Ward et al v. The County of Mendocino et al

Filing 139

ORDER by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granting 128 Motion for Good Faith Settlement; denying 129 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (pjhlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MARGARET WARD, et al.,

9

Case No. 17-cv-00911-PJH

Plaintiffs,

8
v.

THE COUNTY OF MENDOCINO, et al.,

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH
SETTLEMENT
Re: Dkt. Nos. 128, 129

12
13
14

Defendant Kindred Healthcare Operating, Inc.’s (“Kindred”) motion for a

15

determination of good faith settlement came on for hearing before this court on February

16

13, 2019. Plaintiffs filed a statement of non-opposition but did not appear at the hearing.

17

Kindred and defendant Kathy Louise Goodman (together, the “Kindred Defendants”)

18

appeared through their counsel, Matthew Schroeder. Defendants the County of

19

Mendocino, Sheriff Thomas D. Allman, Michael Grant, and Lorrie Knapp (together, the

20

“County Defendants”) appeared through their counsel, Denise Billups-Slone. Defendants

21

California Forensic Medical Group Inc. (“CFMG”) and Dr. Michael Medvin (together, the

22

“CFMG Defendants”) appeared through their counsel, Jerome Varanini.

23

Having read the papers filed by the parties and carefully considered their

24

arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby

25

GRANTS Kindred’s motion, for the following reasons.

26

BACKGROUND

27
28

This is a case brought by the survivors of Earl Ward (“Ward”), a 77-year-old man
who was taken into custody by the Mendocino County Sheriff's Department following a

1

call to the police by his wife, Margaret Ward. See Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”),

2

Dkt. 59 ¶ 1. He was arrested on March 20, 2016, and held in custody at the Mendocino

3

County Jail, where he fell in his cell and suffered numerous injuries. Id. ¶¶ 1, 57.

4

Following surgery, he was housed in a residential care facility, Magnolia Manor. There,

5

he was cared for by Goodman, an employee of Kindred. Ward died on May 30, 2016,

6

following surgery for his injuries. Id. ¶¶ 1, 68. Plaintiffs assert four claims: (1) § 1983

7

Fourteenth Amendment;1 (2) § 1983 Supervisor Liability;2 (3) elder abuse;3 and

8

(4) wrongful death based on medical negligence.4 See id.; Dkts. 39 & 51 (granting

9

motions to dismiss claim one against Dr. Marvin Trotter); Dkt. 77 (granting motion to
dismiss claim three against Kindred); Dkt. 115 (granting defendants’ motions for

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

summary judgment with respect to claim four against Dr. Trotter and claim three against

12

Goodman).
Defendant Kindred now moves for a determination that its settlement with plaintiffs

13
14

and Goodman was made in good faith under California Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6.

15

The CFMG Defendants and the County Defendants oppose a good faith determination.

16

A.

Factual Background
Prior to his arrest, Ward allegedly suffered from dementia, “which made him prone

17
18

to confusion and uncontrollable rages.” TAC ¶ 1. While in custody, he allegedly

19

displayed symptoms of confusion, delusion, agitation, and paranoia (id. ¶¶ 27–29), which

20

plaintiffs claim was immediately evident to jail staff. On March 21, 2016, he became

21

agitated, hitting the window in his cell and saying he wanted to die, and later repeatedly

22

pushing on the door of his locked cell. Id. ¶ 27–29. On March 22, 2016, he was

23

observed standing at the door smiling, and again trying to push out; three hours later he

24

was observed staring at the wall, holding a drinking cup on his head; and an hour later he

25
26
27
28

1
2
3

Brought against Knapp, Grant, Sheriff Allman, CFMG, and Dr. Medvin.
Brought against Sheriff Allman.
Currently alleged against the County of Mendocino, Knapp, Grant, Sheriff Allman, and
CFMG.
4
Currently alleged against CFMG, Dr. Medvin, Goodman, and Kindred.
2

1

was observed by a jail staffer to have a "disorganized thought process." Id. ¶ 29. On

2

March 24, 2016, a social worker from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs medical

3

services observed that Ward was unable to articulate why he had been arrested. Id.

4

¶ 30. On March 28, 2016, jail staff noted that he refused to take his medications. Id.

5

¶ 31. That same day, a social worker from VA medical services spoke with Ward and

6

noted that Ward indicated he was in Chicago. Id. ¶ 32. On April 2, 2016, a jail deputy

7

observed Ward standing on his bunk trying to push the window open. Id. ¶ 33. Later that

8

day, another deputy observed Ward standing on his bunk and falling backwards, possibly

9

hitting his head. Id. ¶ 34.

10

On April 3, 2016, at 3:40 a.m., after jail personnel observed that Ward had a bruise

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

on his head with dried blood, he was taken to the Ukiah Valley Medical Center, where he

12

was seen in the Emergency Room (“ER”). Id. ¶ 37. Medical center staff noted that Ward

13

remained asleep during the exam, and stated that he was not oriented to person, place,

14

or time. Id. ¶ 41. The deputies stated that it was the first time he had slept since March

15

20, 2016. Id. ¶ 41. Blood tests showed he had an elevated blood urea nitrogen, which

16

plaintiffs assert is a sign of dehydration and renal failure. Id. ¶ 43. Dr. Trotter

17

subsequently supervised and approved a nurse’s recommendation to discharge Ward

18

from the ER. Id. ¶ 45. He approved a report stating that Ward “does have dementia,

19

recently residing in the jail, likely had an acute episode of delirium, probably due to lack

20

of sleep, as it is reported he had not slept for a week and a half prior to presenting to the

21

emergency room.” Id. ¶ 45. Plaintiffs claim that upon his return to the jail, Ward

22

continued to exhibit agitation, confusion, and delusion, and repeatedly attempted to climb

23

out of a fixed window. Id. ¶ 53.

24

On April 16, 2016, Ward was discovered lying on the floor of his cell and was

25

taken for further medical evaluation, which revealed that he had multiple vertebral

26

fractures and broken ribs, internal bleeding, a partially collapsed lung, and acute kidney

27

failure. Id. ¶ 57. Ward underwent surgery on April 22, 2016 at Santa Rosa Memorial

28

Hospital (“SRMH”) and was discharged to the care of Magnolia Manor on May 18, 2016.
3

1
2

Id. ¶¶ 58–59.
Defendant Kathy Goodman cared for Ward at Magnolia Manor in the scope of her

3

employment with defendant Kindred. Id. ¶ 60. She cared for Ward's surgical wounds

4

during the time that he was a resident of Magnolia Manor, which entailed daily wound

5

dressing changes and notifying doctors if Ward had any wound redness/bleeding and/or

6

drainage from the surgical site. Id. ¶ 61. From May 21, 2016 to May 26, 2016, plaintiffs

7

allege that Goodman observed that Ward's wound was increasingly draining, that his

8

pain was increasing, and that the wound site had increased in diameter. Id. ¶¶ 62–64.

9

Plaintiffs allege that Goodman did not inform doctors of any of these events, even though
the physician ordered he be notified of those events, and Goodman instead used

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

products to dress Ward’s wounds that were not ordered by the physician. Id. ¶¶ 61, 65.

12

On May 23, 2016, someone from Magnolia Manor called SRMH and reported that

13

Ward was suffering from anxiety and his “sutures may be infected,” but refused SRMH’s

14

attempt to schedule Ward for a trauma clinic appointment because Magnolia Manor did

15

not transport residents. Dkt. 102 at ECF p. 10.

16

Goodman wrote that she visited Ward on May 24, the wound was cleaned with

17

normal saline/wound cleaner, and it was covered with bordered gauze. Dkt. 101 at ECF

18

pp. 21–22. She noted that Ward tolerated the dressing change without pain or discomfort

19

and that Ward had pain scaled at two out of ten in his legs. Id.

20

Goodman wrote that she visited Ward on the morning of May 26, 2016 and used a

21

wound cleanser and covered the wound with gauze. Id. at ECF pp. 23–26. Later that

22

day, Ward arrived at the SRMH emergency room with a suspected wound infection,

23

urinary tract infection, and wound dehiscence. Dkt. 102 at ECF pp. 14–24.

