Benavides v. Tesla, Inc

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 21-cv-21940-BLOOM/Torres
NEIMA BENAVIDES, as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Naibel
Benavides Leon, deceased, and
DILLON ANGULO,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TESLA, INC., a/k/a.
TESLA FLORIDA, INC.,
Defendant.
_________________________________/
ORDER ON TESLA’S MOTION TO PRESERVE CONFIDENTIALITY OF CERTAIN
TRIAL AND PRE-TRIAL RECORDS THAT CONTAIN TRADE SECRETS
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Tesla Inc.’s (“Tesla”) Motion to Preserve the
Confidentiality of Certain Trial and Pre-trial Records that Contain Trade Secrets (“Motion”), ECF
No. [554]. Plaintiffs Neima Benavides, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Naibel
Benavides Leon, and Dillon Angulo (“Plaintiffs”) filed a Response in Opposition, ECF No. [590],
to which Tesla filed a Reply, ECF No. [596]. The Court has reviewed the Motion, the supporting
and opposing briefs, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons that follow, Tesla’s Motion to
Preserve Confidentiality is granted in part and denied in part.1
1 Tesla asserts that its earlier Motion for Continued Confidentiality of Materials Designated Under
Confidentiality Protective Order, ECF No. [368], also remains pending. See ECF no. [554] at 2. However,
because Tesla’s instant Motion to Preserve Confidentiality effectively supersedes the issues raised by Tesla
in that earlier motion, Tesla’s Motion, ECF No. [368], need not be addressed herein, as it is now rendered
moot by this Order.
Case 1:21-cv-21940-BB Document 611 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/26/2026 Page 1 of 22

Case No. 21-cv-21940-BLOOM/Torres
2
I. 	FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This matter arises from a collision that occurred in Key Largo, Florida. George McGee
owned a 2019 Tesla Model S (“Vehicle”) “equipped with automatic driving features, one of which
Tesla termed ‘Autopilot,’ that could navigate without driver input.” ECF No. [205] at 3. On April
25, 2019, McGee was driving the Vehicle when it hit a parked Chevrolet Tahoe, which then struck
Decedent Naibel Benavides Leon and Plaintiff Dillon Angulo, killing Benavides Leon and causing
significant injuries to Angulo. See id. at 3-4.
A. Protective Order and Pretrial Exhibits
During the discovery period, the parties requested, and the Court entered a Confidentiality
Protective Order (“Protective Order”). ECF No. [126]. The Protective Order allowed for discovery
material to be designated as “Confidential” if the party producing the materials believed in good
faith that the materials contained:
confidential or sensitive non-public internal proprietary business; (ii) marketing;
(iii) financial; (iv) technical information unrelated to Autopilot technology; (v) non-
public communications with United States and foreign patent offices; (vi) non-
public communications with United States or foreign regulatory agencies; (vii)
financial information . . . and; (viii) design, development, and testing materials
related to the design and development of Tesla vehicles unrelated to the Autopilot
technology.
ECF No. [126] at 2-3.
Discovery material was permitted to be labeled “Highly Confidential” if the information
included “highly sensitive competitive business, technical, and/or proprietary information that
warrant[ed] the highest level of confidentiality[.]” Id. at 3. Under the Protective Order, only certain
specified groups of people were permitted to access the materials labeled Confidential or Highly
Confidential. See id. at 8-11.2 Given the limited access to the specified materials, the parties filed
2 The following individuals were permitted to access the materials identified in the Protective Order: (1)
the Court; (2) the parties and their respective counsel; (3) other attorneys in other pending lawsuits against
Case 1:21-cv-21940-BB Document 611 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/26/2026 Page 2 of 22

Case No. 21-cv-21940-BLOOM/Torres
3
a number of briefs and exhibits under seal that they determined contained either Confidential or
Highly Confidential information. While the parties have agreed to unseal many of those pretrial
filings, see ECF Nos. [600], there are still several entries that remain under seal. See ECF Nos.
[285], [297]; [305]; [306]; [307]; [308]; [318]; [347]; and [368].
B. Trial Procedures for Trade Secrets Introduced During Trial
In anticipation of the trial, Tesla also requested that the Court enter an order setting a
procedure for limiting public access to confidential information the parties might introduce at trial.
After highlighting the country’s long-standing tradition of an open courtroom and the strong
presumption in favor of the same, the Court set out a detailed procedure for temporarily closing
the courtroom when evidence involving Tesla’s trade secrets was likely to be presented. Those
procedures were as follows:
No later than 6:00 P.M. on July 13, 2025, Tesla shall notify the Court of the specific
testimony and exhibits it anticipates will be introduced on the first day of trial that
contain trade secrets that should not be disclosed to the public. Tesla shall also
explain how disclosure of the specific evidence or testimony would be harmful. The
Court will determine whether the identified evidence warrants temporary closure
of the courtroom before the start of Plaintiffs’ case-in-chief. If the Court deems any
evidence or testimony should not be presented to the public, the Court and the
parties will adhere to the following procedure.
i. 	The parties shall identify and inform the Court of any individuals
they agree should not be excluded from the courtroom during the
closed portions of the proceedings.
ii. 	The parties shall reserve the presentation of any trade secret
information or testimony until the end of a witness’s examination.
Prior to the presentation of the trade secret information, the Court
will take a brief recess so that the public can be asked to leave the
courtroom outside the presence of the jury. The Court will then bring
Tesla, involving the same alleged defect; (4) mediators, discovery referees and other individuals engaged
or consulted for the purposes of settlement; (5) litigation support services; (6) experts and consults retained
by the parties in connection with this action; (7) employees or persons who created, authored, received,
reviewed, were the custodian of, identified in Confidential Information, or are reasonably believed to have
knowledge of the matters in the Confidential Information; and (8) persons authorized to receive High
Confidential information or persons that the parties or the Court have otherwise determined are permitted
to access the materials.
Case 1:21-cv-21940-BB Document 611 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/26/2026 Page 3 of 22

