Clark v. Bamberger et al

Filing 126

OPINION AND ORDER directing as follows: (1) the 115 Joint MOTION to Seal Fairness Hearing Proceedings is denied, with the exception of two documents; (2) the 117 MOTION to approve settlement and distribution of settlement proceeds and exhibits to the motion are unsealed, except for Exhibits 4 and 5 ( 117 -4 and 117 -5), which shall remain sealed; (3) the 119 report of the guardian ad litem is unselaed. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 3/28/2016. (djy, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN DIVISION
JENNIFER CLARK, as
)
personal representative of )
the estate of Jeremy
)
Clark,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
JOEY BAMBERGER, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
1:12cv1122-MHT
(WO)

OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff

Jennifer

Clark,

as

personal

representative of the estate of her deceased husband
Jeremy Clark, filed this wrongful-death suit against
defendants
Joey

Rolls-Royce

Bamberger,

Communications

Army

Corporation
Fleet

Corporation.

and

Support,

its
LLC,

Jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity).

employee
and
is

L-3

proper

Pending before the

court is the parties’ joint motion to seal the fairness
hearing

proceedings,

which

requests

sealing

of

“all

documents, transcripts and other records relating to

the fairness hearing proceeding.”
no. 115) at 1.

Motion to Seal (doc.

For the reasons discussed below, the

motion to seal will be denied, with the exception of
two documents.

I.

BACKGROUND

This case arises out of a tragic accident in which
Jeremy

Clark,

a

civilian

helicopter-training

pilot

employed by the Army, was killed when the helicopter he
was piloting crashed during a training exercise at Fort
Rucker,

Alabama.

wrongful-death

Jennifer

suit

Rolls-Royce

and

troubleshoot

the

Clark

contending

Bamberger
engine

that

did

issue,

brought

defendants

not
and

this

effectively

were

therefore

liable for the crash, and that L-3 Communications and
Army Fleet Support, which played a role in maintaining
the aircraft, also bore responsibility.
The
asserted
summary

defendants
numerous
judgment

denied

liability

defenses,
and

to

and

exclude
2

for

filed

the

crash,

motions

plaintiff’s

for

expert

testimony.

Plaintiff

defendants.
children,

reached

settlements

with

the

Because decedent was survived by two minor
who

stand

to

inherit

a

portion

of

the

settlements under Alabama law, the parties moved for
appointment of a guardian ad litem for the children and
for the court to hold a fairness hearing and approve
the settlement.

They also filed the motion, now before

the court, to seal the fairness hearing and all related
documents.

II. DISCUSSION
A. Applicable Law
“In most cases when the parties settle, the court
does

not

examine

settlements

are

or

purely

approve

their

private

agreements;

contracts.

the

However,

when, as here, a settlement is approved by a court, the
settlement

becomes

part

of

the

judicial

record.”

Stalnaker v. Novar Corp., 293 F. Supp. 2d 1260, 1263
(M.D. Ala. 2003) (citations omitted).

3

Most documents filed in court are subject to the
common-law right of access.

“The operations of the

courts and the judicial conduct of judges are matters
of

utmost

public

concern, ... and

[t]he

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
“Beyond

citations

and

establishing

criminal

and

quotation

a

civil

marks

general

actions

omitted).

presumption

should

be

that

conducted

publicly, the common-law right of access includes the
right

to

inspect

documents.”

and

copy

Chicago

public
Tribune

records
Co.

and
v.

Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1311 (11th
Cir. 2001) (citing Nixon v. Warner Comm., Inc., 435
U.S. 589, 597 (1978)).
the

court

decisions,’

to

invoke

whether

“A motion that is ‘presented to
its
or

powers
not

or

affect

its

characterized

as

dispositive, is subject to the public right of access,”
4

Romero, 480 F.3d at 1246 (citations omitted), as is any
“[m]aterial filed in connection with any substantive
pretrial motion, unrelated to discovery,” id. at 1245
(citations omitted).
The

public’s

common-law

right

of

access

is

not

absolute, however, and “may be overcome by a showing of
good

cause.”

Id.

“[W]hether

good

cause

exists ... is ... decided by the nature and character
of the information in question.”

Id. at 1246 (quoting

Chicago Tribune, 263 F.3d at 1315).
whether

to

seal

documents

must

Courts deciding

balance

“the

public

interest in accessing court documents against a party’s
interest in keeping the information confidential.”

Id.

