West Side Salvage, Inc v. RSUI Indemnity Company

Filing 51

ORDER granting 50 Motion for Leave to Seal Document. Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 12/23/2013. See attached for details. (jls)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
WEST SIDE SALVAGE, INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
RSUI INDEM. CO.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 13–cv–0363–MJR–PMF

ORDER
REAGAN, District Judge:
In this insurance coverage dispute, Defendant RSUI Indemnity Company has appealed two
of Magistrate Judge Frazier’s discovery-related rulings from November 25, 2013. In an unopposed
motion, Plaintiff West Side Salvage, Inc., has now requested leave to file its response brief under
seal. According to Plaintiff’s motion, the brief and appendix materials include communication and
assessments (among representatives of both Plaintiff and Defendant) relating to settlement issues
regarding the (currently on-appeal) underlying litigation.

Plaintiff also notes the parties have

committed to a Confidentiality Agreement relating to the information and documentation Plaintiff
seeks to file under seal.
The Court first counsels both parties that leave to file documents under seal is not
automatic, even if the parties are of one mind on the matter. The public has a strong interest in the
publicity of judicial proceedings, Bond v. Utreras , 585 F.3d 1061, 1075 (7th Cir. 2009) (quoting

Baxter Int’l, Inc. v. Abbott Labs. , 297 F.3d 544, 547 (7th Cir. 2002)), and whether the parties
consent to sealing the information is beside the point, Baxter, 297 F.3d at 546. However, when the
information sought to be sealed meets “the definition of trade secret or other categories of bona fide
long-term confidentiality,” the public’s interest in open judicial proceedings can be trumped. Bond ,
1

585 F.3d at 1075. Accord In re Specht, 622 F.3d 697, 701 (7th Cir. 2010) (Confidentiality can
be justified by statute, rule, or privilege).
Here, because of the ongoing nature of the underlying litigation and settlement negotiations,
and because the details of the information sought to be sealed are not critical to the discovery
appeal, the Court finds good cause to allow Plaintiff’s response to be filed under seal. It appears the
appeal may hinge on the fact of communication between and among attorneys and parties—not the
contents of those communications. Additionally, there is ample precedent for keeping confidential
the contours of preliminary settlement discussions where the enforceability of the settlement
agreement is not at issue. Walker v. Gore , No. 1:08–cv–0549–DFH–WTL, 2008 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 84297, at *7–8 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 20, 2008) (sealing documents when no party
challenged the terms of confidential arbitration agreement). Accord Swarthout v. Ryla

Teleservices, Inc. , No. 4:11–CV–21–PRC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155178, at *11–12 (N.D. Ind.
Oct. 30, 2012) (finding good cause to seal settlement agreement where assuring
confidentiality of the settlement was a key and material term to the agreement). But see

Union Iol Co. v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 567 (7th Cir. 2000) (“Calling a settlement confidential
does not make it a trade secret, any more than calling an executive’s salary confidential
would require a judge to close proceedings if a dispute erupted about payment”).
The parties should note: if certain contents of settlement negotiations are material to the
disposition of the instant discovery appeal, the Court will discuss them on the public record. But
Plaintiff’s instant motion for leave to file its response under seal (Doc. 50) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Michael J. Reagan
MICHAEL J. REAGAN
United States District Judge

DATE: December 23, 2013

2