Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08231/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08231-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 367
Nature of Suit: TORTS - Personal Injury - Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury/Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert Simpson and Mary Simpson,

 Plaintiffs,

vs.

Smith & Nephew, Inc., et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-13-08231-PCT-PGR 

 ORDER

 

 

Pending before the Court is plaintiff Robert Simpson’s Motion to File Under

Seal Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement (Doc. 57), wherein the

plaintiff asserted, without any supporting argument, that the underlying motion had

to be submitted under seal pursuant to Toon v. Wackenhut Corrections Corp., 250

F.3d 950 (5th Cir.2001), because confidentiality was a material term of the settlement

agreement the plaintiff was seeking to enforce. The Court ordered defendant Smith

& Nephew, Inc. to file a response to the motion to seal no later than April 17, 2015,

wherein it was to set forth why the Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement should

remain sealed. No such response was filed. Instead, the plaintiffs Simpson filed a

Notice of Settlement on April 16, 2015, and Plaintiff’s Request to Dismiss on May 12,

2015.

Case 3:13-cv-08231-PGR Document 68 Filed 06/08/15 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

The Court finds that the motion to seal should be denied because no party has

established that sealing the Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is proper under

the governing standard of Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,

1180 (9th Cir.2006) (The court, noting the strong presumption in favor of access to

judicial records, stated that “judicial records are public documents almost by

definition, and the public is entitled to access by default.”) Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Robert Simpson’s Motion to File Under Seal

Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement ( Doc. 57) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall unseal plaintiff

Robert Simpson’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement (part of Lodged Doc. 58)

and his Notice of Filing Additional Support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement

Agreement & Stay Discovery Obligations (Lodged Doc. 64) and shall file those

documents in the public docket.

DATED this 8th day of June, 2015.

Case 3:13-cv-08231-PGR Document 68 Filed 06/08/15 Page 2 of 2