Mullings et al v. Minnesota Life Insurance Company

Filing 11

ORDER denying 10 Motion to Seal. The Parties may move forward with settling the case by filing on the public docket a motion for approval of the settlement agreement with the Settlement and attachments appended. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 02/07/2019. (maa)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION

TRAMISHA

U,

Individually

MULLINGS,

and

as

Administrator of the Estate of

Treasey Lee Wingo; TREMAINE J.
MULLINGS;

J.J.J.H.,

a

Minor

Child by TRAMISHA U. MULLINGS,
His Next Friend,
Plaintiffs,
CV 118-103

V.

MINNESOTA LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY,
Defendant

ORDER

Before the Court is the Parties' joint motion for leave to
file under seal.

(Doc. 10.)

Because a plaintiff in this action

is a minor, the Court must approve the confidential settlement
agreement (the ^"Settlement") reached by the Parties.
SDGa.

See LR 17.1,

The Parties request that ""all the documents required by

Local Rule 17.1, to wit: a copy of the settlement agreement, a
petition

of

the

minor

statement" be sealed.

child's

guardian,

and

an

attorney's

(Mot. to Seal, Doc. 10, at 3.)

As noted by the Parties, ""There is a common-law presumption
that judicial records are public documents."

Hesed El v. Poff,

No. CV 118-079, 2018 WL 4688720, at *2 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 29, 2018)

(citation omitted); Nixon v. Warner Commc^ns, Inc.^ 435 U.S. 589,

597 (1978); Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.,
263 F.3d 1304, 1311 (11th Cir. 2001).

''The operations of the

courts and the judicial conduct of judges are matters of utmost

public concern, and the 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

(internal

Co., 480

F.3d

1234,

1245

(11th

citation and quotation marks omitted).

Cir.

2007)

Although there is no right

of access with private settlement agreements, because the Court
must review the Settlement, it is a public record and subject to
the presumption of public access.

Webb v. CVS Caremark Corp., No.

5;11-CV-106, 2011 WL 6743284, at *1 (M.D. Ga. Dec. 23, 2011); see

Jessup V. Luther, 277 F.3d 926, 927-28 (7th Cir. 2002).

In deciding whether to seal documents, courts "should weigh

the interests protected by the presumption of openness, namely

judicial

transparency . . . and

the

first-amendment

values of

freedom of speech and of the press, against the parties' interest

in secrecy."

Eigenberger v. Tokyo Statesboro GA, LLC, No. CV 617-

160, 2018 WL 2065942, at *2 (S.D. Ga. May 3, 2018).

In some cases

"involving . . . the privacy of [minors], . . . the interest in
secrecy

is

compelling."

Eigenberger,

2018

WL 2065942, at *2

(internal citation and quotation marks omitted); see Clark v.
Bamberger, No. 1:12CV1122-MHT (WO), 2016 WL 1183180, at *2 (M.D.

Ala. Mar. 28, 2016) (Protecting a minor's privacy is ^'undoubtedly

an important concern."). To weigh in favor of keeping information
about minors secret, the information must be more than the amount

of money received in a settlement.

Wilson v. Am. Motors Corp.,

759 F.2d 1568, 1571 n.4 (11th Cir. 1985) ("[T]he payment of money

to

an

injured

party

is

simply

not

a

compelling

government

interest . . . entitled to consideration in deciding whether or
not

to

seal

a

record.");

Clark,

2016

WL 1183180,

at *3.

For

example, a minor's interest in privacy is more compelling when the
documents

would "expose

confidential

mental-health information."

educational,

medical,

or

Clark, 2016 WL 1183180, at *3.

The Court acknowledges that naming the minor's family members

may make

the

minor

identifiable even

with

using

required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2.

initials

as

"However, as the

[P]arties have not shown that the documents would expose anything
confidential under law or embarrassing about the [minor], the
[C]ourt

finds

[minor]'s

the

use

privacy in

of

initials

sufficient

this circumstance."

Id.

to

protect

the

Additionally,

neither the confidentiality clause in the Settlement nor the fact

that the Parties agreed that the Settlement should be sealed is a
compelling reason to grant the motion.

See Eigenberer, 2018 WL

2065942, at *2 {"[T]he [cjourt needs far more than the parties'

agreement that the settlement agreement should be sealed.").^
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to seal {Doc. 10) is
DENIED.

The Parties may move forward with settling the case by

filing on the public docket a motion for approval of the settlement

agreement with the Settlement and attachments appended.

Should

the Parties wish to withdraw from the Settlement as a consequence

of this decision, they shall file a joint statement to that effect.^

ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this _^7^^day of February,
2019.

J. RAN©^ HALLf CHIEF JUDGE

UNITED^TATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

^ The Parties also argue that the documents should be sealed because "[t]here
is a strong local interest in this case.
News reporters have contacted
[P]laintiffs' attorneys on multiple occasions inquiring into the facts of this

litigation."

(Mot. to Seal, H 8.)

This reasoning weighs in favor of not

sealing because, as mentioned above, values of free speech and of the press are
weighed against the Parties' interest in secrecy.
2 Per Local Rule 79.7(c), the Court DIRECTS the Clerk to return the documents

received from Attorney Jeffrey Peil.

(See Docket, Feb. 4, 2019.)