Gomez - Cruz v. Fernandez - Pabellon et al

Filing 219

ORDER ON REDACTION MOTION denying 218 Motion In Compliance as to 217 Order on Motion In Compliance filed by Laura Santa-Sanchez, Marta Elsa Fernandez-Pabellon, Tamara Luciano-Fernandez, Carmen Annette Beltran, Idalia Colon-Rondon , Wilda Ramos-Roman, Elsa Rodriguez-Valentin, Vanessa Pintado-Rodriguez, denying 205 Motion In Compliance as to 204 Order on Motion to Restrict Order on Motion for Reconsideration, filed by Laura Santa-Sanchez, Marta Elsa Fernandez-Pabellon, Tamara Luciano-Fernandez, Carmen Annette Beltran, Idalia Colon-Rondon, Wilda Ramos-Roman, Elsa Rodriguez-Valentin, Vanessa Pintado-Rodriguez. Signed by Judge John Woodcock, Jr on 06/18/2019.(cs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
CARLOS GÓMEZ-CRUZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MARTA E. FERNÁNDEZ-PABELLÓN
et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

3:13-cv-01711-JAW

ORDER ON REDACTION MOTION
The Court rejects the defendants’ claim that the right of public access is limited
to criminal cases and does not apply to civil cases as contrary to well-established
United States Supreme Court and First Circuit Court of Appeals precedent. The
Court denies the defendants’ request to redact portions of a settlement agreement
when the same information has been and remains publicly available in multiple other
court filings and the Court would not otherwise conclude that the need to maintain
privacy outweighs the presumption of public access.
I.

BACKGROUND
On May 8, 2019, the Court issued an order denying in part and deferring in

part the Defendants’ motion to restrict details of a confidential settlement agreement
referenced in post-judgment motions. Order on Mot. to Restrict Doc. (ECF No. 217).
In its May 8, 2019 order, the Court concluded that the settlement document
constituted a judicial document subject to the presumption of public access. Id. at 1.
However, as some portions of the settlement document were irrelevant to the Court’s

ruling on the post-judgment issues in this case, the Court allowed the Defendants
seven days within which to propose redactions to the agreement or to any postjudgment motions referencing the details of the settlement agreement. Id.
On May 15, 2019, the Defendants filed a motion in compliance with the Court’s
May 8, 2019 order. Mot. in Compliance with Order in Docket No. 217 (ECF No. 218)
(Def.’s Mot.). In their motion, the Defendants observe that the parties entered into a
Settlement Agreement that contained “clauses that called for the confidentiality of
its contents.” Id. at 2. They write that “[p]ursuant to the parties’ confidentiality
agreement,

the

appearing

defendants

requested

that

their

Motion

for

Reconsideration in Docket No. 202, as it contained details of the confidential
settlement agreement, be filed in restricted mode.” Id. The Defendants acknowledge
that on May 8, 2019, the Court ordered them “to file a motion with proposed
redactions to any post-judgment filings concerning the details of the settlement
agreement that will meet the requirements of [United States v.] Kravetz, 706 F.3d 47
[(1st Cir. 2013)], to do so within seven days of said Order.” Id.
Quoting portions of Kravetz, the Defendants “contend that Kravetz is written
in a criminal case context, opposed to the civil nature of the instant case.” Id. at 3.
“Nonetheless, the appearing defendants hereby submit a redacted version of the
Motion for Reconsideration for the Court to consider, and make public, in the event
that it determines to do so.” Id. The Defendants say that the “redaction in the Motion
for Reconsideration goes specifically to the monetary amounts made reference in said
motion.” Id. at 4. The Defendants maintain that the “redacted version is compliant

2

with Kravetz since it contains ‘safeguards that will protect the [access] rights of the
public, without unduly interfering with the workings of the judicial process.” Id.
(citation omitted). To their motion, the Defendants attached a proposed redacted
version of the motion for reconsideration. Id. Attach. 1, Redacted Mot. for Recons.
(Redacted Mot.).
II.

DISCUSSION
A.

The Public Right of Access

Although the Defendants correctly note that Kravetz is a criminal case, the
Court rejects their contention that the First Circuit’s discussion of the right of public
access is limited to criminal cases.

