Whitesell Corporation v. Whirlpool Corporation et al

Filing 688

OPINION AND ORDER granting 686 Plaintiff Whitesell Corporation's request to redact the transcript of the summary jury trial held on November 9, 10, and 12, 2009 and granting 687 Plaintiff's motion to seal or strike the jury verdict from the public record ; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Judge Robert Holmes Bell, kcb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN S O U T H E R N DIVISION

W H I T E S E L L CORPORATION, P l a in tif f , C a se No. 1:05-CV-679 v. H O N . ROBERT HOLMES BELL W H I R L P O O L CORPORATION, W H IR L P O O L MEXICO S.A. de C.V., a n d JOSEPH SHARKEY, D e f e n d a n ts , and W H I R L P O O L CORPORATION, C o u n te r- P l a in tif f , v. W H I T E S E L L CORPORATION, C o u n ter -D e f e n d a n t. /

M E M O R A N D U M OPINION AND ORDER T h is matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Whitesell Corporation's request to redact th e transcript of the summary jury trial held on November 9, 10, and 12, 2009, (Dkt. No. 686) a n d motion to seal or strike the jury verdict from the public record (Dkt. No. 687). Pursuant to the Court's Policy and Procedure Regarding Electronic Availability of T ra n sc rip ts , redaction requests generally seek the removal of specific personal information

in c l u d in g Social Security numbers, names of minor children, financial account numbers, d a te s of birth, and home addresses. Policy & P. Regard'g Elec. Avail. of Trs., Admin. Order N o . 08-071 (W.D. Mich. May 15, 2008). Because Plaintiff's request to redact the transcript o f the summary jury trial seeks removal of the entire transcript from the public record, it is m o re appropriately considered a motion to seal under Local Civil Rule 10.6, which may be g ra n te d upon a showing of good cause. W.D. Mich. LCivR 10.6. Summary jury trials are settlement tools. See W.D. Mich. LCivR 16.2(a); Cincinnati G a s & Elec. Co. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 854 F.2d 900, 904 (6th Cir. 1988) ("At every turn the s u m m a ry jury trial is designed to facilitate pretrial settlement of the litigation, much like a s e ttle m e n t conference."). As compromise negotiations, conduct and statements made in the c o u rse of a summary jury trial are not admissible during a subsequent trial to prove liability o r to impeach through a prior inconsistent statement. Fed. R. Evid. 408; W.D. Mich. LCivR 1 6 .2 (d ). The Court was optimistic that the summary jury trial would bring an expeditious a n d mutually satisfactory resolution to this matter, but when this hope proved unfounded, the u se f u ln e ss of the summary jury trial to the Court and the parties ran its course. For this re a so n , and in light of the risk of unfair prejudice and confusion that may result from public a c ce ss to the summary jury trial transcript and verdict, the Court is satisfied that Plaintiff has s h o w n good cause to seal the summary jury trial transcript and verdict. See Cincinnati Gas, 8 5 4 F.2d 900 (upholding a district court's decision to limit public access to summary jury trial proceedings in part because, as a settlement tool, a summary jury trial is of little public c o n s e q u e n c e ). 2

A c c o r d i n g l y, I T IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's request to redact the transcript of the s u m m a ry jury trial (Dkt. No. 686), construed as a motion to seal the transcript of the s u m m a r y jury trial, is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to seal the verdict of the s u m m a r y jury trial (Dkt. No. 687) is GRANTED. I T IS FURTHER ORDERED that volumes I-III of the summary jury trial transcript (D k t. Nos. 682, 683, 684) and the verdict rendered in the summary jury trial (Dkt. No. 675) sh a ll be filed under seal, and that the cover sheets identifying these documents as sealed shall re f e r to this order.

Dated: January 5, 2010

/s/ Robert Holmes Bell ROBERT HOLMES BELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3