WILSHIRE BANK v. CHON et al

Filing 392

ORDER granting 373 Motion to Seal sealing doc. 353-2, 353-4 through 353-18, and unsealing doc. 353-1 and 353-3. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson on 5/29/2020. (jr)

Case 2:14-cv-01770-KM-JAD Document 392 Filed 05/29/20 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 4868

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
------------------------------------------------------------X
BANK OF HOPE, as successor to Wilshire Bank,
ECF CASE
Plaintiff,
2:14-cv-01770-KM-JAD
v.
MIYE CHON, a/k/a Karen Chon, TAE JONG
KIM, BERGENFIELD BAGEL & CAFÉ INC.,
d/b/a Café Clair, MAYWOOD BAGEL INC.,
UB’S PIZZA & BAGEL INC., UB’S BAGEL &
CAFÉ INC., and UBK BAGELS CORP., d/b/a
Franklin Bagels & Café,

ORDER
Motion Day: November 18, 2019

Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------X
SUK JOON RYU, a/k/a James S. Ryu,
Cross-claim Plaintiff,
v.
MIYE CHON, a/k/a Karen Chon,
Cross-claim Defendant.
------------------------------------------------------------X
THIS MATTER having come before this Court by plaintiff Bank of Hope, by and through
its attorneys Lee Anav Chung White Kim Ruger & Richter LLP, and cross-claim plaintiff Suk
Joon Ryu, by and through his attorneys Steve Harvey Law LLC, for an Order, pursuant to Local
Civil Rule 5.3(c): (1) granting their sealing request; and (2) granting such and other relief as the
Court deems just and proper; and the Court having reviewed the moving papers submitted, and
for good cause shown,
Conclusions of Law
1.

The Third Circuit has recognized that there is “a common law public right of access

to judicial proceedings and records.” Goldstein v. Forbes (In re Cendant, Corp.), 260 F.3d 183,

Case 2:14-cv-01770-KM-JAD Document 392 Filed 05/29/20 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 4869

192 (3d Cir. 2001).
2.

“The party seeking to seal any part of a judicial record bears the heavy burden of

demonstrating that the material is the kind of information that courts will protect.” Miller v.
Indiana Hosp., 16 F.3d 549, 551 (3rd Cir. 1994) (internal quotations omitted).
3.

“This Court has the power to seal where confidential information may be disclosed

to the public.” Endo Pharms., Inc. v. Impax Labs., Inc., Civil Action No:
2:16-CV-2526-JLL-JAD, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114009, at *6 (D.N.J. July 20, 2017).
4.

Courts have repeatedly sealed the amount of settlement payments where a settling

party entered settlement in reliance on the confidentiality of that information. See, e.g., Leap Sys.
v. Moneytrax, Inc., 638 F.3d 216, 222 (3rd Cir. 2011) (affirming denial of motion to unseal
settlement amount where a settling party “would not have entered into the settlement agreements
but for the Court’s assurance of confidentiality”); In re Armistead v. CONRAIL (In re Paulsboro
Derailment Cases), Master Docket No. 13-784; Civil No. 13-2358 (RBK/KMW), 2016 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 143035, at *10 (D.N.J. Oct. 17, 2016) (sealing settlement amount where a settling party
“relied on confidentiality of the settlement figure in making the settlement”); Hershey Co. v.
Promotion in Motion, Inc., Civil Action No.: 07-1601 (SDW), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149977, at
*10 (D.N.J. Aug. 4, 2010) (order to seal portions of transcript revealing confidential settlement
terms protected by confidentiality provision in settlement agreement).
5.

Local Civil Rule 5.3(c)(3) requires that a motion to seal describe: (a) the nature of

the materials or proceedings at issue; (b) the legitimate private or public interest which warrant
the relief sought; (c) the clearly defined and serious injury that would result if the relief sought is
not granted; (d) why a less restrictive alternative to the relief sought is not available; (e) any prior
order sealing the same materials in the pending action; and (f) the identity of any party or
2

Case 2:14-cv-01770-KM-JAD Document 392 Filed 05/29/20 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 4870

nonparty known to be objecting to the sealing request.
Proposed Findings of Fact
1.

ECF Nos. 353 and 363 are presently under temporary seal.

2.

Bank of Hope and Ryu (the “Movants”) request that ECF Nos. 353 and 363, both

of which disclose the amount of settlement, remain sealed. Redacted versions of the documents,
in the form requested by the present motion, have been submitted as Exhibits A and B to the
declaration of Michael M. Yi, Esq., dated October 22, 2019.
The nature of the materials at issue
ECF No. 353
1.

