Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06903/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06903-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Wrongful Death

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YELENA OSTROVSKAYA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ALLEGRO COZUMEL RESORT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-06903-HSG 

ORDER GRANTING: (1) JOINT 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

SEAL, AND (2) JOINT MOTION TO 

APPROVE MINOR’S COMPROMISE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 43, 44

Pending before the Court are the joint (1) motion for approval of minor’s compromise, see 

Dkt. No. 44 (“Mot.”); and (2) administrative motion to file under seal, see Dkt. No. 43. The Court 

GRANTS the motion for approval of the minor’s compromise and GRANTS the administrative 

motion to file under seal.

I. MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF COMPROMISE

A. Legal Standard

“District courts have a special duty, derived from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), to 

safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors.” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 

(9th Cir. 2011); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c) (providing that district court “must appoint a guardian ad 

litem—or issue another appropriate order—to protect a minor or incompetent person who is 

unrepresented in an action”). When there is a proposed settlement in a suit involving a minor 

plaintiff, this “special duty requires a district court to ‘conduct its own inquiry to determine 

whether the settlement serves the best interests of the minor.’” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181 

(quoting Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 1978)). As part of this inquiry, the 

“court must independently investigate and evaluate any compromise or settlement of a minor’s 

claims to assure itself that the minor’s interests are protected, even if the settlement has been 

Case 4:18-cv-06903-HSG Document 47 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 4
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

Northern District of California

recommended or negotiated by the minor’s parent or guardian ad litem.” Salmeron v. United 

States, 724 F.2d 1357, 1363 (9th Cir. 1983). The district court must review “whether the net 

amount distributed to each minor plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable, in light of the 

facts of the case, the minor’s specific claim, and recovery in similar cases.” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 

1182. But the court must disregard the “proportion of the total settlement value designated for 

adult co-plaintiffs or plaintiffs’ counsel” because the court has “no special duty to safeguard” their 

interests. Id.

B. Discussion

Based on its review of the parties’ submissions, the Court finds that the proposed 

settlement is fair and reasonable and serves the best interests of the minors. The settlement 

provides certain recovery, as opposed to the uncertainty and delays associated with a possible

unfavorable result in a case where liability is contested. The Court finds the settlement 

particularly fair and reasonable given the substantial difficulties and uncertainties inherent in

litigating these claims, as well as the considerable efforts that went into settlement negotiations. 

For example, Defendants filed a colorable motion to dismiss, arguing, among other things, that 

this Court lacked personal jurisdiction. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 27. Settling with the Defendants now 

and receiving the payment offered by Defendants provides the minor children with funds to 

compensate them for their loss. 

The Court therefore GRANTS approval of the minors’ compromise submitted by the 

parties and the distribution of the settlement amounts owed to the minor Plaintiffs into UMTA-CA 

accounts at Morgan Stanley. The Court also finds the request for approval of attorney’s fees and 

costs to be fair and reasonable in light of the facts of this case, and approves the distribution of 

attorney’s fees as set forth in the motion to approve minors’ compromise.

II. MOTION TO SEAL

A. Legal Standard

Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 

documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana 

v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from 

Case 4:18-cv-06903-HSG Document 47 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 4
3

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

Northern District of California

the common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial 

records and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in 

favor of access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotation omitted). 

To overcome this strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to 

a dispositive motion must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings 

that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the 

public interest in understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–

79 (quotation omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s 

interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have 

become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, 

promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 

(quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that the 

production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further 

litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id.

The Court must “balance[] the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to 

keep certain judicial records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal 

certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual 

basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. Civil Local Rule 79-5 

supplements the compelling reasons standard set forth in Kamakana: the party seeking to file a 

document or portions of it under seal must “establish[] that the document, or portions thereof, are 

privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law . . . The 

request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). 

B. Discussion

Because approval of the compromise of the action will terminate this suit, the Court will 

apply the “compelling reasons” standard to the parties’ administrative motion to file under seal. 

See Doe v. Mt. Diablo Unified Sch. Dist., No. 14-CV-02167-HSG, 2015 WL 5438951, at *2 (N.D. 

Cal. Sept. 14, 2015); see also Keirsey v. eBay, Inc., No. 12-cv-1200, 2013 WL 5609318, at *2 

(N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2013) (“[A] motion seeking the Court’s preliminary approval of the settlement 

Case 4:18-cv-06903-HSG Document 47 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Northern District of California

of the case may be effectively dispositive. While the Court has not identified any authority 

discussing the appropriate standard for a motion of this type, the Court concludes that the 

‘compelling reasons’ standard is the appropriate standard.”).

The parties have entered into a confidential settlement agreement and seek to seal limited 

and targeted “confidential information” related to the minor Plaintiffs, as well as trade secrets and 

information related to non-parties. See Dkt. No. 43 at 2-4. As the parties note, “[t]wo of the 

Plaintiffs are minors and will not have access to the settlement funds until the age of 25 pursuant 

to the terms of the minor's compromise motion,” and these minors “should be entitled to have the 

settlement amount redacted, as that information now constitutes their personal financial 

information.” Id. at 4.

The Court agrees, and finds that the information in the motion to seal and supporting 

documents meets the compelling reasons standard and should thus be shielded from public 

disclosure. Plaintiffs have made a narrowly tailored request and articulated a compelling reason to 

seal each category of information identified. The redactions are modest, such that any interested 

observer would be able to understand these proceedings. The motion to seal identifies “a 

compelling reason to seal [with] tailored redactions of only the information to which that 

compelling reason applies.” Doe, 2015 WL 5438951, at *2.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to seal is GRANTED. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons described above, the Court GRANTS the motion for approval of the

compromise of the action and GRANTS the administrative motion to file under seal. This Order 

terminates Dkt. Nos. 9 and 27.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 2/20/2020

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:18-cv-06903-HSG Document 47 Filed 02/20/20 Page 4 of 4