Case No. 21-cv-21940-BLOOM/Torres
4
the jury back into the courtroom to hear the trade secret testimony.
During that time, the Court will provide an opportunity for direct
examination, cross-examination, and redirect examination on the
limited trade secret issues relevant to the witness’s testimony. Once
the parties have finished presenting the trade secret information
involving the witness, the public will be permitted to return to the
courtroom.
For the remaining days of the trial, Tesla shall identify any trade secret information
and make its request for temporary closures of the courtroom the afternoon before
the anticipated evidence or testimony is expected to be introduced. At that time, the
parties shall also inform the Court of any individuals they agree should not be
excluded from the courtroom during the next day’s closed proceedings.
To ensure that Tesla is able to provide sufficient justification for any potential
courtroom closures, any filings regarding a request to close the courtroom may
be filed under seal. Additionally, all proceedings regarding a request to close
the courtroom shall be closed to the public.
At the close of trial, the Court will confer with the parties to reexamine whether
any sealed portions of the transcript and any sealed filings may be placed on the
public record.
ECF No. [459] at 3-5.
Despite 	requesting 	that 	the 	Court 	implement 	formal 	procedures 	to 	preserve 	the
confidentiality of certain trade secrets introduced at trial, Tesla never sought to close the courtroom
or to preemptively seal any exhibits or transcripts during the entirety of the three-week trial.
Accordingly, all the evidence was introduced and published in open court for the Court, the jury,
and the attending public.
C. Tesla’s Request to Keep Certain Records and Evidence Under Seal
Tesla now seeks to preserve the confidentiality of certain evidence submitted before and
during the trial. Specifically, Tesla seeks to keep the following exhibits under seal:
1. 	Tesla’s Moving Objects Manual (Trial Ex. D-318)
2. 	Excerpts of Tesla’s “Theory of Operation HW2.5 Model S” (Trial Ex. P-14)
3. 	Excerpts of Tesla’s Response to NHTSA Inquiries (Trial Ex. P-15, P-18, ECF No.
[368-11])
Case 1:21-cv-21940-BB Document 611 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/26/2026 Page 4 of 22

Case No. 21-cv-21940-BLOOM/Torres
5
4. 	The “Confluence Page Titled ‘Warning Sequence’” (Trial Ex. P-116)
5. 	Tesla’s June 15, 2018, Quarterly Update to NHTSA (Trial Ex. P-23)
6. 	2020 AP Safety Goals and Related Testimony of E. Rubio-Blanco (Trial Ex. P-94, ECF
No. [268-8], ECF No. [285-4])
7. 	Declaration of Alan Moore and Appendices (ECF Nos. [285-2], [347-1], and [368-8])
8. 	Declaration of David Shoemaker (ECF No. [297-4])
9. 	Declaration of Oleg Drokin (ECF No. [285-1], ECF No. [368-4])
10. Excerpt of Notes from Alan Moore’s Expert File (ECF No. [608])3
11. Alan Moore’s Second Supplemental Declaration (ECF No. [306])
12. Emails Containing Product Privacy Signals (ECF No. [268-10])
ECF No. [554] at 5-7.
Tesla contends the records identified contain valuable and confidential trade secrets which,
if unsealed, would cause Tesla substantial economic and competitive harm. See id. at 1. Plaintiffs
respond that the Tesla waived confidentiality as to exhibits admitted at trial and the remaining
sealed records do not contain trade secrets. See ECF No. [590]. Therefore, the entirety of the
docket, including all trial exhibits, should be unsealed.
II. 	DISCUSSION
The Court finds that the most effective means of resolving the instant Motion is to bifurcate
Tesla’s request to keep certain pre-trial filings sealed from its request to keep certain exhibits and
testimony introduced at trial under seal.
3 The exhibit was previously filed at ECF No. [318] but the specific page in question was refiled at ECF
No. [608].
Case 1:21-cv-21940-BB Document 611 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/26/2026 Page 5 of 22

