Hogan v. Buck et al
Filing
71
ORDER granting 68 Motion to Seal 67 PROPOSED SEALED Document, Settlement Agreement and Statement of Receipts and Disbursements. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 7/25/2019. (Collins, S.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
EASTERN DIVISION
Civil Action No. 4:17-cv-00170-FL
KIMBERLY D. HOGAN, Administrator of the )
Estate of Amanda Yvonne Hogan,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
SHERIFF ASA B. BUCK, III, and CAPTAIN )
DANIEL KING, in their individual and official )
capacities, CARTERET COUNTY, CARTERET )
COUNTY DETENTION OFFICERS WILLIE )
JOHNSON, MELISSA BRAZIE, TAMIRYA )
FARRAR,
TAYTIANA
TAYLOR
aka )
TAYTIANNA TAYLOR, MARY GEORGE, )
CATHY JONES, MELISSA KING, CAROL )
LOCKETT, in their individual and official )
capacities, SARAH H. PARDUE and JESSICA )
L. SAUCIER, in their official and individual )
capacities, SOUTHERN HEALTH PARTNERS, )
INC., and TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND )
SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
ORDER
________________________________________________________________________
This matter comes before the court upon the Parties’ Joint Motion to Seal the
proposed Settlement Agreement and Disbursement ledger in this action. [DE-67]
Findings of Fact
1. This case arises out of the suicide of Amanda Hogan on December 7, 2015 from an
attempt she made when she was incarcerated at the Carteret County Detention Center.
2. Amanda Hogan was married to Kerry Rey at the time of her death and had two minor
children, who are still minors.
3. This action commenced on December 6, 2017 with the filing of the Complaint. The
minor children are not parties to the action and have not been named in any court filing in
this action.
4. The proposed sealed documents refer to the minor children by their initials only.
5. The use of initials alone does not adequately protect the minor children’s identify because
the full name of their late mother is in the caption of this action and the full name of their
father is in the proposed sealed documents.
6. The proposed sealed documents are the proposed settlement agreement and proposed
disbursement ledger, which contain the details of the total settlement amount and how all
the proceeds are be disbursed.
7. The instant Motion to Seal is made jointly by all the parties to this action.
Conclusions of Law
When considering a Motion to Seal, district courts must give the public notice of the
request to seal and a reasonable opportunity to challenge the request. See In re Knight Publ'g,
743 F.2d 231, 235 (4th Cir. 1984). The filing of a litigant's Motion to Seal, such as the parties'
Joint Motion to Seal [DE-___], is sufficient to provide public notice and opportunity to challenge
the request to seal. See id. The court must also consider less drastic alternatives to sealing, if
any. See id. Finally, the court must identify whether the First Amendment or common law rights
of access apply and, if so, whether applicable counterbalancing privacy interests may overcome
such public rights of access. See id.
The Minors’ Privacy Interests Overcome the Common Law Right of Access.
Under the common law right of access, there is a presumptive right for the public to
inspect and copy all "judicial records." See Stone v. Univ. of Md., 855 F.2d 178, 180 (4th Cir.
2
1988). Courts have held that documents reviewed in connection with a motion for court approval
of a settlement constitute "judicial records" and are subject to the common law right of
access. See White v. Bonner, No. 4:10-CV-105-F, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118038, 2010 WL
4625770, at *1 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 4, 2010) (applying the common law right of access to the parties'
Motion to Seal their settlement agreement in a wrongful death action). The common law right of
access can be overcome if the parties' privacy interests outweigh the public interest in
access. See Stone, 855 F.2d at 180. Here, the parties' settlement agreement contains specific
dollar amounts of settlement funds allotted to each wrongful death beneficiary, including the
minor Plaintiffs. The public, on the other hand, has no interest in accessing the details of
disbursements to the non-party wrongful death beneficiaries, including the minors.