In balancing these interests, “courts consider, among
other

factors,

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
5

public concerns, and the availability of a less onerous
alternative to sealing the documents.”
Chicago

Tribune,

263

F.3d

at

Id.; see also

1311

(“[A]

judge's

exercise of discretion in deciding whether to release
judicial

records

should

be

informed

by

a

sensitive

appreciation of the circumstances that led to ... [the]
production [of the particular document in question].”
(citation omitted)).
In addition to the common-law right of access, the
First Amendment provides the press and public a limited
right of access to certain court proceedings.

It is

unclear whether there is a First Amendment right of
access to the documents and hearing at issue here.
Wilson

v.

(11th

Cir.

Am.

Motors

1985)

constitutional

right

Corp.,

759

(discussing
of

access

F.2d

1568,

uncertain
to

civil

See

1569-70

status
trials

of
and

concluding that “the question of whether or not there
is a constitutional right of access to civil trials has
not been answered by our court”); Chicago Tribune, 263
F.3d at 1310 (“The constitutional right of access has a
6

more limited application in the civil context than it
does in the criminal. ... Nonetheless, this court has
extended
access

the

to

release

or

scope

include

of

the

civil

actions

incarceration

confinement.”)

constitutional

of

(citations

right

pertaining

prisoners

omitted)).

to

and

of
the

their

Were

a

constitutional right of access to apply, the parties
would

have

to

show

that

sealing

is

“necessary

to

achieve a legitimate purpose” and that less intrusive
alternatives were considered; further, the court would
need

to

ensure

narrowly drawn.

that

the

restriction

on

access

was

Newman v. Graddick, 696 F.2d 796, 802

(11th Cir. 1983) (citations omitted).

As the parties

here cannot meet even the lesser ‘good cause’ showing
to overcome the common-law right of access, the court
need not decide what the First Amendment requires here.

B. Appropriateness of Sealing
The

parties

have

moved

to

seal

all

documents,

transcripts, and other records related to the fairness
7

hearing.
motion

This
to

request

presumably

approve
agreement

settlement

the
and

would

settlement
documents

cover

and

the

attached

related

to

the

formation of trusts for the minor beneficiaries; the
guardian

ad

litem’s

report;

the

transcript

of

the

fairness hearing; the order on the motion to approve
the settlement agreement; and, arguably, the motion to
seal and this order on the motion to seal.
The parties do not dispute that the documents at
issue

here

access.

are

subject

However,

they

to

the

contend

common-law
that

these

right

of

documents

contain “sensitive information relating to the privacy
interests”

of

the

minors,

the

“could cause harm to the minors.”

disclosure

of

which

Joint Motion to Seal

Fairness Hearing Proceedings (doc. no. 115), at 1, 2.
Protecting the privacy of minors is undoubtedly an
important

concern.

The

Federal

Rules

of

Civil

Procedure recognize the importance of protecting the
privacy interests of minors by requiring that minors be
referred to by only their initials in court filings.
8

Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a)(3).
protection,
documents,

courts

Going beyond this level of

have

including

sealed

settlements,

proceedings

and

litigation

that

in

exposes sensitive information about a child that could
harm

the

child’s

future

educational

or

employment

prospects or that could cause the child great trauma or
embarrassment.

For example, in a personal-injury case

stemming

from

an

suffered

injuries

aviation
and

incident

emotional

in

which

trauma,

minors

the

court

sealed the settlement agreement because “[t]he dollar
amount of each minor's settlement implies the relative
severity

and

expected

emotional

and

mental

duration

injuries

(or

of

each

lack

minor's

thereof)

in

comparison to the other family members, and therefore
may expose the minors to potential public ridicule and
embarrassment in the community and could later make it
more difficult for them to obtain employment.”

Mears

v. Atl. Se. Airlines, Inc., No. 5:12-CV-613-F, 2014 WL
5018907,

at

*2

(E.D.N.C.

Oct.

7,

2014)

(Fox,

J.).

Similarly, courts have sealed settlement agreements and
9

other
and

documents

other

medical
See,

and

cases

where

information

e.g.,

proceedings

special-education

confidential

about

Wittenberg

in

v.

minors

educational

would

be

and

exposed.

Winston-Salem/Forsyth

Cnty.