Case No. 21-cv-21940-BLOOM/Torres
6
A. Trial Evidence Tesla Seeks to Keep Under Seal
i. 	Exhibits Introduced at Trial Without Reservation
Regarding the testimony and exhibits introduced at trial, Tesla did not have a presumptive
expectation of confidentiality. As the Court made clear prior to the start of trial, ‘“[a]bsent some
exceptional circumstances, trials are public proceedings.”’ ECF No. [459] at 2 (emphasis added)
(quoting Wilson v. Am. Motors Corp., 759 F.2d 1568, 1570 (11th Cir. 1985) (additional level of
quotations and citations omitted)). Not only are the judicial proceedings presumptively open to the
public, so are the judicial records4 submitted during those proceedings. See Nixon v. Warner
Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) (“It is clear that the courts of this country recognize a
general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and
documents.”); Comm’r, Alabama Dep’t of Corr. v. Advance Loc. Media, LLC, 918 F.3d 1161,
1166 (11th Cir. 2019) (“The media and public presumptively have a right to access judicial
records.”) (citing Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1311 (11th
Cir. 2001) (per curiam)). The right to “access, inspect, and copy judicial records is ‘a right
grounded in the democratic process’ and [is] an essential component of our system of justice.’”
Pettaway v. Barber, 645 F. Supp. 3d 1269, 1275 (M.D. Ala. 2022) (quoting Chicago Trib. Co.,
263 F.3d at 1309, 1311). “Access to public and judicial records protects ‘the citizen’s desire to
keep a watchful eye on the workings of public agencies[.]”’ Comm’r, Alabama Dep’t of Corr., 918
4 “Documents become judicial records when they are incorporated or integrated into a court’s adjudicatory
proceedings, such as when the documents are attached to and relied upon in conjunction with a dispositive
motion.” Pettaway v. Barber, 645 F. Supp. 3d 1269, 1278 (M.D. Ala. 2022) (citing Comm’r, Alabama
Dep’t of Corr. v. Advance Loc. Media, LLC, 918 F.3d 1161, 1166 (11th Cir. 2019); F.T.C. v. AbbVie Prods.
LLC, 713 F.3d 54, 63 (11th Cir. 2013)); see also Benedict v. Hankook Tire Co. Ltd., 323 F. Supp. 3d 747,
755 (E.D. Va. 2018) (“Judicial records include, at minimum, documents in evidence at a public jury trial
and trial transcripts.”).
Case 1:21-cv-21940-BB Document 611 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/26/2026 Page 6 of 22

Case No. 21-cv-21940-BLOOM/Torres
7
F.3d at 1166 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 597-98). Accordingly, courts should ensure judicial
records remain available to the public unless confidentiality of those records preserves “higher
values,” and the sealing of the records is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. United States v.
Farmer, 110 F. Supp. 3d 1355, 1358 n.2 (S.D. Ga. 2015) (citing United States v. Bradley, No. 405-
CR-059, 2007 WL 1703232, at *1 (S.D. Ga. June 11, 2007)); see Wilson v. Am. Motors Corp., 759
F.2d 1568, 1571 (11th Cir. 1985).
As Tesla correctly points out, protecting a party’s trade secrets is often one of those “higher
values” that may warrant a narrowly tailored sealing of judicial records, or even the closing of the
courthouse doors. Romero v. Drummond Co., 480 F.3d 1234, 1246 (11th Cir. 2007) (citing Nixon,
435 U.S. at 598; Arthur R. Miller, Confidentiality, Protective Orders, and Public Access to the
Courts, 105 Harv. L. Rev. 427, 464–74 (1991)). Nonetheless, in recognition of the fact that the
right of public access is not absolute, particularly in cases involving trade secrets, the Court set out
a clear and specific procedure in advance of trial. Tesla was required to show that certain evidence
to be introduced contained trade secrets that would cause Tesla competitive harm were such
materials to be disclosed to the public. During the course of the three-week trial, Tesla never sought
to close the courtroom, and on only one occasion did Tesla assert that particular evidence shown
to the jury contained trade secrets.5
Regarding the unchallenged exhibits, the Court finds that Tesla conceded or otherwise
waived any argument that the evidence admitted at trial contained trade secrets by allowing that
evidence to remain unsealed and shown to the public during the trial. See, e.g., Littlejohn v. Bic
Corp., 851 F.2d 673, 680 (3d Cir. 1988) (“It is well established that the release of information in
5 On the eighth day of trial, Tesla explained to the Court that while it was not requesting to close the
courtroom that day, it would eventually seek to seal two exhibits relied upon during David Shoemaker and
Eloy Rubio-Blanco’s depositions. Tesla, however, did not specify which exhibits it would ultimately seek
to seal. ECF No. [581] at 10-11.
Case 1:21-cv-21940-BB Document 611 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/26/2026 Page 7 of 22

Case No. 21-cv-21940-BLOOM/Torres
8
open court ‘is a publication of that information and, if no effort is made to limit its disclosure,
operates as a waiver of any rights a party had to restrict its future use.”’) (quoting National Polymer
Products v. Borg-Warner Corp., 641 F.2d 418, 421 (6th Cir. 1981)); Level 3 Commc’ns, LLC v.
Limelight Networks, Inc., 611 F. Supp. 2d 572, 583 (E.D. Va. 2009) (same).
Tesla argues that its failure to take prophylactic measures to preserve the confidentiality of
the trade secrets admitted during the trial should not bar it from seeking to seal those records after
the fact. According to Tesla, the Court’s pre-trial procedures only outlined the process for closing
the courtroom itself; they did not specify how trial exhibits, transcripts, or witness testimony
introduced at trial should be treated at the conclusion of the case. See ECF No. [554] at 3. However,
Tesla’s argument is unpersuasive. First, the reason the Court did not specify procedures for sealing
evidence admitted at trial is that when the Court closes the courtroom, the trial transcripts, the
exhibits, and the records are also necessarily sealed. If those documents remained unsealed, it
would defeat the purpose of closing the courtroom in the first place. Accordingly, specifying
procedures for a preliminary sealing of trial exhibits and testimony would be redundant and
conflict with Tesla’s representation that there was no need to preclude the public from examining
such evidence during the trial.
When the evidence introduced at trial was published to the jury, it was simultaneously
shown to the public. Tesla does not argue that the confidentiality of the evidence has somehow
changed from the time of trial until now. Therefore, if the exhibits and testimony did not need to
be kept from the public during the trial, the Court finds there is no need to keep the records
confidential now and that a post hoc sealing of the records would be inequitable to those
individuals who were not in attendance during those proceedings.6 As such, the exhibits that Tesla
6 The Court also finds that it would undermine the principle of public proceedings to only allow citizens in
attendance to examine records that would be otherwise unavailable were the Court to seal the exhibits now.
Case 1:21-cv-21940-BB Document 611 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/26/2026 Page 8 of 22