In Kravetz, the First Circuit explained the

contours of the right of public access by quoting a civil case, Siedle v. Putnam
Investments, Inc., 147 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 2013). Kravetz, 706 F.3d at 52 (quoting Siedle,
147 F.3d at 10). In Siedle, the First Circuit observed that the “common law presumes
a right of public access to judicial records.” Siedle, 147 F.3d at 9-10. The Siedle Court
cited Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) in which the United
States Supreme Court wrote:
It is clear that the courts of this country recognize a general right to
inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial
records and documents. In contrast to the English practice, American
decisions generally do not condition enforcement of this right on a
proprietary interest in the document or upon a need for it as evidence in
a lawsuit. The interest necessary to support to issuance of a writ
compelling access has been found, for example, in the citizen’s desire to
keep a watchful eye on the workings of public agencies . . ..

3

Id. at 597 (citations omitted; emphasis provided). In Siedle, the First Circuit declined
to adopt the distinction between civil and criminal proceedings that the Defendants
propose. To the contrary, the Siedle Court stated flatly that “[t]he presumption
extends to the records of civil proceedings.” Siedle, 147 F.3d at 10.
Even though the right of public access applies to civil matters, it is “not
unfettered.” Kravetz, 706 F.3d at 59 (quoting Siedle, 147 F.3d at 10) (quoting FTC v.
Standard Fin. Man. Corp., 830 F.2d 404, 410 (1st Cir. 1987)). The Warner
Communications Court wrote that the sealing of a settlement agreement, like other
sealing decisions, is “best left to the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to
be exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.”
P.R. Land & Fruit, S.E. v. Municipio De Culebra, No. 09-2280 (ADC/BJM), 2018 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 221026 (D.P.R. Oct. 24, 2018), aff’d 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20203 (D.P.R.
Feb. 5, 2019) (quoting Warner Communications, 435 U.S. at 599).

To order an

otherwise publicly-accessible document, such as a settlement agreement, sealed or
redacted, the trial court is required to make “particularized findings of fact.” Id. at
*18 (quoting Kravetz, 706 F.3d at 59). Moreover, as the magistrate judge in Puerto
Rico Land & Fruit suggested, the parties may not simply file a settlement agreement
and expect it to be sealed without offering a basis for doing so. 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
22106, at *18 (“The docket shows that a formal motion to seal this agreement was
never filed or supported by the parties”). Here, the Defendants have filed a motion
and they propose redactions of “the monetary amounts” and the name of the
individual involved in the Settlement Agreement. Defs.’ Mot. at 4; see Redacted Mot.

4

at 2-21.

The question is whether they have successfully supported the proposed

redactions.
B.

The History of the Case

By history, the Court originally sealed the Settlement Agreement upon motion
of the parties. Order (ECF No. 187). Then on March 9, 2018, Carlos Gómez-Cruz
filed a motion requesting a reimbursement order alleging that as part of the
settlement, the plaintiffs, including Mr. Gómez-Cruz, allowed deductions to be made
to reflect outstanding debt, that the agency had miscalculated the amount Mr.
Gómez-Cruz owed the Center for Collection of Municipal Revenues (CRIM), that the
overpayment equaled $901.32, and that Mr. Gómez-Cruz was owed $901.32. Mot.
Under Seal Requesting Order to Reimburse Pl. Carlos Gómez-Cruz the Amount
Overpaid to the Center for the Collection of Municipal Revenues (ECF No. 192). As
the title of the motion indicates, Mr. Gómez-Cruz asked that his motion be placed
under seal but did not explain why. Id.
On March 15, 2018, the Defendants filed a notice of automatic stay. Notice of
Automatic Stay and of Procedures for Filing Mots. for Relief from the Automatic Stay
in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’s Title III Case (ECF No. 194). On March 15,
2018, Mr. Gómez-Cruz filed a response in opposition to the notice to stay. Resp. in
Opp’n to Notice to Stay (ECF No. 197). Mr. Gómez-Cruz described the settlement in
detail in his March 15, 2018 filing. Id. at 1-6. On March 15, 2018, Mr. Gómez-Cruz
formally moved to place his motion under seal. Mot. to Restrict (ECF No. 196). On
August 29, 2018, Mr. Gómez-Cruz, presumably frustrated by the Court’s inaction,

5

filed another motion requesting the same relief. Mot. Reiterating Req. for Order (ECF
No. 198).
On October 4, 2018, the Court issued an order denying the motions to restrict
documents, citing Kravetz, concluding that the Court’s rulings on the proper
distribution of public funds and the impact of PROMESA’s stay on the recoupment of
monies were manifestly matters of public concern. Order (ECF No. 199). The Court
lifted the sealing of the filings beginning March 9, 2018 and those filings remain
unsealed today. Also, on October 4, 2018, the Court issued an order regarding the
automatic stay and granting Mr. Gómez-Cruz’s motion for reimbursement. Order
Regarding Automatic Stay and Granting Mot. for Reimbursement (ECF No. 200). The
Order, which remains a matter of public record, described the amounts involved and
Mr. Gómez-Cruz as the involved plaintiff. Id. at 1-12.
On November 1, 2018, the Defendants filed a motion to restrict document,
namely the references to the Settlement Agreement in this case as set forth in their
motion for reconsideration. Mot. to Restrict (ECF No. 201). On November 14, 2018,
Mr. Gómez-Cruz responded to the Defendants’ motion for reconsideration, again
detailing the settlement terms; Mr. Gómez-Cruz did not ask the Court to seal or
restrict his response. Resp. in Opp’n to Mot. for Recons. at 1-9 (ECF No. 203). On
December 14, 2018, the Court issued an order denying the Defendants’ motion for
reconsideration. Order Denying Mot. for Recons. (ECF No. 204). In that order, the
Court addressed the sealing issue in footnote 1, requiring the Defendants to file a
motion justifying the sealing under Kravetz. Id. at 2 n.1. The Defendants responded

6

on December 21, 2018. Mot. in Compliance with Order in Docket No. 204 (ECF No.
205). On May 8, 2019, the Court issued an order requiring the Defendants to file
proposed redactions and justifications for the redactions within seven days of the date
of the Order. Order on Mot. to Restrict Doc. at 9-10 (ECF No. 217).
C.

Redaction of Information Elsewhere Publicly Available

As this case history reflects, one major problem with the Defendants’ May 15,
2019 motion is that the information they wish to redact is already a matter a public
record a number of times over. See Mot. Under Seal Requesting Order to Reimburse
Pl. Carlos Gómez-Cruz the Amount Overpaid to the Center for the Collection of
Municipal Revenues (ECF No. 192); Resp. in Opp’n to Notice to Stay (ECF No. 197);
Order Regarding Automatic Stay and Granting Mot. for Reimbursement (ECF No.
200); Resp. in Opp’n to Mot. for Recons. (ECF No. 203).

The Court alerted the

Defendants to this fact in its May 8, 2019 order:
The Court is confused by the Defendants’ request. The Defendants ask
that the Court restrict their motion for reconsideration because it
references the settlement agreement, yet several orders and motions
that similarly reference the contents of the settlement agreement were
docketed publicly, and the Defendants have not requested they be
restricted.
Order on Mot. to Restrict Doc. at 8. But the Defendants did not address why a
document should be unavailable to the public when other filings containing exactly
the same information have been and remain publicly available.
Based on the relief the Defendants request, namely the redaction of only their
motion for reconsideration, when the same information is contained in multiple
publicly-available documents elsewhere on the docket, the Court denies the motion,
7

as the Defendants’ request for relief would be wholly ineffective and the Court could
not otherwise justify the redactions as required by Kravetz and prior Supreme Court
and First Circuit authority. If the Defendants’ request were broader, demanding that
the Court redact its own opinions and other filings that have been publicly-docketed
for months, the Court would find it equally difficult to justify approving a broader
request.
III.

CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Motion in Compliance with Order in Docket No. 204 (ECF

No. 205), and DENIES Motion in Compliance with Order in Docket No. 217 (ECF No.
218).
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 18th day of June, 2019

8