Smithland Towing & Construction, LLC et al

Filing 242

OPINION & ORDER: The Court overrules Stewart's (DN 229 ) and Hutco's (DN 230 ) objections to Judge King's order (DN 228 ), but nonetheless orders the Clerk to keep sealed the settlement amount and apportionment (DN 214 ). cc: counsel (JM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
PADUCAH DIVISION
In re Smithland Towing & Construction LLC,
as Title Owner, and WRBM d/b/a Western
Rivers Boat Management, Inc. as Operator
and Owner pro hac vice of the William E.
Strait, No. 2070550, for exoneration
from or limitation of liability
No. 5:18-cv-113-BJB
* * * * *
OPINION & ORDER
This order addresses a motion to seal (DN 213) in a long-running limitationof-liability action concerning a towboat explosion that killed several people. Alice
Stewart (widowed by the incident) and Hutco Services (her widow’s employer) object
to Magistrate Judge King’s order denying Stewart’s motion to seal the amount of the
settlement between Stewart, her minor children, and Hutco. In that cursory motion,
Stewart claimed that “there is no need to make the settlement amounts public”
because “other settlements in this case have all been confidential.” Motion to Seal
(DN 213) at 1. Judge King held that this did not provide a “compelling reason” that
“outweighs the public interest in access to court records.” Order (DN 228) at 1, 2
(citing Hargrove v. Jefferson County Board of Education, No. 3:16-cv-806, 2022 WL
188190, at *4–5 (W.D. Ky. Jan. 20, 2022)).
Because these objections (DNs 229, 230) address a nondispositive pretrial
matter, the Court reviews them to determine whether Judge King’s order is “clearly
erroneous or contrary to law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Hutco
and Stewart fail to meet this standard (which they did not mention in their
objections). Hutco argues that “public disclosure of the settlement amounts by this
Court is not necessary” because “the District Court Judge determined that he lacks
jurisdiction to approve or disapprove the settlement” (referring to, but not citing, this
Court’s opinion at DN 223) and that “public disclosure … unnecessarily intrudes upon
the privacy and welfare of Stewart’s minor children.” Hutco Objections (DN 230) at
3. But unnecessary does not mean erroneous, much less unlawful. And Stewart—
the original movant—apparently does not share Hutco’s privacy concerns, or at least
hasn’t paused to explain why. Her filing simply “objects to this Court releasing to the
public the settlement amounts which are no longer before this Court for
consideration,” without any analysis or explanation whatsoever. Stewart Objections
(DN 229) at 2. Since neither Hutco nor Stewart have demonstrated that Judge King’s
order was erroneous given the arguments laid before him, the Court overrules their
objections.
1

That said, the Court has an independent obligation to account for the interests
of minors’ privacy and public transparency: judges “must strike a balance between
the public’s interest in full disclosure of judicial proceedings and the interests of
litigants in keeping information confidential to protect the privacy and integrity of
their affairs.” Davis v. Alcoa, No. 17-cv-13658, 2019 WL 3346075, at *2 (E.D. Mich.
June 10, 2019). The interest of “innocent third parties,” such as Stewart’s minor
children, “should weigh heavily.” Id.
Here the scales tilt in favor of sealing the settlement agreement. The public
interest in disclosure of the settlement amount is minimal; most settlements are
never filed in the public record. This one was only because Stewart’s counsel believed
that a provision of Kentucky law required this Court’s approval of a settlement
entered into on behalf of a minor. See generally Order Denying Approval (DN 223) at
3–4 (analyzing K.R.S. § 387.125(6)). This Court read the statute not to require
judicial approval here. So the basis for the settlement amount’s appearance in the
record has already evaporated. And the reason for that statute and for the lawyers’
submission of the settlement—the protection of vulnerable minors—supports
shielding the settlement amount from public scrutiny. See Davis, 2019 WL 3346075,
at *2 (sealing settlement agreement submitted for court approval to protect interests
of minor beneficiaries). What’s more, the 27th Judicial District Court for St. Landry
Parish, Louisiana is now considering the parties’ request for settlement approval.
Stewart Objections at 2 (referring to the Louisiana court that appointed Stewart the
guardian of her minor children’s interests). That court is better positioned to decide
whether to release or protect the settlement amount and allocation (the only parts of
the agreement the parties have filed). A decision by this Court to publish that
information on the public docket would necessarily displace the Louisiana court’s
primary role in the matter.
***
The Court overrules Stewart’s (DN 229) and Hutco’s (DN 230) objections but
nonetheless orders the Clerk to keep sealed the document labeled “Settlement
Amount for Alice Stewart, et al.” that Stewart filed with this Court. (DN 214).

May 9, 2024

2