 2.420 requires the
immediate release of judicial records, this Court stays production of the unsealed IV files until
the conclusion of this case and any appeals.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, it is hereby ADJUDGED that:
1) The Defendants motion is DENIED.
2) Upon conclusion of this trial and any appeals, the entire IV files at issue shall be
unsealed, minus the aforementioned redactions for any information that might reveal
the identities of the alleged child abuse victims. In the event that the documents

discuss multiple victims and families, pseudonyms such as Victim 1 or Family 1

can be used for clarity purposes.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami-Dade County, Florida, on
08/14/15.

_____________________________
JOSE M RODRIGUEZ
CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE

No Further Judicial Action Required on THIS MOTION

CLERK TO RECLOSE CASE IF POST JUDGMENT
The parties served with this Order are indicated in the accompanying 11th Circuit email
confirmation which includes all emails provided by the submitter. The movant shall
IMMEDIATELY serve a true and correct copy of this Order, by mail, facsimile, email or
hand-delivery, to all parties/counsel of record for whom service is not indicated by the
accompanying 11th Circuit confirmation, and file proof of service with the Clerk of
Court.
Signed original order sent electronically to the Clerk of Courts for filing in the Court file.
CC: ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD