Walker v. Dolgencorp, Inc. et al

Filing 31

ORDER denying 30 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by Judge Hugh Lawson on 2/5/2010. (nbp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA M AC O N DIVISION M AN D IE WALKER, : : P la i n t i f f , : : v. : Civil Action No. 5:09-CV-16 (HL) : D O L G E N C O R P , LLC, : : D e fe n d a n t. : : __________________________________ : ORDER C u rre n tly before the Court is the Unopposed Motion for In Camera Review a n d Approval of the Parties' Confidential Settlement Agreement, or in the alternative, M o tio n for Reconsideration (Doc. 30). O n January 19, 2010, this Court entered an order (Doc. 29) denying the p a rtie s ' motion for leave to file their settlement agreement under seal. The Court in fo rm e d the parties that it would reconsider the ruling if the parties could show good c a u s e for filing the document under seal. T h e parties contend that they have shown good cause to warrant filing the s e ttle m e n t agreement under seal because they have agreed with each other to keep th e settlement confidential, because the public does not have a significant interest in the litigation, and because disclosure of the settlement terms "would unnecessarily a n d inappropriately impact the various Plaintiffs' beliefs in the values of their cases," (D o c . 30, p. 3) and "will adversely impact the Parties' ability to negotiate and

evaluate each of the hundreds of remaining Transferred Cases on its individual m e rits ." (Doc. 30, p. 5). The parties also state that because other judges in this d is tric t have agreed to seal the settlement agreements, this Court should do the s a m e for the sake of consistency. The courts are public institutions. W h e n litigants elect to bring their cases here th e cases become a matter of public record. The public has an interest in knowing w h a t transpires in the courts and should have reasonable access to court business. Accordingly, cases and settlements should not be sealed except for good reasons. N a tio n a l or state security, or real (as opposed to imaginary) danger to life, limb, p ro p e rty or health may be good reasons. But just not wanting the public to know w h a t a particular litigant is doing or has done is not a good reason. Except in an u n u s u a l case, the Court does not believe that it should approve a settlement and th e n deny access to the public as to what it has done, and just because other judges m a y choose to handle cases before them differently does not mean that this Court s h o u ld abandon its standard policy of transparency in its cases. T h e Court finds that the reasons stated by the parties do not constitute good c a u s e for filing the settlement agreement under seal. Accordingly, the Motion (Doc. 3 0 ) is denied. SO ORDERED, this the 5th day of February, 2010. s / Hugh Lawson HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE m bh
2