Cadell v. XL Specialty Insurance Company

Filing 58

ORDER Re: Disposition of Sealed Motions. Documents to be sealed/unsealed as outlined. Motions due by 3/25/2013. So Ordered by Judge Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.(dae)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Sherry Cadell
v.

Civil No. 11-cv-394-JD

XL Specialty Insurance Company
PROCEDURAL ORDER
On December 7, 2012, the parties filed a joint motion to
approve settlement and a joint motion requesting that the motion
to approve settlement be sealed because “[a] material term of the
settlement is that the specific details of the settlement are to
be kept confidential and not made known to the public.”

The

court sealed the motion to approve the settlement on a temporary
basis pending review.
On January 11, 2013, the parties filed a motion to withdraw
and replace the original motion to approve settlement, as well as
a revised joint motion to approve settlement.

They also filed a

joint motion requesting that the revised motion to approve
settlement be sealed on the same ground as their first motion to
seal.

As with the original motion to approve settlement, the

court sealed the revised motion to approve settlement on a
temporary basis pending review.
The parties also requested that six other motions be sealed:
a joint motion for an indicative ruling; a joint motion to

withdraw and replace the motion for an indicative ruling and the
motion to approve settlement; a revised joint motion for an
indicative ruling; and the three motions requesting that the
court seal the substantive motions.

As with the motions to

approve the settlement, the court sealed those motions on a
temporary basis pending review.1
There is a “common-law presumption in favor of public access
to judicial records.”

Nat. Org. for Marriage v. McKee, 649 F.3d

34, 70 (1st Cir. 2011).

“[T]he presumption [favoring public

access of documents is] strong and sturdy, and thus, only the
most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial
records.”

Id. (quoting FTC v. Standard Fin. Mgmt. Corp., 830

F.2d 404, 410 (1st Cir. 1987)) (internal quotation marks
omitted).

Sufficient compelling reasons may include where the

unsealing of documents would make public information the terms of
a confidential settlement agreement or where the information is
subject to a confidentiality agreement.

See Siedle v. Putnam

Investments, Inc., 147 F.3d 7, 10-12 (1st Cir. 1998); see also
Seals v. Herzing, Inc. - New Orleans, 2012 WL 85280, at *2 (E.D.
La. Jan. 11, 2012).

1

On January 31, 2013, the court approved the revised motion
for an indicative ruling. On March 15, 2013, the court issued an
order granting the revised joint motion to approve settlement.
2

A.

Motions For Approval Of Settlement
Both the joint motion to approve settlement (document no.

44) and the revised joint motion to approve settlement (document
no. 51) contain the specific details of the parties’ confidential
settlement.

A material term of the settlement provides that

specific details thereof are to be kept confidential.

Therefore,

the court finds that in order to effectuate and give recognition
to the agreement between the parties, the public should not have
access to the motions.
In lieu of sealing the documents and in order to preserve
the terms of the settlement between the parties, the original
copies of the joint motion to approve settlement (document no.
44) and the revised joint motion to approve settlement (document
no. 51) will be returned to the filer and the corresponding
electronic document will be removed from CM/ECF.

B.

Other Motions
The court has reviewed the motions for an indicative ruling

(document nos. 46 & 53), the motion to withdraw and replace
(document no. 50), and the motions to seal the aforementioned
substantive motions (document nos. 45, 47, & 52), and these

3

motions do not contain specific details of the settlement.2
Therefore, the court does not see any reason to keep these
motions or the January 31, 2013, order under seal or return the
motions to the filer.

The parties shall confer and, if they

believe good cause exists to keep these motions or the January
31, 2013, order confidential, they shall file joint or several
motions requesting such relief with the reasons therefor no later
than March 25, 2013, failing which document nos. 45, 46, 47, 50,
52, and 53, as well as the January 31, 2013, order, will be
unsealed.
SO ORDERED.

____________________________
Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.
United States District Judge
March 15, 2013
cc:

John C. Barker, Esquire
Richard C. Demerle, Esquire
John E. Durkin, Esquire
Paul Michienzie, Esquire

2

In addition, the court sealed the January 31, 2013, order
approving the revised motion for an indicative ruling. The order
also does not contain specific details of the settlement.
4