Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01112/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01112-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOANNE KNUPP, individual, and as 

plaintiff’s mother and guardian on behalf of 

minor child, L.K., 

Plaintiffs,

v.

Amazon.com Services, LLC 

(“AMAZON”), is a Delaware limited 

liability company; and DOES 1-50, 

inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-01112-KES-BAM

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 

ADMINISTRAIVE MOTION TO FILE 

PETITION TO APPROVE COMPROMISE 

OF PENDING ACTON INVOLVING 

MINOR UNDER SEAL

(Doc. 40)

ORDER VACATING HEARING

 Currently before the Court is an administrative motion pursuant to Local Rule 141 to 

permit Plaintiffs Joanne Knupp and minor child L.K. (collectively “Plaintiffs”) to seal the amount 

the minor child is to receive in Plaintiffs’ Petition to Approve Compromise of Pending Action 

Involving Minor, the supporting Declaration of John K. Buche, and to seal the Life Care Plan 

prepared for L.K. (Doc. 40.) Plaintiffs also move the Court to grant and approve Plaintiffs’ 

Petition to Approve Compromise of Pending Action Involving Minor. (Id. at 2.) Defendant 

Amazon has not opposed the motion to seal or the petition for approval of the compromise of the 

pending acting involving minor. The Court finds it appropriate to address the administrative 

motion to file the petition under seal prior to resolving the petition to approve compromise. The 

administrative motion is suitable for resolution without oral argument and the hearing currently 

Case 1:23-cv-01112-KES-BAM Document 44 Filed 10/18/24 Page 1 of 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

2

set for October 25, 2024, is HEREBY VACATED.1 The matter is deemed submitted on the 

record. L.R. 230(g).

LEGAL STANDARD

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & County of 

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 

U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). “[J]udicial records are public documents almost by definition, and 

the public is entitled to access by default.” Id. at 1180. This “federal common law right of access” 

to court documents generally extends to “all information filed with the court,” and “creates a 

strong presumption in favor of access to judicial documents which can be overcome only by 

showing sufficiently important countervailing interests.” Phillips ex. Rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. 

Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1212 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Two 

standards govern whether documents should be sealed: a “compelling reasons” standard, which 

applies to dispositive motions, and a “good cause” standard, which applies to non-dispositive 

discovery type motions. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80; see also Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 

605 F.3d 665, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2010). 

Courts in this district have found that “a request to seal documents attached to a petition 

for minor’s compromise must meet the compelling reasons standard.” Cantu v. Kings County, 

No. 1:20-cv-00538-JLT-SAB, 2023 WL 7287006, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2023) (citing Patino v. 

County of Merced, No. 1:18-cv-01468-AWI-SAB, 2020 WL 8617417, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 

2020) (collecting cases)). The “compelling reasons” standard requires showing more than just 

“good cause.” In re Qualcomm Litig., No. 3:17-CV-00108-GPC-MDD, 2019 WL 845659, at *1 

(S.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2019) (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ 

sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exists 

when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of 

1 The hearing on Plaintiffs’ Petition to Approve Compromise of Pending Acton Involving Minor also is 

VACATED. The petition will be submitted on the record upon the filing of the petition under seal. L.R. 

230(g).

Case 1:23-cv-01112-KES-BAM Document 44 Filed 10/18/24 Page 2 of 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

3

records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release 

trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). However, “[t]he 

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.

(citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003)).

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs seek to seal the specific amount in settlement proceeds allocated for the minor 

child and have filed redacted versions of Plaintiffs’ Petition to Approve Compromise of Pending 

Action Involving Minor (Doc. 40-3, Ex. A) and the declaration of John K. Buche in support of the 

petition (Doc. 40-5, Ex. C). In support of the sealing request, Plaintiffs assert that the amount the 

minor child will receive from the settlement proceeds should be sealed because it is sensitive 

information that can be used against the minor child when the amount is released to the child. 

(Doc. 40 at 4.) Plaintiffs indicate that for the privacy interests of the minor child, “the amount the 

child is receiving should be sealed to prevent third parties from targeting the child or soliciting 

the child when the child is old enough to control the funds.” (Id.) 

The Court agrees that there are compelling reasons to seal the amount that the minor will 

receive from the settlement proceeds. See Medina v. County of Monterey, 2024 WL 2112890, *2 

(N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2024) (finding compelling reasons to seal the settlement amounts because 

they “are highly sensitive and sealing them will protect the interests of the parties, especially the 

minor plaintiff”); Huff v. Thousandshores, Inc., No. 21-cv-02173-HSG, 2022 WL 547109, at *3 

(N.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2022) (finding compelling reasons to seal the amount minor would receive 

from settlement to protect the minor’s privacy interests and “to prevent third parties from 

targeting the child or soliciting the child when the child is old enough to control the funds”). 

Further, the redactions are narrowly tailored only to the specific amount the minor child is to 

receive. 

Plaintiffs also seek to seal in its entirety the Life Care Plan prepared for the minor because 

it “contains highly sensitive information—a large portion of which is a discussion of the minor’s 

medical records and future treatments.” (Doc. 5 at 4.) Plaintiffs explain that the Life Care Plan is 

Case 1:23-cv-01112-KES-BAM Document 44 Filed 10/18/24 Page 3 of 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

4

submitted pursuant to Local Rule 202 to assist the Court with determining the nature and extent 

of the injury. (Id. at 6.) It consists of a “summary of minor’s medical records, discussion of 

medical records, discussion of medical information derived from an interview and examination of 

the minor, future medical requirement and treatments, and a discussion of costs of medical care.” 

(Id.) The Court also finds compelling reasons to seal the Life Care Plan, which contains 

information concerning the minor’s medical records, medical information, and medical treatment. 

See Meyers v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc., 2019 WL 120657, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan 6, 

2019) (finding compelling reasons to seal minor’s personal and medical information). 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons stated, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to File Petition to Approve Compromise of Pending 

Action Involving Minor Under Seal (Doc. 40) as detailed in this order is GRANTED. 

2. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall comply with Local Rule 141 regarding disposition of the 

documents for sealing. 

3. Plaintiffs’ counsel also shall file, as a separate docket entry, the redacted version of 

Plaintiffs’ Petition to Approve Compromise of Pending Action Involving Minor and 

the redacted version of the Declaration of John K. Buche in support of Plaintiffs’ 

Petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 18, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01112-KES-BAM Document 44 Filed 10/18/24 Page 4 of 4