Egan v. Singer

Filing 44

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL re 37 , 40 - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 8/27/2014. "The authorities Defendant cites in support of his motion do not require sealing documents based on mere references to th e existence of settlement discussions when those references do not reveal the content of those discussions. Defendant has not overcome the strong presumption in favor of access to judicial records, and this court finds no ground on which to grant Defendant's motion. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). The Clerk of Court is directed to unseal Plaintiff's motion for continuance, ECF No. 37. " (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Michael F. Egan, III shall be served by first class mail at the address of record on August 27, 2014.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
MICHAEL F. EGAN III,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
BRYAN JAY SINGER,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_____________________________ )

CIVIL NO. 14-00177 SOM/BMK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL
On August 25, 2014, Defendant Bryan Jay Singer filed a
motion to seal Plaintiff Michael F. Egan III’s “Motion for
Continuance of 180 Days Regarding Defendant Bryan Jay Singer’s
Motion for Summary Judgment.”

ECF No. 40.

Defendant argues that

Plaintiff’s motion, including the attached declaration, must be
sealed because it contains references to settlement discussions
and communications.

Id., PageID # 211.

Defendant requests that

Plaintiff’s motion be sealed in its entirety, or, in the
alternative, that certain identified portions of Plaintiff’s
documents be redacted.

Id., PageID # 212.

Defendant’s motion to

seal is denied.
Defendant’s request to seal Plaintiff’s motion in its
entirety is overly broad.

Defendant’s concern with references to

settlement negotiations is only implicated by certain portions of
Plaintiff’s motion papers, leaving no reason for the court to
seal the motion in its entirety.

Nor is the court persuaded that, alternatively,
specific portions of Plaintiff’s motion should be sealed.
Plaintiff’s statements regarding settlement relate to the conduct
of his attorneys and do not disclose any communications by or to
Defendant made during negotiations or the terms of any settlement
offer or agreement.
Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence addresses the
admissibility of evidence offered to prove or disprove the
validity or amount of a disputed claim or to impeach by a prior
inconsistent statement or a contradiction.

The identified

statements are not offered by Plaintiff for any such purpose.
Not only does the purpose of the evidence fall outside of Rule
408, the type of evidence also falls outside of Rule 408.

Rule

408 relates to the “furnishing, promising, or offering–-or
accepting, promising to accept, or offering to accept–-a valuable
consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise the
claim” and to “conduct or a statement made during compromise
negotiations about the claim.”

The matters Defendant points to

are Plaintiff’s complaints about internal discussions between
Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorneys, not between Plaintiff’s
attorneys and Defendant’s attorneys.

Plaintiff is not

complaining about Defendant’s settlement position or about
Plaintiff’s attorneys’ report about Defendant’s settlement
position.

2

The authorities Defendant cites in support of his
motion do not require sealing documents based on mere references
to the existence of settlement discussions when those references
do not reveal the content of those discussions.

Defendant has

not overcome the strong presumption in favor of access to
judicial records, and this court finds no ground on which to
grant Defendant’s motion.

See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006).
The Clerk of Court is directed to unseal Plaintiff’s
motion for continuance, ECF No. 37.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, August 27, 2014.

/s/ Susan Oki Mollway
Susan Oki Mollway
Chief United States District Judge

Egan v. Singer, Civ. No. 14-00177 SOM/BMK; ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL

3