Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00340/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00340-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARKEE D. CARTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

PHILIP EARLEY, et al.,

Defendants.

______________________________________

AND THESE RELATED CASES:

Spells v. Smith; et al., No. 13-cv-4102 EMC

Hirscher v. Smith; et al., No. 14-cv-340 EMC; 

Beyett v. Smith; et al., No. 14-cv-3153 EMC.

Case No. 13-cv-04373-EMC 

ORDER SEALING ONE PARAGRAPH

OF ORDER

Docket Nos. 68, 69, 71

The parties settled the four referenced cases at a November 18, 2015 settlement 

conference. Magistrate Judge Spero conducted the settlement conference and put the parties’ 

agreement on the record. Magistrate Judge Spero did not retain jurisdiction to resolve any 

disputes about the settlement agreement. 

Thereafter, a dispute arose among the parties as to whether a written settlement agreement 

needed to be executed and the terms to be included in it. Plaintiffs in these four cases filed a 

motion to enforce the settlement agreement and to file under seal the transcript of the settlement 

proceedings. (Docket Nos. 68 and 69 in Carter, No. 13-4373 EMC.) Before Defendants’ 

opposition to enforce the settlement was due, Defendants submitted a stipulation and proposed 

order regarding the settlement. Docket No. 71. The stipulation, signed by counsel for all the 

parties stated, in part: “Defendants and non-party CALPIA agree with Plaintiffs that, at this point, 

Case 3:14-cv-00340-EMC Document 52 Filed 04/06/16 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

the November 18 agreement should be deemed binding. However, in the absence of a settlement 

agreement signed by all Plaintiffs, CALPIA requires a document signed by the Court reflecting 

payment terms to make payments.” Docket No. 71-3 at 1-2. Defendants also requested, pursuant 

to Local Rule 79-5, that the one paragraph of the order reflecting the payment terms be sealed. 

They urged that the paragraph reflected a confidential term of settlement, sealing promotes 

settlements in general by allowing parties to enter into confidential settlements, and Magistrate 

Judge Spero already had put the transcript of the settlement itself under seal. Docket No. 71-1 at 

1-2.

Upon due consideration, the Court GRANTS defendants’ request that paragraph 2 of the 

order pursuant to stipulation be sealed. (Docket No. 71.) The clerk will file the unredacted signed 

order under seal. The clerk also will file a copy of the signed order, with paragraph 2 redacted 

from it, in the public docket. (Because the clerk will be filing the sealed order, the parties do not 

need to file a copy of it under seal.) The sealed copy of the order will not be available for public 

inspection until ten years after these cases are closed. See N. D. Cal. Local Rule 79-5(g).

Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the settlement agreement and defendants’ motion to file a 

copy of the transcript under seal are DISMISSED as moot. (Docket Nos. 68 and 69.) 

Finally, the Court wishes to avoid any confusion about the scope of the sealing order. 

There are two other cases in this group of related cases: Terry v. Smith, No. 13-cv-1227 EMC, and 

Arnold v. Smith, No. 13-cv-4456 EMC. The Terry and Arnold cases did not settle and the 

plaintiffs in those cases are not entitled to see the sealed order or transcribed settlement agreement 

in these actions. As to the sealed order and transcribed settlement agreement, the Terry and 

Arnold plaintiffs have no greater rights than other members of the general public to see the 

documents. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 6, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-00340-EMC Document 52 Filed 04/06/16 Page 2 of 2