Interstate Fire and Casualty Company v. Dimensions Assurance Ltd.
Filing
29
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 11/13/2014. (aos, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
.FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Southern Division
*
INTERSTATE FIRE AND
CASUALTY COMPANY
*
*
Plaintiff,
Case No.: GJH-13-390S
*
v.
*
DIMENSIONS
ASSURANCE
LTD.
*
Defendant.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM
*
*
*
*
*
*
OPINION
Plaintiff Interstate Fire and Casualty Company seeks to file its brief in support of its
Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 25, the affidavit of Margaret Otte, ECF No. 25-8, and
a Settlement Agreement and Release, ECF No. 25-9, under seal. ECF No. 27. For the reasons
explained below, the Motion to Seal, ECF No. 27, is DENIED without prejudice to refile in
accordance with the Court's instructions.
DISCUSSION
Under Local Rule 105.11, "[a ]ny motion seeking the sealing of ... motions, exhibits[,] or
other documents to be filed in the Court record shall include (a) proposed reasons supported by
specific factual representations to justify the sealing and (b) an explanation why alternatives to
sealing would not provide sufficient protection." These are strict requirements and not simply
formalities. The public's right of access to judicial documents and records is a First Amendment
right as well as a common law tradition. Doe v. Public Citizen, 749 F.3d 246, 265 (4th Cir.
2014). The First Amendment protection attaches to summary judgment motions and materials
filed in connection with the motion. Id. at 265-276. As the First Amendment protects the right of
access to summary judgment motions and their supporting documents, access may be restricted
only if sealing is "necessitated by a compelling government interest" and the denial of access is
"narrowly tailored to serve that interest." Id. at 266 (quoting In re Wash. Post Co., 807 F.2d 383,
390 (4th Cir. 1986)). Further, there must be no less restrictive measures, such as filing redacted
versions of the documents, available. Rock v. McHugh, 819 F.Supp. 2d 456, 475 (D.Md. 2011);
In re Search of 8420 Ocean Gateway Easton, Maryland, 353 F.Supp. 2d 577, 580 (D. Md. 2004).
The interests courts have found sufficiently compelling to justify sealing documents include "a
defendant's right to a fair trial before an impartial jury," "protecting the privacy rights of trial
participants such as victims or witnesses," and "risks to national security." Doe, 749 F.3d at 269.
Also, "(aJ corporation may possess a strong interest in preserving the confidentiality
of its
proprietary and trade secret information, which in tum may justify partial sealing of court
records." Jd. If the Court does decide to seal any documents, it must state the reasons and
specific supporting findings for its decision and the reasons for rejecting alternatives to sealing.
Va. Dep't of State Police v. Washington Post, 386 F.3d 567, 576 (4th Cir. 2004).
Plaintiff states that the settlement agreement includes a strict confidentiality provision
and that the memorandum references the settlement agreement and the settlement amount. Id.
Plaintiff does not provide any reason for its request to seal Margaret Otte's affidavit. Id. Other
courts in the Fourth Circuit have found that the presence of a confidentiality provision alone is
not a sufficiently compelling reason to seal a settlement agreement. See Martin v. ArneI'. Honda
Motor Co., Inc., 940 F.Supp. 2d 277, 280 (D.S.C. 2013); Bureau a/Nat 'I Affairs v. Chase, 2012
WL 3065352 at
* 3 (D.Md.
July 25,2012) ("Aside from the bare fact that defendants and FMH
2
agreed to the confidentiality of the settlement and the obvious interest of almost any party in
keeping close the amount it is willing to pay (or receive) to settle a claim, the parties have
articulated no basis to seal the settlement agreement."); Kianpour v. Restaurant Zone, Inc., 2011
WL 5375082 at * 2, 2 n.2 (D. Md. Nov. 4, 2011); White v. Bonner, 2010 WL 4625770 at * 2
(E.D.N.C. Nov. 4, 2010). Thus, Plaintiffs motion to seal is DENIED without prejudice.
The Court notes that, although not mentioned by Plaintiff in the motion to seal, this case
appears to be a dispute between two insurance companies over which company is responsible for
the settlement costs incurred from a medical malpractice action between a hospital and at least
one minor child. Courts have found a compelling government
interest in sealing sensitive
medical or other personal information, especially when relating to minors. See Mears v. Atlantic
Southeast Airlines, Inc., 5:12-CV-613-F,
Slip Copy at *3 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 7, 2014) (collecting
cases relating to minors); Rock, 819 F.Supp. 2d at 475-76 (discussing sealing of sensitive
medical or personal identification information). To protect the privacy of the child, who is not a
party to this action, the Court may find it proper to redact sensitive information. However, the
mere mention of a settlement agreement or settlement amount would not be a compelling reason
to seal an entire memorandum in support of a motion for summary judgment given the right of
the public under the First Amendment
to have access to summary judgment
motions and
materials filed in connection with the motions. See Bureau, 2012 WL 3065352 at *2 ("To be
sure, sensitive medical or person identification information may be sealed, so long as the request
is not overbroad. However, a wholesale request for sealing of the entire summary judgment
briefing and accompanying
exhibits is overbroad and would infringe too extensively on the
public right to access court records.") (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
3
Under Local Rule 105.11, if a motion to seal is denied, the party making the filing has an
opportunity to withdraw the materials. Plaintiff should, if it wishes, withdraw its filing and file
redacted versions, redacting only those portions that would reveal confidential information. In its
accompanying
motion seeking the Court's
permission to submit a redacted memorandum,
Plaintiff should provide specific representations to justify the redactions and otherwise comply
with the provisions of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland's Civil Procedures
Manual, III.A.7(e).1
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs Motion to Seal, ECF No. 27, is DENIED without
prejudice. Plaintiff will have ten days to withdraw the materials before they will be unsealed by
the Court.
A separate Order shall issue.
A---iL---
Dated: November 13,2014
GEORGE J! HAZEL
United States District Judge
I
See http://www .mdd. uscourts.gov/pub lications/fonns/Civi 1%20ManuaJ%20-%206.1 %20-%20 FIN A L.pdf
4
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?