Gronik et al v. Balthasar et al

Filing 645

DECISION AND ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 6/18/14 granting in part and denying in part 565 Motion to Seal. The clerk shall unseal the documents at Docket #566, 566-1, 567, 567-3, 567-4 and 567-6. Further ordering that within 5 days of this order plaintiffs shall submit redacted copies of Exhibit A, B and E to the Affidavit of Scott R. Halloin (Docket #567-1, 567-2, 567-5) so these documents can be publicly filed. (cc: all counsel) (dm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
DAVID S. GRONIK, JR., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 10-CV-00954

SUSAN BALTHASAR, et al.,
Defendants,
and
SHOREWEST REALTORS, INC.,
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, and
ANNE SCHWARTZ,
Third-Party Defendants,
and
OPIO BOAT MOON, LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 11-CV-00697

CHUBB INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.

DECISION AND ORDER
On September 19, 2013, I granted plaintiffs’ motion to approve a minor settlement
in Case No. 10-CV-00954. Before me now is plaintiffs’ motion to seal that motion (Docket
#566) and the affidavit and exhibits submitted in support of it (Docket #567).
Since the documents plaintiffs seek to seal are part of the judicial record and formed
part of the basis for one of my rulings, it is presumed that they will be open to public view.
See Goesel v. Boley Int’l (H.K.) Ltd., 738 F.3d 831, 833 (7th Cir. 2013). This is because

courts are public institutions and the public has an interest in what goes on at all stages of
a judicial proceeding. Cnty. Materials Corp. v. Allan Block Corp., 502 F.3d 730, 740 (7th
Cir. 2007). Plaintiffs attempt to rebut the presumption of public access, but it is not easily
rebutted. As the Seventh Circuit has noted, “[I]t’s difficult to imagine what arguments or
evidence parties wanting to conceal the amount or other terms of their settlement (apart
from terms that would reveal trade secrets or seriously compromise personal or institutional
privacy or national security) could present to rebut the presumption of public access to
judicial records.” Goesel, 738 F.3d at 835.
First, plaintiffs argue that the documents contain settlement terms that the parties
agreed would remain confidential. This is not a sufficient reason to seal documents. The
parties’ agreement is not binding on this court, GEA Group AG v. Flex-N-Gate Corp., 740
F.3d 411, 419 (7th Cir. 2014), and the fact that the parties do not want to disclose the
terms of their settlement is not a legitimate reason for withholding documents from public
view. Goesel, 738 F.3d at 835.
Second, plaintiffs argue that the documents contain the minors’ personal identifying
information. The “privacy of children” is a potential factor influencing the presumption of
access. Jessup v. Luther, 277 F.3d 926, 928 (7th Cir. 2002). However, some of the
identifying information has already been disclosed because the minors are named as
plaintiffs under their first initials and last names. Therefore, it will not violate their privacy
to publicly disclose the terms of the settlement agreement. The only potentially sensitive
information that has not been previously disclosed are the minors’ full names, which are
included in the formal settlement agreement in Exhibit A and B to the Affidavit of Scott R.
Halloin (Docket #567-1, 567-2), and the details about their medical histories discussed on
2

pages 8–24 of Exhibit E to the Halloin Affidavit (Docket #567-5). But this information can
be protected by simply redacting the minors’ first names whenever they appear in full (and
not just by their initials) in the settlement agreement and by redacting pages 8–24 from
Exhibit E to Halloin’s affidavit.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to seal (Docket #565) is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The clerk shall unseal the documents at
Docket #566, 566-1, 567, 567-3, 567-4 and 567-6.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 5 days of this order plaintiffs’ shall submit
redacted copies of Exhibit A, B and E to the Affidavit of Scott R. Halloin (Docket #567-1,
567-2, 567-5) so these documents can be publicly filed.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 18th day of June, 2014.
s/ Lynn Adelman
_______________________
LYNN ADELMAN
District Judge

3