24

On May 27, 2016, physicians at SRMH determined to proceed with surgery to

25

repair the wound dehiscence. Id. at ECF p. 25. Ward died on May 30, 2016 due to

26

complications of sepsis, MRSA, wound infection, and spinal fusion procedure. Id. at ECF

27

p. 62 (Death Certificate).

28

The parties do not dispute that plaintiffs’ economic damages total $18,025.63 for
4

1

Ward’s funeral expenses, the Magnolia Manor bill, requests for reimbursement from

2

Ward’s wife, and various miscellaneous expenses. See Dkt. 128 at 7.

3

B.

The Settlement

4

The TAC had alleged claims against the Kindred Defendants for elder abuse and

5

medical negligence. On May 4, 2018, the court granted Kindred’s motion to dismiss the

6

elder abuse claim. Dkt. 77. Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend, but they did not do

7

so. On September 24, 2018, the court granted Goodman’s motion for summary

8

judgement on the elder abuse claim. Dkt 115. Following those orders, only plaintiffs’

9

fourth claim, for wrongful death based on medical negligence, remained pending against

10

Goodman and Kindred.
On October 2, 2018, the parties attended a mandatory settlement conference with

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Judge Beeler. See Dkt. 116. At that settlement conference, plaintiffs reached a

13

settlement agreement with the Kindred Defendants.
On October 29, 2018, the Kindred Defendants moved for a determination of good

14
15

faith settlement. Dkt. 119. The court denied that motion without prejudice because

16

California law required the Kindred Defendants to share the written settlement agreement

17

with co-defendants who opposed their motion, and they had not done so. Dkt. 126. The

18

settling parties had also not provided the agreement to the court. On January 7, 2019,

19

Kindred filed a motion for determination of good faith settlement—the instant motion.5
The settlement agreement provides that all plaintiffs agree to dismiss their claims

20
21

against Goodman and Kindred (and affiliated non-parties) in consideration for payment of

22

$165,000. Dkt. 129-1. That sum shall be paid via check “within three weeks of

23

Defendants’ counsel’s receipt of this signed release, signed W-9, and the signed order

24

determining the good faith of the settlement.” Id. ¶ 2.

25
26
27
28

5

Kindred’s attorneys filed the motion on Kindred’s behalf but not on behalf of Goodman
because they believe that Goodman died at some point after the settlement agreement
was entered into. The parties argue about the impact of Goodman’s death on the
present motion—and about whether Goodman is in fact dead—but whether or not
Goodman is alive today does not impact this court’s analysis as to whether the settlement
agreement was entered into in good faith.
5

DISCUSSION

1
2
3

A.

Legal Standard
Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §877.6, any defendant may file a

4

motion for a determination that its settlement with a plaintiff is in “good faith.” Federal

5

courts in diversity cases have the power to apply “good faith” settlement provisions under

6

California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 877 & 877.6. Mason & Dixon Intermodal, Inc. v.

7

Lapmaster Int’l LLC, 632 F.3d 1056, 1060 (9th Cir. 2011).

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

California Code of Civil Procedure §877.6 provides in relevant part:
(b) The issue of the good faith of a settlement may be
determined by the court on the basis of affidavits served with
the notice of hearing, and any counteraffidavits filed in
response, or the court may, in its discretion, receive other
evidence at the hearing.
(c) A determination by the court that the settlement was made
in good faith shall bar any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor
from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor or coobligor for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or
comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or
comparative fault.
(d) The party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the
burden of proof on that issue.
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 877.6.

18

Such a motion calls for the court to determine whether a settlement is made in

19

good faith and is “within the reasonable range of the settling tortfeasor’s proportional

20

share of comparative liability for the plaintiff’s injuries.” Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-

21

Clyde & Assocs., 38 Cal. 3d 488, 499 (1985). The court considers the following to make

22

the determination: a rough approximation of the plaintiff’s probable total recovery and the

23

settlor’s proportionate liability; the amount paid in settlement; the allocation of the

24

settlement proceeds among plaintiffs; the recognition that a settlor should pay less in

25

settlement than he would if he were found liable after a trial; the financial condition and

26

insurance policy limits of the settling defendant; and the existence of collusion, fraud, or

27

tortuous conduct aimed to injure the interests of nonsettling defendants. Id. at 499.

28

“This is not to say that bad faith is established by a showing that a settling
6

1

defendant paid less than his theoretical proportionate or fair share. Such a rule would

2

unduly discourage settlements. For the damages are often speculative, and the

3

probability of legal liability therefor is often uncertain or remote. . . . Moreover, such a

4

rule would tend to convert the pretrial settlement approval procedure into a full-scale

5

minitrial.” Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). “As Tech-Bilt emphasizes,

6

of course, a ‘good faith’ settlement does not call for perfect or even nearly perfect

7

apportionment of liability. In order to encourage settlement, it is quite proper for a settling

8

defendant to pay less than his proportionate share of the anticipated damages. What is

9

required is simply that the settlement not be grossly disproportionate to the settlor’s fair

10

share.” Abbott Ford, Inc. v. Superior Court, 43 Cal. 3d 858, 874–75 (1987).
“Finally, practical considerations obviously require that the evaluation be made on

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

the basis of information available at the time of settlement. A defendant's settlement

13

figure must not be grossly disproportionate to what a reasonable person, at the time of

14

the settlement, would estimate the settling defendant's liability to be. The party asserting

15

the lack of good faith, who has the burden of proof on that issue, should be permitted to

16

demonstrate, if he can, that the settlement is so far ‘out of the ballpark’ in relation to these

17

factors as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of the statute.” Tech-Bilt, 38

18

Cal. 3d at 499–500 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

19

B.

Analysis

20

1.

21

Section 3333.2 of the California Civil Code, part of the Medical Injury

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The MICRA Cap Applies to Plaintiffs’ Medical Negligence Claim

Compensation Reform Act (“MICRA”), provides in relevant part:
(a) In any action for injury against a health care provider based
on professional negligence, the injured plaintiff shall be entitled
to recover noneconomic losses to compensate for pain,
suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, disfigurement
and other nonpecuniary damage.
(b) In no action shall the amount of damages for noneconomic
losses exceed two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000).
(c) For the purposes of this section:
7

....

1

(2) “Professional negligence” means a negligent act or
omission to act by a health care provider in the rendering
of professional services, which act or omission is the
proximate cause of a personal injury or wrongful death,
provided that such services are within the scope of
services for which the provider is licensed and which are
not within any restriction imposed by the licensing
agency or licensed hospital.

2
3
4
5
6

Cal. Civ. Code § 3333.2.
Plaintiffs allege that Goodman, in her capacity as a nurse caring for Ward, failed to

7
8

care for Ward’s wound properly or report its condition to a doctor. It is undisputed that

9

she did so while rendering professional medical services to Ward. Thus, Section 3333.2
applies on its face to plaintiffs’ claim for medical negligence against the Kindred

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Defendants. See David M. v. Beverly Hosp., 131 Cal. App. 4th 1272, 1277–78 (2005).

12

The County Defendants argue that the $250,000 MICRA damages cap does not

13

apply to plaintiffs’ claim.6 As an initial matter, plaintiffs have not alleged a claim for

14

medical negligence against the County Defendants. In fact, there are no overlapping

15

claims alleged against the County Defendants and the Kindred Defendants.

16

Nevertheless, the County Defendants argue that the MICRA damages cap does not

17

apply because plaintiffs either could or inadvertently did bring a claim for an intentional

18

tort not subject to the MICRA damages cap against the Kindred Defendants. But

19

plaintiffs have a single active claim against the Kindred Defendants—medical

20

negligence—which is not an intentional tort.7 See TAC; see also Dkt. 137 at 2, 5–6.

21

Based on the present record, the court concludes that the MICRA damages cap applies

22

to the Kindred Defendants’ potential liability.

