ANDERSON v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC

Filing 36

ORDER granting in part 27 Motion to Seal. Within seven days parties are to file redacted versions of documents consistent with order. By MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN C. NIVISON. (CWP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE

HOLLY ANDERSON, Individually, and as
the Personal Representative of the Estate
of Tyler Anderson, Deceased and on Behalf
of Infant N.A., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GENERAL MOTORS LLC,
Defendant

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:15-cv-00176-DBH

ORDER ON MOTION TO SEAL
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to seal (a) her motion for approval of
the settlement achieved on behalf of a minor, (b) all documents filed in support of the motion, and
(c) the Court’s order on the motion for approval of the minor settlement. None of the parties
objects to the motion to seal. I grant the motion in part.
Discussion
When a court considers a motion to seal, the court must be mindful that the law recognizes
a presumption “of public access to judicial proceedings and records.” United States v. Kravetz,
706 F.3d 47, 52 (1st Cir. 2013). As the First Circuit has acknowledged, however, “[t]hough the
public’s right to access is vibrant, it is not unfettered. Important countervailing interests can, in
given instances, overwhelm the usual presumption and defeat access.” Id. at 59 (quoting Siedle v.
Putnam Inv., Inc., 147 F.3d 7, 10 (1st Cir. 1998)). In its assessment of a request to seal, the Court
is required to “carefully balance the presumptive public right of access against the competing
interests that are at stake in a particular case.” Id.

In support of the motion to seal, Plaintiff asserts that confidentiality was a term of the
parties’ settlement agreement. In this case, therefore, the countervailing interest to public access
is the interest in promoting settlement and the enforcement of parties’ settlement terms. To the
extent the filings are unrelated to the minor settlement and thus do not require judicial scrutiny and
are not the subject of any judicial action, the parties’ interest in maintaining the confidentiality of
the terms of their settlement agreement, and the more general interest in promoting the resolution
of disputes prevail over the right of access.
The result of the balancing of the interests, however, differs when the terms of the minor
settlement are considered. While I appreciate that the resolution of matters before trial can be
beneficial to parties to litigation and to the administration of justice, I am not persuaded that in this
case the interest outweighs the public’s right of access to the judicial proceedings and records
related to the minor settlement. Because the parties have requested that the Court approve the
settlement on behalf of the minor, the Court must assess the record to determine whether the
settlement is “‘fair, reasonable and in the best interests of the minor.’” M.Y. v. Danly, Inc., Nos.
2:09-cv-00108, 2:10-cv-00308, 2011 WL 794292 *1 (D. Me. Mar. 1, 2011) (quoting Holbrook v.
Andersen Corp., 756 F. Supp. 34, 38 (D. Me. 1991)). The public interest in access to judicial
decisions and the record upon which the decisions are based is of “paramount” significance. F.T.C.
v. Standard Fin. Mgmt. Corp., 830 F.2d 404, 410 (1st Cir. 1987). In short, the seal of the pleadings
and other submissions relevant to the Court’s assessment of the minor settlement is not warranted.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court grants in part the motion to seal.

The

Confidential Release, Settlement and Indemnity Agreement shall be sealed except for the
following: beginning in the middle of page 3 with subparagraph (b) and ending on page 7

2

immediately before the section entitled “Indemnification.” This unsealed portion shall be redacted
to remove personal identifying information regarding the minor. Within seven (7) days of the date
of this Order, the parties shall file a redacted version of the Confidential Release, Settlement and
Indemnity Agreement consistent with this Order. In addition, the parties shall review the motion
for approval of minor settlement and the documents filed in support of the motion, and shall redact
any personal identifying information regarding the minor. Within seven (7) days of the date of
this Order, the parties shall file redacted versions of the documents, or notify the Court that the
documents as filed do not contain any personal identifying information regarding the minor. The
seal of the documents currently on the docket shall remain provided the parties file redacted
versions of the documents as specified herein. The Court’s order on the motion for approval of
the minor settlement will not be sealed.
CERTIFICATE
Any objections to this order shall be filed in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

/s/ John C. Nivison
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Dated this 8th day of June, 2016.

3