Case No. 21-cv-21940-BLOOM/Torres
9
waived confidentiality to (Trial Exhibits D-318, P-15, P-18, P-20, P-23, and P-116) are to be
unsealed.
ii. 	Intent to Preserve Confidentiality as to Two Particular Trial Exhibits
While Tesla waived confidentiality for nearly all the exhibits introduced at trial, there are
two exhibits that warrant further scrutiny. Tesla contends that on the eighth day of trial,7 it raised
concerns that certain trial exhibits contained trade secrets that should be sealed at the conclusion
of trial. See ECF No. [596] at 5. To support this argument, Tesla points to the following discussion
with the Court on July 23, 2025, where counsel for Tesla stated:
If I could make one clarification, though. There are two exhibits that will be part of
the designated [Shoemaker and Rubio-Blanco] testimony that we don’t have
objections to. We don’t object to those exhibits being part of the testimony to be
played back in the open courtroom. But I just wanted to make you aware that those
exhibits were produced by Tesla as highly confidential attorneys’ eyes only, and
we do intend to take appropriate steps after the trial to maintain the confidential
status of those documents. [W]e’re not asking the courtroom to be closed, but
afterwards I’m confident we’re going to have an issue to raise with you about those.
So I just didn’t want that to come as a surprise because we’re talking about these
issues now.
ECF No. [581] at 10-11.
The Court is persuaded that Tesla’s representation during trial that it intended to keep those
two exhibits under seal ensured that Tesla did not waive confidentiality as to those exhibits.
However, following a review of the record and the trial transcripts, the Court was left uncertain as
to which two exhibits Tesla sought to seal. Accordingly, the Court ordered Tesla to identify and
submit under seal the two exhibits it was referencing on July 23, 2025. On January 16, 2026, Tesla
provided the Court with the following two exhibits:
See e.g., Littlejohn, 851 F.2d at 678 (“Access means more than the ability to attend open court proceedings;
it also encompasses the right of the public to inspect and to copy judicial records.”).
7 The eighth day of trial was July 23, 2025. See ECF No. [581].
Case 1:21-cv-21940-BB Document 611 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/26/2026 Page 9 of 22

Case No. 21-cv-21940-BLOOM/Torres
10
1. 	2020 AP Safety Goals (P-94)
2. 	Excerpts of “Theory of Operation HW2.5 Model S” (P-14)
ECF No. [610].
However, Tesla’s representation to the Court that the 2020 AP Safety Goals and the Theory
of Operation HW2.5 Model S contain trade secrets that warrant continued confidentiality is not
the end of the inquiry. “The judge is the primary representative of the public interest in the judicial
process and is duty-bound therefore to review any request to seal the record (or part of it).” A.L. v.
Walt Disney Parks & Resorts US, Inc., No. 614CV1544ORL22GJK, 2020 WL 1138254, at *1
(M.D. Fla. Mar. 9, 2020) (quoting Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v. CBS, Inc., 184 F. Supp.
2d 1353, 1363 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 15, 2002)).
While the public has a right to inspect and copy judicial records, including trial exhibits,
that right is not absolute and may be overcome by an adequate showing that “a party’s privacy and
proprietary interest in the information [outweighs] the interest of the public in accessing the
information.” Romero, 480 F.3d at 1245-1246. Accordingly, the Court must analyze both trial
exhibits 	to 	determine 	whether 	they 	indeed 	contain 	trade 	secrets 	warranting 	continued
confidentiality and whether Tesla’s need for continued confidentiality is outweighed by the
public’s interest in accessing the confidential information.
a. 	2020 AP Safety Goals (P-94)
The Court is unpersuaded that the 2020 AP Safety Goals report contains trade secrets
warranting the continued confidentiality of the information contained therein. According to Tesla,
the document titled “2020 AP Safety Goals” is a report that “summarizes Tesla’s assessment of
information it has received from the field regarding collisions.” ECF No. [554-1] at 5. The report
Case 1:21-cv-21940-BB Document 611 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/26/2026 Page 10 of 22

Case No. 21-cv-21940-BLOOM/Torres
11
“identifies information Tesla was tracking for purposes of product improvements and methods
related thereto.” Id.
As an initial matter, the 2020 AP Safety Goals Report is approximately six years old and
largely provides basic charts and data on the various types of crashes involving Tesla vehicles
from 	2019. 	ECF 	No. 	[285-4] 	at 	54. 	Although 	the 	report 	also 	incorporates 	potential
recommendations for improvement, Tesla fails to establish that those recommendations contain
valuable information that would provide other vehicle manufacturers a competitive edge were
those competitors to access the report now.8
While Tesla may prefer to keep its internal crash report confidential, the Court is
unpersuaded that the report contains valuable trade secrets, and it should therefore be unsealed.
McDonald v. Grimsley, No. CV 1:23-00464-TFM-N, 2024 WL 5256498, at *3 (S.D. Ala. Sept.
13, 2024) (“[T]he mere fact that judicial records may reveal potentially embarrassing information
is not in itself sufficient reason to block public access.”) (quoting Siedle v. Putnam Invs., Inc., 147
F.3d 7, 10 (1st Cir. 1998)).9
b. 	Excerpts of “Theory of Operation HW2.5 Model S” (P-14)
Although the AP Safety Goals Report does not contain trade secrets, the Court finds that
the Theory of Operation HW2.5 Model S does. Tesla explains that this exhibit is a document relied
upon by Tesla service technicians and engineers, which contains “non-public information about
Autopilot hardware and, more generally, how Autopilot operates.” ECF No. [554] at 5. While
Plaintiffs argue that the information in the Theory of Operation HW2.5 Model S document “does
8 Moreover, the 2020 AP Safety Goals Report was introduced at trial, thereby undermining Tesla’s
argument that the exhibit contains trade secrets worthy of continued confidentiality.
9 To the extent Tesla is also seeking to seal Eloy Rubio-Blanco’s related trial testimony, see ECF No. [554]
at 6, that request is also denied.
Case 1:21-cv-21940-BB Document 611 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/26/2026 Page 11 of 22

