Bown v. Reinke et al
Filing
180
MEMORANDUM DECISION and Order - IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Unseal (Dkt.[ 176] ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge B Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (lm)
Case 1:12-cv-00262-BLW Document 180 Filed 02/16/22 Page 1 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
WILLIAM A. BOWN,
Case No. 1:12-cv-00262-BLW
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER
v.
RONA SIEGERT,
Defendant.
INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is third party Jay Vermillion’s Motion to Unseal. (Dkt.
176.) For the reasons explained below, the Court will deny the motion.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff William A. Bown, who was an inmate with the Idaho Department
of Corrections, filed this action against multiple defendants, including Corizon,
Inc. (Dkt. 1.) In February 2015, defense counsel filed an affidavit under seal. (Dkt.
56.) This affidavit was filed in support of the defense’s opposition to Plaintiff’s
motion to amend the complaint. (Id.) The affidavit includes as an attachment a
“Confidential Release Agreement” relating to a prior case involving Plaintiff and
Corizon. (Id. at 14.)
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1
Case 1:12-cv-00262-BLW Document 180 Filed 02/16/22 Page 2 of 6
Mr. Vermillion is not a party to the present action. He is, instead, an inmate
with the Indiana Department of Corrections who brought claims against Corizon in
a separate, unrelated case. On November 29, 2021, the Court received a letter from
Mr. Vermillion, in which Mr. Vermillion requested to purchase a copy of the
“Release” filed in the present action at “Dkt. No. 56.” (Dkt. 176.) The Court has
construed Mr. Vermillion’s letter as a motion to unseal and obtain a copy of the
“Confidential Release Agreement” filed as part of Dkt. 56. The only remaining
Defendant in the action, Rona Siegert, opposes the motion. (Dkt. 178.) Plaintiff is a
party to the Confidential Release Agreement and as such cannot agree to its
disclosure. (Dkt. 179.)
LEGAL STANDARD
There is a “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents,
including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435
U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978). “This right is justified by the interest of citizens in
‘keep[ing] a watchful eye on the workings of public agencies.’ ” Kamakana v. City
& Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S.
at 598). “Nonetheless, access to judicial records is not absolute. A narrow range of
documents is not subject to the right of public access at all because the records
have ‘traditionally been kept secret for important policy reasons.’ ” Id. (quoting
Times Mirror Co. v. United States, 873 F.2d 1210, 1219 (9th Cir. 1989). “Unless a
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2
Case 1:12-cv-00262-BLW Document 180 Filed 02/16/22 Page 3 of 6
particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in
favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id.
ANALYSIS
The Confidential Release Agreement at issue was filed as an attachment in
Dkt. 56. Although defense counsel filed it under seal, it was not accompanied by a
motion to seal as required by Local Rule 5.3. Thus, the Court has not previously
ruled on whether Dkt. 56, and specifically the Confidential Release Agreement,
should be sealed. The Court will thus begin with consideration of the propriety of
sealing Dkt. 56, including the Release Agreement.
Two standards generally govern the sealing of documents. Pintos v. Pac.
Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 677 (9th Cir. 2010). “[J]udicial records attached to
dispositive motions [are treated] differently from records attached to nondispositive motions. Those who seek to maintain the secrecy of documents
attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of showing that
‘compelling reasons’ support secrecy.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (citations
omitted). In contrast, a “ ‘good cause’ showing under [Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure] 26(c) will suffice to keep sealed records attached to non-dispositive
motions.” Id. The reason for the two different standards is that “[n]ondispositive
motions are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of
action, and, as a result, the public's interest in accessing dispositive materials does
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3
Case 1:12-cv-00262-BLW Document 180 Filed 02/16/22 Page 4 of 6
not apply with equal force to non-dispositive materials.” Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678
(quotations omitted).
Here, Dkt. 56 was not filed in conjunction with a dispositive motion. And
thus, only good cause is required to seal the document. The Court finds that this
standard is met and will accordingly allow Dkt. 56, including the Release
Agreement, to remain under seal.
“Confidential settlements benefit society and the parties involved by
resolving disputes relatively quickly, with slight judicial intervention, and
presumably result in greater satisfaction to the parties.” Kalinauskas v. Wong, 151
F.R.D. 363, 365 (D. Nev. 1993). “Sound judicial policy fosters and protects this
form of alternative dispute resolution.” Id. (citing Fed. R. Evid. 408 for the
proposition that it “protects compromises and offers to compromise by rendering
them inadmissible to prove liability”). Thus, many courts have found it appropriate
to preserve the confidentiality of settlement agreements, such as by issuing
protective orders or allowing the filing of such agreements under seal. See, e.g.,
Phillips ex rel. Ests. Of Byrd v. Gen Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1212 (9th Cir.
2002) (noting that courts have granted protective orders to protect confidential
settlement agreements); Flynn v. Portland Gen. Elec. Corp., 1989 WL 112802, 58
U.S.L.W. 2243 50 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1497 (D. Or. 1989) (“the strong
public policy favoring settlement of disputed claims dictates that confidentiality
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4
Case 1:12-cv-00262-BLW Document 180 Filed 02/16/22 Page 5 of 6
agreements regarding such settlements not be lightly abrogated”); Kalinauskas,
151 F.R.D. at 365 (“The secrecy of a settlement agreement and the contractual
rights of the parties thereunder deserve court protection.”); Prosurance Group, Inc.
v. Liberty Mut. Group, Inc., 2011 WL 704456, *1-*2 (N.D. Cal. Feb.18, 2011)
(finding good cause to allow the parties to file settlement agreement under seal to
preserve the agreement’s confidentiality); Daniels v. Bursey, 2006 WL 468015, at
*4 (N.D. Ill. Feb.23, 2006) (strong public policy favoring settlement of claims was
“good cause” to issue protective order for a confidential settlement agreement).
The Court agrees with this approach and finds that judicial policy favoring
voluntary settlement of disputes outweighs the interest of the public to access the
Release Agreement. This is particularly true where, as here, the confidential
agreement relates to the settlement of an entirely different action and is thus only
tangentially related to the present action. Further, when the parties entered into the
Release Agreement, they did so with the understanding that it would remain
confidential. If the Court were to allow public access to the Release Agreement, it
would violate the expectation of the parties and discourage parties from voluntarily
settling disputes. Accordingly, the Court finds that good cause exists to allow Dkt.
56, which includes the Release Agreement and the associated affidavit, to remain
under seal.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5
Case 1:12-cv-00262-BLW Document 180 Filed 02/16/22 Page 6 of 6
The Court next turns to whether Mr. Vermillion is entitled to obtain a copy
of the sealed Release Agreement. The Court finds he is not. He is not a party to this
action, and he has not provided any reason, argument, or justification
demonstrating that the Release Agreement should be unsealed or that he should
have access to this confidential document that the Court has found entitled to
protection. Further, because the Release Agreement is under seal, it is not a public
court record to which Mr. Vermillion has a general right of access. Accordingly,
the Court will deny Mr. Vermillion’s request to unseal and for a copy of the
Release Agreement.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Unseal (Dkt. 176) is DENIED.
DATED: February 16, 2022
_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
U.S. District Court Judge
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?