The Movants request that Ryu’s memorandum of law in support of his “Motion for

Partial Reconsideration,” dated August 26, 2019, and the accompanying Exhibits A and E (the
“Motion”), be redacted to prevent disclosure of certain confidential information.1 ECF Nos.
353-2, 353-5, 353-9. A redacted version of the Motion has been submitted as Exhibit A.2
2.

In the Motion, Ryu discusses the parties’ settlement and expressly states the

settlement amount. See ECF Nos. 353-2, 353-5, 353-9. Pursuant to the Court’s Letter Order,
dated August 12, 2019 (the “Letter Order”), the settlement amount is confidential. ECF No. 348.
ECF No. 363
3.

The Movants request that Ryu’s reply memorandum of law in support of the

Motion, dated September 30, 2019 (the “Reply”), also be redacted to prevent the disclosure of the

1

The Movants do not seek relief with respect to ECF Nos. 353-1, 353-3-4, 353-6-8, and
353-10-18.
2

Pursuant to the Court’s Transcript Policy, ECF No. 353-5 (Exhibit A - Transcript of the
Settlement Hearing dated July 24, 2019) is excluded from Exhibit A.
3

Case 2:14-cv-01770-KM-JAD Document 392 Filed 05/29/20 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 4871

same confidential information. ECF No. 363. A redacted version of the Reply has been submitted
as Exhibit B.
4.

In the Reply, Ryu discusses the parties’ settlement and effectively states the

settlement amount by disclosing how much less the settlement amount was in comparison to the
publicly available Rule 68 offer amount. See ECF No. 363. Pursuant to the Letter Order, the
settlement amount is confidential. ECF No. 348.
The legitimate private or public interest which warrant the relief sought
5.

The Motion and the Reply (together, the “Documents”) warrant redaction because

they disclose the settlement amount, which the Court in the Letter Order concluded is confidential
pursuant to the Letter Order and the Movants’ Settlement Agreement.3 The Movants have a
legitimate private interest in the enforcement of the confidentiality term to which they agreed, and
there is a public interest for the Court to not disclose that confidential information pursuant to the
Letter Order. In particular, Bank of Hope entered the settlement in reliance of the confidentiality
of the settlement amount, which was an essential term of the settlement. The protection of Bank
of Hope’s reasonable expectation that the settlement amount will remain confidential serves the
public interest of encouraging settlements by other litigants entering settlements with similar
expectations.
The clearly defined and serious injury that would result if the relief sought is not granted
6.

The Movants would be injured if the settlement amount and the amount which

effectively discloses the settlement amount in the Documents are not redacted, because public
disclosure of that information would constitute breach of the Movants’ Settlement Agreement.

The “Movants’ Settlement Agreement” refers to the settlement, the terms of which are set forth
in the Letter Order.
4
3

Case 2:14-cv-01770-KM-JAD Document 392 Filed 05/29/20 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 4872

Why a less restrictive alternative to the relief sought is not available.
7.

The Movants seek to redact only the settlement amount and the amount which

effectively discloses the settlement amount in the Documents. See Exhibits A-B. There is no less
restrictive alternative which would comply with the Movants’ Settlement Agreement.
Any prior order sealing the same materials in the pending action.
8.

There is no prior order sealing any of the Documents.

The identity of any party or nonparty known to be objecting to the sealing request.
9.

The Movants do not have any knowledge of any party or nonparty objecting to the

request to seal and redact the Documents.
For the foregoing reasons, it is on this 29th day of May, 2020, hereby:
ORDERED that, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.3(c), the Movants' joint motion to seal,
(ECF No. 373), is GRANTED. The submissions filed under ECF Nos. 353-2; 353-5; 353-9;
and 363 shall remain SEALED. The parties have filed redacted versions of these submissions
under ECF Nos. 373-2 and 373-3; and it is further
ORDERED that although the Movants do not seek relief as to the submissions filed
under ECF Nos. 353-4; 353-6; 353-7; 353-8; 353-10; 353-11; 353-12; 353-13; 353-14;
353-15; 353-16; 353-17; and 353-18, these submissions shall also remain SEALED
pending further review by the Court. These submissions include settlement negotiations between the
Court and the Movants which, if made public, may have a deleterious effect on the Court's ability to
facilitate confidential and candid settlements. Accordingly, the identified submissions shall remain
sealed until further Order by the Court; and it is further
ORDERED that, as the Movants do not seek relief with respect to the submissions filed
under ECF Nos. 353-1 and 353-3, and as these submissions do not contain information related to
settlement negotiations, these submissions shall be UNSEALED.
Dated this 29th day of May, 2020.

5

/s/ Joseph A. Dickson
Hon. Joseph A. Dickson, U.S.M.J.