23
24
25
26
27
28

6

The CFMG Defendants do not dispute that the MICRA damages cap applies. Plaintiffs
also argue that the MICRA damages cap applies to their claim for medical negligence.
7
In any event, the evidence presented by the County Defendants to demonstrate that
Goodman committed an intentional tort is unpersuasive, and they accordingly have not
met their burden of proof on the issue. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 877.6(c). The court
DENIES Kindred’s objections to the County Defendants’ and CFMG Defendants’
requests for judicial notice, Dkt. 135-8. Additionally, Kindred’s objection to the Blanton
Declaration, Dkt. 135-7, is DENIED as moot, as the records objected to are cumulative
and would not alter the court’s analysis.
8

1

2.

The Settlement Was Made in Good Faith

2

The court considers the Tech-Bilt factors to determine whether the settlement was

3

made in good faith and is “within the reasonable range of the settling tortfeasor’s

4

proportional share of comparative liability[.]” Tech-Bilt, 38 Cal. 3d at 499.

5

The court first compares a rough approximation of the plaintiffs’ probable total
recovery with the settlor’s proportionate liability, considering the amount paid in

7

settlement and recognizing that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he

8

were found liable after a trial. Those factors support a good faith finding. Plaintiffs’ claim

9

for wrongful death based on medical negligence, if taken to trial, would allow recovery of

10

non-economic damages capped at $250,000 in addition to economic damages. No party

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

contests that plaintiffs have identified $18,025.63 in economic damages. Therefore,

12

plaintiffs can recover at maximum $268,025.63 for their medical negligence claim at trial.

13

The plaintiffs and Kindred Defendants have entered into a settlement agreement for

14

$165,000, or 61.6% of plaintiffs’ maximum potential recovery for their negligence claim at

15

trial. Put another way, the Kindred Defendants could face at most an additional

16

$103,025.63 obligation (assuming the jury found the CFMG Defendants bore no liability

17

for the negligence claim) by trying the case before a jury rather than settling the action

18

before the close of discovery. See Dkt. 118 (discovery ends May 11, 2019).

19

Considering that “it is quite proper for a settling defendant to pay less than his

20

proportionate share of the anticipated damages,” the settlement would be reasonable

21

even if the record suggested that the Kindred Defendants were overwhelmingly liable for

22

plaintiffs’ medical negligence claim. See Abbott Ford, 43 Cal. 3d at 874–75. But the

23

information available at the time of settlement does not indicate that the Kindred

24

Defendants are alone liable for the medical negligence claim. Rather, the record

25

suggests that the CFMG Defendants are likely to bear a non-negligible share of liability

26

based on their conduct while Ward was held in custody. The CFMG Defendants do not

27

argue otherwise. They explain at length how Goodman’s culpability is “shocking and

28

dramatic” (Dkt. 132 at 5–9)—and the settlement reflects that. But the absolute nature of
9

1

Goodman’s actions is not determinative. The court must assess the defendants’ relative

2

liability, and the CFMG Defendants have not met their burden to show that their own

3

liability is so negligible that a settlement with the Kindred Defendants before the close of

4

fact discovery for over 60% of their maximum potential liability at trial is disproportionate

5

to their relative liability.

6

The next Tech-Bilt factor, the allocation of the settlement proceeds among

7

plaintiffs, is not at issue because the settlement calls for a single payment to all plaintiffs

8

through a trust fund. See Dkt. 129-1 at 1. The financial condition and insurance policy

9

limits of the settling defendants do not weigh on the analysis, because there is no
indication that settling defendant Kindred has any such hardship. Finally, there is no

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

indication of collusion, fraud, or tortuous conduct aimed to injure the interests of non-

12

settling defendants.

13

3.

Motion to Seal

14

Kindred moves the court to seal the portion of the settlement agreement that

15

discloses the settlement amount. Dkt. 129. It argues that public disclosure of the

16

settlement amount would undermine the confidential nature of the settlement negotiations

17

and that the parties agreed to keep the amount confidential.

18

There is a general presumption in favor of public access to federal court records.

19

“[T]he proponent of sealing bears the burden with respect to sealing. A failure to meet

20

that burden means that the default posture of public access prevails.” Kamakana v. City

21

& County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1182 (9th Cir. 2006).