Case No. 21-cv-21940-BLOOM/Torres
12
not include information as to the ‘technical capabilities or parameters’ of Autopilot,” the Court
disagrees. ECF No. [590] at 8. A review of the Theory of Operation document shows that it
includes detailed information not only about how Autopilot functions, but also how certain
hardware components interact with one another and how to troubleshoot certain malfunctions. The
Court therefore finds the Theory of Operation HW2.5 Model S contains proprietary trade secrets,10
and that Tesla’s need to keep this information confidential outweighs the public desire for such
information, particularly given the plethora of other evidence and information that has already
been previously disclosed over the course of this case.
B. Pre-Trial Exhibits
The Court now turns to the pre-trial exhibits that were filed under seal and were not
introduced as evidence at trial. Although Tesla originally provided those purportedly confidential
records11 under the good faith belief that the records would remain under seal during discovery
unless Plaintiffs or a third-party challenged the designation of such materials, see ECF No. [126]
at 7-8,12 the presumption of confidentiality was extinguished once the parties incorporated and
relied upon the purportedly confidential materials in their pre-trial motions. In re Denture Cream
10 The Court also notes that it is unclear whether the excerpts from the Theory of Operation HW2.5 Models
were referred to or shown at trial, making it less likely that the continued confidentiality of the document
would unfairly prejudice individuals who were not present during the trial. See ECF No. [610]
11 “[T]he mere fact that a [p]arty designates a document as either ‘confidential,’ for ‘attorney’s eyes only’
or as containing ‘trade secrets’ pursuant to a confidentiality agreement does not, in and of itself, mean that
those documents are, in fact, confidential.” In re Denture Cream Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 09-2051-MD,
2013 WL 214672, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 18, 2013) (citing In re Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v.
CBS, Inc., 184 F. Supp. 2d 1353, 1362 (N.D. Ga. 2002) (“[C]alling a document confidential does not make
it so in the eyes of the court; these consensual protective orders merely delay the inevitable moment when
the court will be called upon to determine whether Rule 26(c) protection is deserved”)).
12 “[T]he common-law right of access to judicial proceedings does not apply to discovery materials, ‘as
these materials are neither public documents nor judicial records.’” In re Denture Cream Prods. Liab. Litig.,
No. 09-2051-MD, 2013 WL 214672, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 18, 2013) (quoting Chicago Tribune Co., 263
F.3d at 1311).
Case 1:21-cv-21940-BB Document 611 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/26/2026 Page 12 of 22

Case No. 21-cv-21940-BLOOM/Torres
13
Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 09-2051-MD, 2013 WL 214672, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 18, 2013)
(“[D]iscovery material filed in connection with pretrial motions that require judicial resolution of
the merits is subject to the common-law right [of access].”) (citing Chicago Tribune Co., v.
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1312 (11th Cir. 2001)). However, as previously
mentioned, “even when the right of public access attaches, it is ‘not absolute.’” Callahan v. United
Network for Organ Sharing, 17 F.4th 1356, 1363 (11th Cir. 2021) (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at
598). The Court still must exercise its sound discretion13 and evaluate “whether good cause exists
to prevent such access, balancing ‘the asserted right of access against the other party’s interest in
keeping the information confidential.’” Id. (quoting Romero v. Drummond Co., Inc., 480 F. 3d.
1234, 1246 (11th Cir. 2007)); F.T.C. v. AbbVie Prods. LLC, 713 F.3d 54, 61 (11th Cir. 2013)
(explaining that the decision whether to unseal documents is left to the district court’s “sound
discretion”).
While the Eleventh Circuit has not provided specific factors for district courts to take into
account when deciding whether to unseal judicial records, courts typically will consider “a number
of important questions, including ‘whether allowing access would impair court functions or harm
legitimate privacy interests, the degree of and likelihood of injury if made public, the reliability of
the information, whether there will be an opportunity to respond to the information, whether the
information concerns public officials or public concerns, and the availability of a less onerous
alternative to sealing the documents.”’ Callahan, 17 F.4th at 1363 (quoting Romero, 480 F.3d at
1246); see also F.T.C., 713 F.3d at 61 (listing “several relevant factors to consider, including
whether the records are sought for such illegitimate purposes as to promote public scandal or gain
unfair commercial advantage, and whether access is likely to promote public understanding of
13 F.T.C. v. AbbVie Prods. LLC, 713 F.3d 54, 62 (11th Cir. 2013)
Case 1:21-cv-21940-BB Document 611 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/26/2026 Page 13 of 22