Courts have repeatedly held that minors’ privacy interests in medical and financial
information, such as that reflected in the settlement agreement and settlement documentation,
overcome the common law right of access in granting motions to seal. See, e.g., Webster Groves
Sch. Dist. V. Pulitzer Publ'g Co., 898 F.2d 1371, 1375 (8th Cir. 1990)(holding that minor’s
privacy rights justified closing all proceedings and sealing all records); Wittenberg v. WinstonSalem/Forsyth Cnty. Bd. of Educ., No. 1:05cv00919, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51774, 2009 WL
1684585, at *2-3 (M.D.N.C. June 16, 2009) (granting a Motion to Seal a minor settlement
agreement in order to protect the minor’s privacy). Accordingly, the parties' Joint Motion to Seal
[DE-____] should be granted because the minors’ privacy interests in this case also overcome the
common law right of access.
The Compelling Governmental Interest in Protecting the minors’ Privacy Outweighs
Any First Amendment Right of Access.
3
The purpose of the First Amendment right of access is to allow for public oversight of the
judicial process. See Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Court of Ca. for Riverside Cnty., 478 U.S. 1, 8,
106 S. Ct. 2735, 92 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1986). The First Amendment right of access only attaches if(l)
"the place and process have historically been open to the press and general public" and (2)
"public access plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the particular process in
question." Id. Courts have applied the First Amendment right of access to settlement agreements
that are reviewed in connection with motions for court approval of minor settlements. See,
e.g., Bonner, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118038, 2010 WL 4625770 at *1. The First
Amendment right of access may be denied if there is a compelling government interest and the
denial is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. See Stone, 855 F.2d at 180. In considering
whether there is a compelling governmental interest to overcome the First Amendment right of
access, courts should consider "whether the records are sought for improper purposes, such as
promoting public scandals or unfairly gaining a business advantage; whether release would
enhance the public's understanding of an important historical event; and whether the public has
already had access to the information contained in the records." In re Knight Publ'g, 743 F.2d at
235.
Applying these standards to the facts at hand, the court finds that no public interest is
served and no public oversight furthered by publicly disclosing the private details of the
settlement agreement and documentation. Instead, the minor Plaintiffs could be exposed to
public shaming and unfair disadvantage. Courts have held that compelling governmental
interests require the sealing of documents relating to minors. See, M.P. v. Schwartz, 853 F. Supp.
164, 168 (D. Md. 1994) (sealing minors’ complaint where there was a compelling government
interest in protecting the confidentiality of the minors’ identity). Furthermore, Rule 5.2 of the
4
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 17.1 (c) exist for the specific purpose of
protecting the privacy of litigants, particularly minor litigants, in publicly-filed court
documents. See also E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205(c)(3), 116 Stat.
2899, 2914-15 (exempting from public disclosure those documents implicating sufficient privacy
concerns). The commentary to Rule 5.2 notes that information that must be disclosed under the
rule (e.g., a minor’s initials) can still be protected under certain circumstances. Accordingly, this
court finds that compelling governmental and privacy interests justify maintaining the
confidentiality of the minors’ information contained in the settlement agreement and settlement
documentation.
Therefore, the parties' Joint Motion to Seal [DE-68] should be granted because the
compelling governmental and privacy interests in this case overcome the First Amendment right
of access.
Sealing Is Narrowly Tailored and Necessary to Protect the minor Plaintiffs' Privacy.
The parties' Joint Motion to Seal [DE-68] is narrowly tailored to apply only to the
settlement agreement and settlement documentation, which contain the identify and financial
information relating to the minors in this case.
Because the minors’ mother is named in the pleadings, the use of the minors’ initials in the
settlement agreement and settlement documentation does not provide any practical protection for
the minors’ identity and confidential information. See, e.g., Schwartz, 853 F. Supp. at
168 (finding that "naming the parent or parents of the child would still inevitably lead to
identification of the child" in considering a motion to unseal documents related to a
minor).Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Seal [DE-68] is
5
ALLOWED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to maintain under seal the Proposed settlement
Agreement [DE-67] and the Proposed Sealed settlement Documentation [DE-67-1].
SO ORDERED, this the 25th day of July, 2019.
_________________________________________
LOUISE W. FLANAGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
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?