Fangman et al v. Genuine Title, LLC

Filing 508

MEMORANDUM ORDER granting 502 Motion to Unseal; and directing the Clerk to unseal Exhibits 39 and 40 to Plaintiff's Reply in Support of the Motion for Class Certification and make ECF Nos. 374-3 and 374-4 publicly accessible. Signed by Judge Richard D. Bennett on 6/29/2022. (bmhs, Deputy Clerk)

Case 1:14-cv-00081-RDB Document 508 Filed 06/29/22 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
EDWARD J. AND VICKIE
FANGMAN, et al.,

*
*

Plaintiffs,

*

v.

*

GENUINE TITLE, LLC, et al.,

*

Defendants.
*

*

*

Civil Action No. RDB-14-0081

*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Presently pending is Defendant West Town Bank & Trust’s (“West Town”) Motion
to Unseal Affidavits of Christopher Casazza and Brent Erickson Filed in Support of
Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification (ECF No. 502) and the Opposition of Casazza and
Erickson (ECF No. 503). For the reasons that follow, that Motion to Unseal (ECF No. 502)
shall be GRANTED.
West Town has moved for the unsealing of the affidavits of Christopher Casazza and
Brent Erickson, which are Exhibits 39 and 40 to the Reply in Support of Class Certification
(ECF No. 374). West Town seeks these affidavits in connection with its lawsuit filed in the
Circuit Court for Harford County, Maryland. See West Town Bank & Trust v. Christopher
Casazza, et al., Case No. C-12-CV-21-000663 (Cir. Ct. Harford County). Essentially, after
having settled the claims in this litigation in this Court, West Town has filed suit against

Case 1:14-cv-00081-RDB Document 508 Filed 06/29/22 Page 2 of 2

Casazza and Erickson claiming that they have a contractual obligation to indemnify West
Town for the costs, expenses, and settlement paid in this case.
In their opposition, Casazza and Erickson argue that this subject Motion to Unseal is
untimely, unwarranted, and contrary to a previous order of this Court denying an earlier
motion to unseal these affidavits. (Mot. to Unseal, ECF No. 433; Memorandum Order, ECF
No. 449.) First of all, the subject Motion is not untimely. Casazza and Erickson make
reference to Local Rule 113.3 of this Court. That rule simply addresses the disposition of
sealed materials and does not impose a jurisdictional deadline. Secondly, this Court’s earlier
denial of a motion to unseal related to the pendency of the action in this Court.
There is clearly a right to have access to judicial documents after a case has been
closed. See Co. Doe v. Pub. Citizen, 749 F.3d 246 (4th Cir. 2014). Judge Chuang of this Court
has previously recognized the need to unseal certain documents for a proper purpose.
Hispanic Nat’l Law Enf’t Ass’n NCR v. Prince George’s Cty., Civil Action No. TDC-18-3821,
2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26546, at *36-37 (D. Md. Feb. 10, 2021).
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED this 29th day of June, 2022 that the Motion
to Unseal (ECF No. 502) is GRANTED, and it further ORDERED that the Clerk of this
Court shall unseal Exhibits 39 and 40 to Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of the Motion for Class
Certification and make ECF Nos. 374-3 and 374-4 publicly accessible.

______/s/________
Richard D. Bennett
United States District Judge

2