22

When a request to seal documents is made in connection with a motion, the court

23

must determine whether the parties are required to overcome that presumption with

24

“compelling reasons” or with “good cause.” A party seeking to seal materials submitted

25

with a motion that is “more than tangentially related to the merits of the case”—regardless

26

whether that motion is “technically dispositive”—must demonstrate that there are

27

compelling reasons to keep the documents under seal. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler

28

Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016).
10

A contested motion for a determination of good faith settlement requires the court

1
2

to assess the amount of the settlement in light of the merits of the case and the parties’

3

proportionate liability (among other factors). Such a motion is directly related to the

4

merits of the case and therefore requires compelling reasons to seal attached materials.

5

Cf. Huang v. Gemmy Indus. Corp., Case No. 17-cv-02731-PJH, Dkt. 34 at 4 (N.D. Cal.

6

Sept. 5, 2018) (“When a good faith determination motion is unopposed, the court need

7

not consider and weigh the Tech-Bilt factors. . . . when unopposed, such a motion is only

8

tangentially related to the merits of the case.”).
“In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public's interest in

9

disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such court files might have

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

become a vehicle for improper purposes, such as the use of records to gratify private

12

spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.

13

The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant's embarrassment,

14

incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to

15

seal its records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal citations and quotation marks

16

omitted). Moreover, the mere fact that the parties' proposed settlement agreement

17

contains a confidentiality provision does not constitute a compelling reason to seal the

18

information. E.g., Select Portfolio Servicing v. Valentino, Case No. 12-cv-0334-SI, 2013

19

WL 1800039, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2013); Bernstein v. Target Stores, Inc., Case No.

20

13-cv-01018-NC, 2013 WL 5807581, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2013).
After the court finds a compelling reason to seal, “[t]he court must then

21
22

‘conscientiously balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to

23

keep certain judicial records secret.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097 (internal

24

quotation marks omitted).
The court assumes without deciding that Kindred has presented compelling

25
26

reasons to narrowly seal the dollar amount of the settlement.8 The court next balances

27
28

Kindred’s request is narrowly tailored, as it requests to seal only the dollar figure paid in
settlement. See generally Civ. L.R. 79-5(b).
11
8

1

the “public interest in understanding the judicial process and whether disclosure of the

2

material could result in improper use of the material[.]” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n,

3

605 F.3d 665, 679 n.6 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097.
The present motion hinges on whether the dollar amount of the settlement is fair

4
5

and reasonable. Accordingly, this court’s analysis turns entirely on the magnitude of the

6

settlement payment. This order would be incomprehensible—and would provide the

7

public with no additional understanding of the judicial process—if the dollar amount of the

8

settlement were redacted. There would be no way of knowing whether the parties settled

9

for 60% or 6% of what plaintiffs might recover for their negligence claim at trial.
Kindred argues that (1) routine disclosure of settlement amounts might make

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

parties, including Kindred, less willing to settle in the future, (2) the parties agreed that

12

they wanted the information to be kept confidential, and (3) the settlement amount may

13

mislead the public about Kindred’s liability in this case or their settlement positions in

14

other cases. Dkt. 129 at 4–6. First, Kindred’s worry about routine disclosure of

15

settlement amounts is misplaced. Parties generally need not file their settlement

16

agreements with courts at all. Here, Kindred seeks a judicial determination of good faith

17

settlement, so it has elected to submit the settlement agreement to substantive, judicial

18

review. Moreover, the compelling interest standard applies only because the good faith

19

settlement motion is opposed. Accordingly, only a narrow set of settlements—that

20

settling parties themselves elect to put at issue before a court—risk publication. Second,

21

the fact that the parties wanted to keep the information confidential is not a compelling

22

reason to keep it from the public. Third, while Kindred’s interest in keeping the amount it

23

pays to settle any case out of public view is understandable, that desire does not

24

outweigh the public’s interest in the substance of this order. Accordingly, Kindred’s

25

motion to SEAL is DENIED.

26

///

27

///

28

///
12

1

CONCLUSION

2

For the foregoing reasons, Kindred’s motion for a determination of good faith

3
4
5
6
7

settlement is GRANTED. Kindred’s motion to seal is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 22, 2019
__________________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13