Case No. 21-cv-21940-BLOOM/Torres
14
historically significant events” (alteration adopted, quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly,
concerns about the release of trade secrets, may overcome “the public interest in access to judicial
documents.” Callahan, 17 F.4th at 1363; see also Romero, 480 F.3d at 1246 (“A party’s privacy
or proprietary interest in information sometimes overcomes the interest of the public in accessing
the information.”); Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011) (“The
publication of materials that could result in infringement upon trade secrets has long been
considered a factor that would overcome this strong presumption [of public access].”).
Tesla argues that it has established good cause to keep the remaining sealed pre-trial
exhibits confidential because those filings contain “proprietary, highly confidential trade secrets”
that, if disclosed, would cause undue harm to Tesla’s legitimate business interests. ECF No. [554]
at 5. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, contend that the exhibits in question do not contain trade secrets
that warrant continued confidentiality, and even if the exhibits do contain trade secrets, Tesla’s
interest in keeping that information confidential does not outweigh the public’s interest in
accessing the full record. ECF No. [590] at 6, 12.
The Court agrees with Tesla that the presence of trade secrets in judicial records may serve
as a legitimate basis for sealing records from the public. See, e.g., Advanced Magnet Lab, Inc. v.
Meinke, No. 6:20-cv-712-Orl-37EJK, 2020 WL 13199850, at *2 (M.D. Fla. 22, 2020) (“Courts in
this District have recognized the importance of filing trade secrets under seal when the movant has
adequately demonstrated that the information is indeed a trade secret.” (collecting cases)).
However, simply because Tesla has asserted that sealed records contain confidential trade secrets
does not make it so. The Court has an independent obligation to determine whether the records
contain genuine trade secrets that warrant keeping the filings under seal.
A party arguing that a document should be sealed [or remained sealed] because it
contains trade secret information must show that the information meets the
Case 1:21-cv-21940-BB Document 611 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/26/2026 Page 14 of 22

Case No. 21-cv-21940-BLOOM/Torres
15
commonly accepted criteria of trade secrets, including that the party consistently
treated the documents as closely guarded secrets, the information represents
substantial value to the party, the information is valuable to the party’s competitors,
and it derives value by virtue of the effort of its creation and lack of dissemination.
Day v. Barnett Outdoors, LLC, No. 8:16-CV-2480-T-27MAP, 2017 WL 10275971, at *3 (M.D.
Fla. Aug. 23, 2017). Accordingly, the Court examines each of the remaining sealed pretrial filings
to determine whether they constitute genuine trade secrets.
iii. Response to Question 5(b) (Bates BENAVIDES-0003119-24) ECF No.
[368-11]
Turning first to the exhibit at ECF No. [368-11], the Court agrees with Tesla that the exhibit
“provides detailed information related to how Autopilot and/or Automatic Emergency Braking
operate,” including specific vehicle limitations Tesla has implemented. ECF No. [554] at 5. While
Plaintiffs contend this NHTSA record does not contain trade secrets and the only reason it is “given
‘confidential’ status under the federal regulations is so that the documents are not subject to
production under a FOIA request,” the Court finds Tesla’s discussion of the limits and controls
Tesla places on its vehicles, along with how these various controls interact with one another, is
precisely the type of confidential information that constitutes a trade secret. ECF No. [590] at 9.
Given that Tesla has diligently worked to preserve the confidentiality of this information, Tesla’s
NHTSA Response to Question 5(b), ECF No. [368-11], shall remain under seal.14
iv. Deposition Testimony of E. Rubio-Blanco Related to 2020 AP Safety
Goals (ECF No. [285-4])
Next, the Court considers whether portions of Eloy Rubio-Blanco’s deposition testimony
discussing Tesla’s 2020 AP Safety Goals Report involves trade secrets. According to Tesla, the
14 While the Court recognizes that a record may still be unsealed, even if it is a trade secret, the Court does
not find that the public’s desire for this technical information outweighs Tesla’s compelling interest in
preserving its trade secrets, given that this is a limited document that does little to help the public understand
and follow the proceedings.
Case 1:21-cv-21940-BB Document 611 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/26/2026 Page 15 of 22

Case No. 21-cv-21940-BLOOM/Torres
16
“2020 AP Safety Goals” report “summarizes Tesla’s assessment of information it has received
from the field regarding collisions.” ECF No. [554-1] at 5. The report identifies information Tesla
was tracking for purposes of product improvements and methods related thereto.” Id. Accordingly,
since Rubio-Blanco discussed the report during portions of his deposition, Tesla maintains that
those portions of the deposition should remain sealed. See id. at 6. The Court finds that the portions
of Rubio-Blanco’s deposition identified by Tesla do not contain trade secrets.
The Court has already concluded earlier in this Opinion that the 2020 AP Safety Goals
Report is a six-year-old report concerning generic crash data that does not amount to a trade secret.
Accordingly, Rubio-Blanco’s high-level overview discussion of the 2020 AP Safety Goals Report
also does not implicate trade secrets.
Indeed, during his deposition, Rubio-Blanco vaguely discusses what kind of roads
Autopilot was designed for and the fact that Tesla previously conducted analysis of its Autopilot
at-fault cases using telemetry data in combination with manual labeling of the accidents. See ECF
No. [285-4] at 50-81, 137-140. Nothing about that testimony explains any unique or specialized
technology Tesla used or proprietary details about how Autopilot functions. Therefore, Rubio-
Blanco’s deposition testimony will be unsealed.
v. 	Declaration and Appendices of Alan Moore (December 24, 2024) (ECF
Nos. [285-2], [347-1], and [368-8])
Tesla asserts that certain portions of Plaintiffs’ Expert Alan Moore’s December 24, 2024
Declaration should remain sealed. Tesla asserts that the Declaration should be sealed because it
“describes the design and operation of Autopilot’s vision and object detection and response
functions, and related data parameters in specific detail.” ECF No. [554] at 6. Plaintiffs respond
that Moore’s opinions are based on his own review of the data Plaintiffs obtained from the
Vehicle’s ECU and MCU. See ECF No. [590] at 10. Accordingly, the Declaration and appendices
Case 1:21-cv-21940-BB Document 611 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/26/2026 Page 16 of 22

