Reid v. United States of America et al

Filing 142

ORDER for Clerk to File Defendant Garcia's 139 Confidential Settlement Conference Statement under Seal signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 06/10/2022.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GORDON C. REID,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

15

Defendant.

1:14-cv-01163-BAK-(GSA)-PC
ORDER FOR CLERK TO FILE
DEFENDANT GARCIA’S
CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE STATEMENT UNDER
SEAL
(ECF No. 139.)

16
17

I.

Plaintiff Gordon C. Reid is proceeding with counsel in this civil rights action pursuant to

18
19

BACKGROUND

Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

20

This case is scheduled for a settlement conference on June 16, 2022. The parties were

21

ordered to each submit a confidential settlement conference statement directly to chambers no

22

later than seven days prior to the settlement conference, and not to file the statements. (ECF No.

23

117.) However, on June 10, 2022, defendant Garcia filed a confidential settlement conference

24

statement. (ECF No. 139.)

25

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

26

There is a “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including

27

judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7

28

(1978). “This right is justified by the interest of citizens in ‘keep[ing] a watchful eye on the
1

1

workings of public agencies.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th

2

Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). “Nonetheless, access to judicial records is not

3

absolute. A narrow range of documents is not subject to the right of public access at all because

4

the records have ‘traditionally been kept secret for important policy reasons.’” Id. (quoting Times

5

Mirror Co. v. United States, 873 F.2d 1210, 1219 (9th Cir. 1989)). “Unless a particular court

6

record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting

7

point.” Id.

8

Two standards generally govern the sealing of documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n,

9

605 F.3d 665, 677 (9th Cir. 2010). “[J]udicial records attached to dispositive motions [are treated]

10

differently from records attached to non-dispositive motions. Those who seek to maintain the

11

secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of showing

12

that ‘compelling reasons’ support secrecy.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (citations omitted). In

13

contrast, a “‘good cause’ showing under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 26(c) will suffice to

14

keep sealed records attached to non-dispositive motions.” Id. The reason for the two different

15

standards is that “[n]ondispositive motions are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the

16

underlying cause of action, and, as a result, the public’s interest in accessing dispositive materials

17

does not apply with equal force to non-dispositive materials.” Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678 (quotations

18

omitted).

19

III.

ANALYSIS

20

Here, defense counsel did not file the settlement conference statement under seal, nor was

21

it accompanied by a motion to seal as required by Local Rule 141. Because the statement was

22

not filed in conjunction with a dispositive motion, only good cause is required to seal it. The

23

Court finds that this standard is met and will accordingly order the statement to be filed under

24

seal.

25

“Confidential settlements benefit society and the parties involved by resolving disputes

26

relatively quickly, with slight judicial intervention, and presumably result in greater satisfaction

27

to the parties.” Kalinauskas v. Wong, 151 F.R.D. 363, 365 (D. Nev. 1993). “Sound judicial

28

policy fosters and protects this form of alternative dispute resolution.” Id. (citing Fed. R. Evid.
2

1

408 for the proposition that it “protects compromises and offers to compromise by rendering

2

them inadmissible to prove liability”).

3

The need for confidentiality of settlement negotiations is without dispute.

4

presumption of public access to settlement conferences, settlement proposals, and settlement

5

conference statements is very low or nonexistent under either constitutional or common law

6

principles. Weighed against this presumption is the strong public policy which encourages the

7

settlement of cases through a negotiated compromise. . . . In a perfect world, the public would

8

be kept abreast of all developments in the settlement discussions of lawsuits of public interest.

9

In our world, such disclosure would . . . result in no settlement discussions and no settlements.

10

United States v. Glens Falls Newspapers, Inc., 160 F.3d 853, 855–56 (2nd Cir.1998).

11

Confidentiality of the mediation process encourages settlement. Id. at 858.
For these reasons, the Court shall order defendant Garcia’s confidential settlement

12
13

conference statement to be filed under seal.

14

IV.

15
16

[T]he

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall file under seal

defendant Garcia’s confidential settlement conference statement, filed on June 10, 2022.

17
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 10, 2022

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3