Bd. of Educ., CIV.A.1:05CV00818, 2009 WL 1684585, at
*2–3 (M.D.N.C. June 16, 2009) (Osteen, J.) (granting
motion to seal settlement agreement in part to protect
the confidential educational records of minor student
in

special-education

case);

see

also

Webster

Groves

Sch. Dist. v. Pulitzer Pub. Co., 898 F.2d 1371, 1374-77
(8th Cir. 1990) (denying press access to proceedings
and

court

file

where

doing

so

would

expose

child’s

allegedly criminal behavior, mental-health status, and
disability-related information).
In this case, the settlement and other documents
would not expose confidential educational, medical, or
mental-health information about the minor children, and
the

financial

information

in

the

settlement

would

expose nothing about the children other than the amount
of money they were to receive and that a wrongful-death
10

case

stemming

settled.

from

The

information

the

parties

related

argue

to

offer

injury,

any

or

type

emotional, or other.

their
the

father

disclosure

settlement

could

was
of

cause

However, they do not explain

evidence

what

of

that

the

injury to the children.
or

death

showing

of

how

injury

it

they

could

cause

fear--physical,

As a result, the court has no

information upon which to assess “the degree of and
likelihood of injury if made public.”
at

1246.

Further,

Romero, 480 F.3d

“‘[s]tereotyped

and

conclusory

statements’ do not establish good cause” for denying
public

access

to

court

documents.

Id.

(citation

omitted); see also Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Court,
478

U.S.

overcome
the

1,

15

(1986)

(“right

by ... conclusory

parties

have

not

made

of

access

assertion”)).
a

sufficient

cannot

be

Therefore,
showing

to

overcome the common-law right of access.
Nor do other factors weigh in favor of sealing the
documents.

The parties argue that there is no less

onerous alternative to sealing the documents, because
11

the names of the parents in the litigation make the
children
However,

easily
as

identifiable
parties

the

by
not

have

their
shown

initials.
that

the

documents would expose anything confidential under law
or embarrassing about the children, the court finds the
use of initials sufficient to protect the children’s
privacy in this circumstance.

The parties also argue

that this lawsuit is not a matter of public concern as
it is between two private parties, and does not involve
a

public

official.

However,

because

this

lawsuit

involves the crash of a U.S. Army helicopter at an Army
base

and

the

alleged

negligence

of

government

contractors paid with public money, this lawsuit does
to some extent involve a matter of public concern.
Finally, Rolls-Royce argues that (1) the parties
agreed that the case would be sealed and (2) it would
not have settled for the same amount of money had it
not

believed

that

the

case

would

be

sealed.

The

plaintiff disputes that the sealing of the case was a
condition of the settlement; plaintiff’s position is
12

supported by the lack of any reference in the parties’
written agreement to the settlement being conditioned
on sealing.
In any case, even if the parties had so agreed,
that reason would not be sufficient to overcome the
public’s right of access.
to

encourage

settlement,

The court certainly wishes
recognizes

that

settlements

are critical to the functioning of the federal courts,
and knows that many defendants--and plaintiffs--value
confidentiality

in

settlements.

Further,

one

could

argue that allowing access to the settlement in this
case

could

discourage
Eleventh

impair
future

Circuit

court

functions

settlements.
has

made

clear

in

that

it

might

Nevertheless,
that

the

the

parties’

agreement to seal a settlement or other document is not
a

relevant

seal.

consideration

in

the

decision

whether

to

As the appeals court observed in Wilson v. Am.

Motors Corp., 759 F.2d 1568, 1571 n.4 (11th Cir. 1985),
“There is no question that courts should
encourage settlements. However, the payment of
money to an injured party is simply not “a
compelling
governmental
interest”
legally
13

recognizable or even entitled to consideration
in deciding whether or not to seal a record.
We feel certain that many parties to lawsuits
would be willing to bargain (with the adverse
party and the court) for the sealing of records
after listening to or observing damaging
testimony and evidence.
Such suppression of
public records cannot be authorized.”
For

these

reasons,

the

motion

to

seal

denied, with the exception of two documents.
documents

attached

to

the

motion

to

will

be

The trust

approve

the

settlement agreement, which contain the minors’ full
names, shall remain sealed, as they were not filed in
compliance

with

Federal

Rule

of

Civil

Procedure

5.2(a)(3).
***
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
(1)

The

proceedings

joint

(doc.

motion
no.

to

115)

exception of two documents.

14

seal
is

fairness

denied,

hearing

with

the

(2) The

motion

to

approve

settlement

and

distribution of settlement proceeds (doc. no. 117) and
exhibits

to

the

motion

are

unsealed,

except

for

Exhibits 4 and 5 (doc. nos. 117-4 and 117-5), which
shall remain sealed.
(3) The report of the guardian ad litem (doc. no.
119) is unsealed.
DONE, this the 28th day of March, 2016.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE