DAVIS et al v. QUALITY CARRIERS, INC. et al

Filing 99

Letter-OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael A. Shipp on 12/23/09. (jd, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CHAMBERS OF

MiCHAEL A. SHIPP
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

MARTIN LUThER KING COURTHOUSE 50 WALNUT ST. ROOM 2042 NEWARK, NJ 07102 973$45-3827

Not for Publication LETTER OPINION

December 23. 2009 VIA CM/ECF All counsel of record
Re: Davis, et al. v. Quality Carriers, Inc. et al. Civil Action No. 08-4533 (SRCNMAS)

Dear Counsel: This matter comes before the Court on application of Stark & Stark, P.C., attorneys for Plaintiffs Rebecca Davis, as Administrator adprosequL'ndum and Administrator of the Estate of John C. Tarangelo. deceased and individually ("Plaintiffs"), for the entry of an Order pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.3(c) sealing documents related to a settlement between the Plaintiffs and certain defendants. (Docket Entry ("DE") # 93,) Third party defendant Dana Companies. LLC ("Dana") opposes Plaintiffs motion (DE # 96) and defendant,third party defendant Mack Trucks, Inc. ("Mack Trucks") joined in the opposition. (DE Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal is aranted.
I.

98.) For the reasons expressed below.

SUMMARY OF FACTS All of the parties are wellversed in the underlying facts of this litigation. As such, the

Court will spend only a few moments on those facts relevant to the instant motion. Plaintiffs seek relief to file under seal (i) all tirms of Order submitted by an interested party in connection with the proposed Consent Order Approving Settlement and Application tbr a Fee on the Net Proceeds

in Excess of Two Million Dollars: (ii) the cover letter dated November 25. 2009 addressed to the

undersigned outlining the settlement: and (iii) the Certification of John A Sakson. (P1. `s Moving
.

Br. at 3,) The claims of Rebecca Davis, individually and as Administrator of the estate of her

husband have been settled, but the litigation between the defendants and third-party defendants remains unresolved. JiL) While the gross settlement amount is known by all parties. the parties do not know who is paying what portion of the settlement amount. (Id.). As part of the settlement
agreement. the settling defendants requested a Contidentiality Agreement. (Id. at 3-4.) The

documents that Plaintiffs seek to maintain under seal contain the payment information that is sought to be kept confidential under the anticipated Confidentiality Agreement. (Id. at 4.)

Plaintiffs assert that the defendants and/or third party defendants have no need for the information

as the settlement does not have anything to do with any of the substantive claims. (Id.) Dana. on the other hand, asserts that it is entitled to the aforementioned settlement documents because they are relevant to discovery. (Third-Party DeE's Opp'n Br. ("Opp'n Br.") at 2.) Quality Carriers. Inc. ("Quality Carriers"), a defendant involved in the settlement at issue. tiled a third party claim against Dana. (Id.) Accordingly, Dana asserts that it is entitled to know the amount that Quality Carriers paid to Plaintiffs because the amount, if any, Dana may be liable for is directly contingent upon same. (Id.) Significantly, Quality Carriers has already advised Dana. in writing, of the amount that it is paving under the Settlement Agreement.
However. Dana asserts that Quality Carriers' mere assertion regarding same is not sufficient and that its suspicion is confirmed by the fact that Quality Carriers' revealed the settlement payment

amount but refuses to provide a copy of the settlement agreement. (Opp'n Br. at 2-3.) Mack Truck joins in Dana's opposition, contending that it is entitled to all documents pertaining to any settlement entered into between Dana and the remaining parties. (DE / 98 at 1.)

II.

LEGAL STANDARD & ANALYSIS

Before this Court can grant a party's request to file a document under seal that would
otherwise he a public document, the party seeking the relief must demonstrate that "good cause" exists for exempting the document. Pansy
.

Boroigh ot Stroudsburg. 23 F.3d 772. 786 (3d Cir.

1994). To determine whether good cause exists, this Court may consider the factors outlined under Local civil Rule 53c,'(2): "(a) the nature of the materials or proceedings at issue, (b) the legitimate private or public interests which warrant the relief sought. (c) the clearly defined and serious injury that would result if the relief sought is not granted, and (d) why a less restrictive alternative to the relief sought is not available." While the public generally has a common law right of access to judicial proceedings and records. Littlejoizn v. BIC Coip.. 851 F.2d 673. 677-78 (3d Cir. 1998). "the right to inspect and copy judicial records is not absolute." .VLvon v. Warner c'om,nc'ns, Inc.. 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). Thus, to justify entry of an order sealing judicial records, the party seeking the closure "bears the burden of showing that the material is the kind of information that courts will protect" and that "disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking" to seal the documents at issue. In cc Qcndant Corp.. 260 F.3d 183. 194 (3d Cir. 2001) (quoting Miller v. Indiana Hosp., 16 F.3d 549, 551 (3d Cir. 1993)). Once the two afhrementioned elements have been established, a district court will weigh the harm and injury that allegedly would result if the information is not sealed against the common law presumption of access. Id. In making the decision as to whether sealing is

appropriate, this Court may consider the following factors: whether disclosure will violate any privacy interests: 2. whether the information is being sought for a legitimate purpose or for an improper purpose; 3. whether disclosure of the information will cause a
party

embarrassment;

1

j

4. whether confidentiality is being sought over information important to public health and safety; 5. whether the sharing of information among litigants will promote fairness and efficiency;

6. whether a party benefitting from the order of confidentiality is a public entity or official; and 7. whether the case involves issues important to the public. Glenmede Trust C'o. v. Thompson, 56 F.3d 476, 483 (3d Cir. 1995) (citing Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 787-91 (3d Cir. 1994)). However, these factors are not mandatory, nor are they an exhaustive list. See ict Ultimately, this Court has the discretion to make a decision by evaluating "the competing considerations in light of the facts" surrounding this specific case, Pansy, supra. 23 F.3d at 789 (quoting Arthur R. Miller, `onJidentiality, Protective Orders, and Public Access to the Courts, 105 Harv. L. Rev. 427, 492 (1991)). Here, sealing of the following documents is appropriate: (i) all forms of Order submitted by an interested party in connection with the proposed Consent Order Approving Settlement and Application for a Fee on the Net Proceeds in Excess of Two Million Dollars; (ii) the cover letter dated November 25, 2009 addressed to the undersigned outlining the settlement; and (iii) the Certification of John A. Sakson. This Court finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated (1) a substantial and compelling interest in confidentiality; and (2) that divulgence to the public would work a clearly defined and serious injury to Plaintiffs. Specifically, disclosure would result in the dissemination of information to the public that is subject to a Confidentiality Order. (P1.'s Moving Br. at 4.) Moreover, the public has little interest in the documents proposed to be filed under seal, as only private interests are involved. (Id.) On the contrary, disclosure may cause a competitive disadvantage to the settling defendants. (Id.) There is simply no less

restrictive means to prevent the injury discussed above, because adjudication of the pending 4

Order Approving Settlement and the related

documents

will require disclosure to the Court and

disclosure to the public will violate the anticipated Confidentiality Agreement. (Id.) Finally. Quality Carriers has already disclosed the amount it has agreed to pay to Plaintiffs. (Opp'n Br. at
2 ).

While Danas concern that Quality Carriers may not be disclosing the true settlement

payment amount is understood, this Court finds that the potential harm and injury that may result if disclosure is permitted outweighs any
potential

harm to Dana andor Mack Trucks.' Thus.
of

when the aforementioned factors are weighed against the presumption

access, Plaintiffs'

interest is more significant at this time. Accordingly, this Court grants Plaintiffs Motion to Seal.
HE CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, and fhr good cause shown,
IT IS on this
rd 23

day of December, 2009

ORDERED THAT:

1. Plaintiffs' motion to file under seal pursuant to L. Civ. K 5.3 is hereby granted. 2. Plaintiffs shall electronically tile the following documents under seal in accordance with the Court's electronic filing procedures: (i) all forms of Order submitted by an interested party in connection with the proposed Consent Order Approving Settlement and Application for a Fee on the Net Proceeds in Excess of Two Million Dollars; (ii) the cover letter dated November 25, 2009 addressed to the undersigned outlining the settlement: and (iii) the Certification of John A. Sakson.

HONORABLE MICHAEL A. SHIPP UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

While Dana is coiTect in asserting that disco cry is broader at the pretrial stage of a matter and that under certain circumstances a settlement agreement may be discoerable under Federal Rule of Civ ii Procedure 26. the Court finds that this is not the appropriate time for making such a decision, (S'e Opp'n Br. at 3-4.) This Courts decision to grant Plaintiffs Motion to Seal the Settlement Documents protects the infonnation and documents from disclosure to the general public. Accordingly. if during discoerv Dana and Mack Trucks continue to seek the settlement documents sealed pursuant to this Opinion and Order, they should file the appropriate applications for the Court's consideration.