Case No. 21-cv-21940-BLOOM/Torres
17
contain Moore’s own conclusion based on his review of the data and, therefore, do not amount to
trade secrets. See id.
The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that Moore’s December 2024 Declaration does not contain
trade secrets. Moore’s December 24, 2024 Declaration does not disclose any proprietary or
confidential technical information about Tesla’s vehicles or Autopilot. The Declaration merely
provides Moore’s own interpretation and analysis of data provided by Tesla and obtained from the
Vehicle. Given that the Declaration does not disclose any formulas or technical processes for
capturing the data, the Court does not find that Tesla has a proprietary interest in a record created
by Plaintiffs’ expert. Accordingly, the Court will unseal Moore’s December 24, 2024 Declaration.
With respect to the appendices attached to the Declaration, however, the Court finds that
those should remain sealed. The appendices contain the contents of the CAN and log data provided
by Tesla, as well as the data later extracted from the Vehicle. The data includes what appears to
be metadata or code from the Vehicle that Tesla would reasonably have a proprietary interest in
keeping confidential and has sought to keep confidential. See ECF No. [285-2] at 16-20; see also
ECF No. [368] at 10. Moreover, the Court does not find there is a particularly compelling need for
the public to access this data, given that the public may be fully apprised of the relevant information
as it relates to this case by reviewing Moore’s analysis of the data contained in the December 24,
2024 Declaration. Therefore, the Court will keep the Appendices of Moore’s December 24, 2024
Declaration sealed.
vi. Declaration of David Shoemaker—December 27, 2024 (ECF No. [297-4])
Tesla argues that David Shoemaker’s Declaration “discusses the transfer and storage of
Autopilot Snapshot data, as well as how such information relates to the creation and use of
augmented videos” and, therefore, should remain sealed. ECF No. [554] at 6-7. Plaintiffs respond
that Shoemaker testified publicly during trial about the very same issues contained in his
Case 1:21-cv-21940-BB Document 611 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/26/2026 Page 17 of 22

Case No. 21-cv-21940-BLOOM/Torres
18
Declaration. ECF No. [590] at 10. Moreover, to the extent the Declaration involves technical
information, Plaintiffs argue that the information is general non-proprietary information about
methods of transmitting data and saving data on servers, which is not unique to Tesla. Id.
David Shoemaker’s Declaration does not contain information that would constitute a trade
secret. While Shoemaker explains that, in the event of a crash, Tesla vehicles collect that crash
data on their ECU and send the information to Tesla’s headquarters, that is hardly a trade secret.
As Plaintiffs point out, this information is publicly available in Tesla’s owner’s manual on its
website.15 See ECF No. [590] at 10. While Shoemaker also provides additional details about how
Tesla looked up the data on its servers, he discussed those processes in detail in open court at trial.
See ECF No. [581] at 174-201; see also Littlejohn, 851 F.2d at 680 (“It is well established that the
release of information in open court ‘is a publication of that information and, if no effort is made
to limit its disclosure, operates as a waiver of any rights a party had to restrict its future use.”’)
(citations omitted). As such, Shoemaker’s Declaration shall be unsealed.
vii. Declaration of Oleg Drokin—December 2, 2024 (ECF No. [285-1], ECF
No. [368-4])
Tesla explains that the Drokin (Plaintiffs’ expert) Declaration should be sealed because it
contains a discussion about how he extracted Autopilot Snapshot data from the Vehicle’s ECU,
how the data was stored, and even the contents of the data. ECF No. [554] at 7. Tesla, however,
offers no reason why Plaintiffs’ expert’s method of extraction constitutes proprietary information.
Moreover, as Plaintiffs point out, Drokin recovered and recreated the data himself, through a
manner not utilized by Tesla. Drokin’s description of how he used an original method to recreate
an augmented video certainly does not constitute a trade secret, particularly where Drokin never
15 See also Tesla, Customer Privacy Notice, https://www.tesla.com/legal/privacy#data-sharing (last
accessed on January 7, 2026).
Case 1:21-cv-21940-BB Document 611 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/26/2026 Page 18 of 22

Case No. 21-cv-21940-BLOOM/Torres
19
disclosed any source code. To the extent that the Declaration discusses the type of information
that Tesla captures, the Court does not find that such information, particularly information from
2018, would give competitors such an advantage that it warrants the continued confidentiality of
the Declaration. Accordingly, Drokin’s Declaration will be unsealed.
viii. 	Alan Moore’s Notes from Expert File (ECF No. [608])16
Tesla next argues that one page of Alan Moore’s notes17 should remain under seal because
it contains a detailed description of CAN data. ECF No. [554] at 7. Plaintiffs respond that “Moore
repeatedly discussed what this CAN data showed at trial.” ECF No. [590] at 11. Therefore, since
“Tesla did not object or request a trade secret designation” at the time, Plaintiffs argue there is no
basis to keep Moore’s notes on the CAN data sealed. Id. Additionally, Plaintiffs argue that Tesla
has “failed to explain how data showing the car’s steering angle, steering torque, and radar
measurements ha[s] ‘independent value.’” Id.
The Court finds that the one page of Moore’s notes that Tesla identified does not contain
trade secrets warranting continued confidentiality. While Moore’s notes provide his process for
analyzing the CAN data as well as limited interpretations of the data, Moore’s notes do not contain
the data itself. See ECF No. [608]. Tesla does not have a legitimate proprietary interest in Moore’s
interpretation of the CAN data. Consequently, Moore’s notes do not contain information that
would constitute a trade secret18 and must therefore be unsealed.
16 The exhibit was previously filed at ECF No. [318] but the specific page in question was refiled at ECF
No. [608].
17 The page Tesla seeks to have sealed is filed at ECF No. [318] at 603.
18 The only other information on the page is a generic crash report, which does not contain any unique or
proprietary information about Tesla or its vehicles. ECF No. [608].
Case 1:21-cv-21940-BB Document 611 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/26/2026 Page 19 of 22

Case No. 21-cv-21940-BLOOM/Torres
20
ix. Alan Moore’s Second Supplemental Declaration—January 15, 2025 (ECF
No. [306])
According to Tesla, the Second Supplemental Declaration of Alan Moore should remain
sealed because it “describe[s] information recovered from the Vehicle’s ECU with specific
information logs that demonstrate how Tesla logs data.” ECF No. [554] at 7.
Just as the Court found that Moore’s original Declaration did not contain trade secrets, the
Court does not find anything in Moore’s Second Supplemental Declaration that would amount to
a trade secret. The mere fact that the Declaration discusses the removal of log data and mentions
how Tesla logs data is stored does not render the information contained therein a trade secret.
Pliteq, Inc. v. Mostafa, No. 23-CV-24868, 2024 WL 4217176, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 4, 2024)
(finding that a chart simply containing computer file data was not a trade secret because although
“that data may be related to documents that contain trade secrets, the cold data itself is too far
removed from the trade secret information to provide the ‘rigorous justification’ required to
support filing [the exhibit] under seal.”) (citing Perez-Guerrero v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 717 F.3d 1224,
1234 (11th Cir. 2013); AbbVie Prods., 713 F.3d at 62 (requiring “good cause to deny the public
the right to access the document”)). Moreover, the log data and how the log data was stored on
Tesla’s vehicles and servers were discussed extensively at trial. Accordingly, because Tesla has
not consistently treated the information as a closely held secret, the Court will not permit Moore’s
Second Supplemental Declaration to remain under seal.
x. 	Email Containing Product Privacy Signals (ECF No. [268-10]).
While Tesla previously argued an email containing product privacy signals should also
remain sealed, ECF No. [554] at 7, the parties have since agreed to unseal that exhibit. See ECF
Nos. [599], [600]. Consequently, the question of continued confidentiality concerning product
privacy signals is moot.
Case 1:21-cv-21940-BB Document 611 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/26/2026 Page 20 of 22

Case No. 21-cv-21940-BLOOM/Torres
21
III. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. 	Tesla’s Motion to Preserve Confidentiality of Certain Trial and Pre-Trial
Records that Contain Trade Secrets, ECF No. [554], is GRANTED in part
and DENIED in part.
a. 	The Motion is GRANTED to the extent Tesla seeks to keep Plaintiffs’
Trial Exhibit 14— Excerpts of “Theory of Operation HW2.5 Model S”
(P-14) under seal, but DENIED to the extent Tesla seeks to keep any
other trial exhibits under seal.
b. 	The Motion is further GRANTED to the extent Tesla seeks to keep
certain pretrial filings and exhibits that were not submitted at trial under
seal. Specifically, the Clerk of Court is ORDERED to keep the
following pretrial exhibits UNDER SEAL:
i. 	ECF No. [285-2] (pages 12-23 ONLY)
ii. 	ECF No. [347-1] (pages 12-23 ONLY)
iii. 	ECF No. [368-8] (pages 13-24 ONLY)
iv. 	ECF No. [368-11].
c. 	The Motion is DENIED to the extent Tesla seeks to keep any other
pretrial filings or exhibits under seal.
2. 	In light of the Court’s Order, all docket entries and exhibits in this case are to
be UNSEALED EXCEPT for the following exhibits and docket entries, which
are to remain SEALED:
Case 1:21-cv-21940-BB Document 611 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/26/2026 Page 21 of 22

Case No. 21-cv-21940-BLOOM/Torres
22
a. 	ECF No. [285-2] (pages 12-23 ONLY)19
b. 	ECF No. [347-1] (pages 12-23 ONLY)20
c. 	ECF No. [368-8] (pages 13-24 ONLY)21
d. 	ECF No. [368-11]
e. 	Plaintiffs’ Trial Exhibit 14—Excerpts of “Theory of Operation
HW2.5 Model S” (P-14).
3. 	Tesla’s Motion for the Continued Confidentiality of Materials Designated
Under Confidentiality Protective Order, ECF No. [368], not previously ruled
upon, is DENIED AS MOOT.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on January 22, 2025.
_________________________________
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: 	counsel of record
19 Pages 1-11 of ECF No. [285-2] are to be unsealed.
20 Pages 1-11 of ECF No. [347-1] are to be unsealed.
21 Pages 1-12 of ECF No. [368-8] are to be unsealed.
Case 1:21-cv-21940-BB Document 611 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/26/2026 Page 22 of 22