Sealed Settlement

Agreements in

Federal District Court

Robert Timothy Reagan,

Shannon R. Wheatman, Marie Leary,

Natacha Blain, Steven S. Gensler,

George Cort, Dean Miletich

Federal Judicial Center

 2004

This Federal Judicial Center publication was undertaken in furtherance of the Center’s

statutory mission to develop and conduct education programs for the judicial branch.

The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Federal Judicial Center.
This page is left blank intentionally to facilitate printing of the document double-sided.
iii

Contents

Acknowledgments v

The Report 1

The Law of Sealing 1

Findings 3

Conclusion 8

Appendix A. Method A-1

Appendix B. Federal District Court Rules on Sealed Records B-1

Appendix C. Descriptions of Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements C-1
This page is left blank intentionally to facilitate printing of the document double-sided.
v

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to our colleagues Pat Lombard, Angelia Levy, David Guth,

Donna Pitts-Taylor, Vashty Gobinpersad, and Estelita Huidobro for their assistance with this project. We are grateful to Ed Cooper, Rick Marcus, Russell

Wheeler, Jim Eaglin, Syl Sobel, Tom Willging, Molly Treadway Johnson, Ken

Withers, Martha Kendall, and Geoff Erwin for advice on this report. We are especially grateful to the clerks of court, other court staff, and archive personnel

who provided us with information and helped us acquire access to court files.
This page is left blank intentionally to facilitate printing of the document double-sided.
1

The Report

The Judicial Conference of the United States’ Advisory Committee on Civil Rules

asked the Federal Judicial Center to conduct research on sealed settlement

agreements filed in federal district court. Although the practice of confidential

settlement agreements is common, the question is how often and under what circumstances such agreements are filed under seal.

Many civil cases settle before trial, and defendants commonly seek confidentiality agreements concerning the terms of settlement. Usually such agreements

are not filed. A high proportion of civil cases settle,1 but a sealed settlement

agreement is filed in less than one-half of one percent of civil cases. In 97% of

these cases, the complaint is not sealed.

The Law of Sealing

“It is clear that the courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and

copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.”

Nixon v. Warner Communications Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) (footnotes omitted).

“It is uncontested, however, that the right to inspect and copy judicial records is

not absolute. Every court has supervisory power over its own records and files,

and access has been denied where court files might have become a vehicle for

improper purposes.” Id. at 598.

Accountability is a principal reason for public access. Joy v. North, 692 F.2d

880, 893 (2d Cir. 1982) (“An adjudication is a formal act of government, the basis

of which should, absent exceptional circumstances, be subject to public scrutiny.”); Jessup v. Luther, 277 F.3d 926, 928 (7th Cir. 2002) (“the public cannot

monitor judicial performance adequately if the records of judicial proceedings

are secret”); id. at 929 (“The public has an interest in knowing what terms of settlement a federal judge would approve and perhaps therefore nudge the parties

to agree to.”); Union Oil Co. of California v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 568 (7th Cir. 2000)

(“The political branches of government claim legitimacy by election, judges by

reason. Any step that withdraws an element of the judicial process from public

view makes the ensuing decision look more like fiat, which requires compelling

justification.”).

Courts of appeals have determined that the common law presumption of access applies to documents filed with the court, although it does not apply to

documents exchanged in discovery, Federal Trade Commission v. Standard Financial

Management Corp., 830 F.2d 404, 408 (1st Cir. 1987); United States v. Amodeo, 71

F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995), or to settlement agreements not filed, Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 781–83 (3d Cir. 1994). Also, the presumption of

public access is stronger for documents filed in conjunction with substantive action by the court than for documents filed as part of discovery disputes. Anderson 

1. An analysis of disposition codes for civil terminations from 1997 through 2001 showed that

22% were dismissed as settled and 2% were terminated on consent judgment. Another 10% were

voluntary dismissals, and some of these probably were settled. An additional 20% are coded as

“other” dismissals.
Sealed Settlement Agreements

2

v. Cyrovac Inc., 805 F.2d 1, 11 (1st Cir. 1986); Leucadia Inc. v. Applied Extrusion

Technologies Inc., 998 F.2d 157, 165 (3d Cir. 1993); Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135–36 (9th Cir. 2003); Chicago Tribune Co. v.

Bridgestone/Firestone Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1312 (11th Cir. 2001).

Some court opinions have explicit statements that if a settlement agreement is

filed with the court for the court’s approval or interpretation, then denying the

public access to the agreement requires special circumstances. Bank of America

National Trust & Savings Association, 800 F.2d 339, 345 (3d Cir. 1986) (“Once a settlement is filed in the district court, it becomes a judicial record, and subject to

the access accorded such records.”); Herrnreiter v. Chicago Housing Authority, 281

F.3d 634, 637 (7th Cir. 2002) (“[Defendant’s] desire to keep the amount of its

payment quiet (perhaps to avoid looking like an easy mark, and thus drawing

more suits) is not nearly on a par with national security and trade secret information. Now that the agreement itself has become a subject of litigation, it must

be opened to the public just like other information (such as wages paid to an employee, or the price for an architect’s services) that becomes the subject of litigation.”); Brown v. Advantage Engineering Inc., 960 F.2d 1013, 1016 (11th Cir. 1992)

(“It is immaterial whether the sealing of the record is an integral part of a negotiated settlement between the parties, even if the settlement comes with the court’s

active encouragement. Once a matter is brought before a court for resolution, it is

no longer solely the parties’ case, but also the public’s case. Absent a showing of

extraordinary circumstances .!.!.!, the court file must remain accessible to the

public.”).

Many appellate opinions have stressed the importance of the court’s stating

specific reasons for sealing a filed document. In re Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d 183,

194 (3d Cir. 2001) (“Broad allegations of harm, bereft of specific examples or articulated reasoning, are insufficient.”); Stone v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp., 855 F.2d 178, 182 (4th Cir. 1988) (“the district court must provide a

clear statement, supported by specific findings, of its reasons for sealing any records or documents, as well as its reasons for rejecting measures less drastic than

sealing them”); Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1435 (9th Cir. 1995) (“because

the district court failed to articulate any reason in support of its sealing order,

meaningful appellate review is impossible”).

Only two federal district courts have local rules pertaining specifically to

sealed settlement agreements. The District of South Carolina proscribes them,

D.S.C. L.R. 5.03(C), and the Eastern District of Michigan limits how long they

may remain sealed, E.D. Mich. L.R. 5.4. Forty-nine districts (52%) have local rules

pertaining to sealed documents generally. Fourteen districts (15%) have rules

covering only administrative mechanics (e.g., how sealed documents are

marked),2 thirty-two districts (34%) have rules covering how long a document

may remain sealed (after which it is returned to the parties, destroyed, or un-

 

2. California Central, California Eastern, Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia

Southern, Indiana Southern, Montana, New Hampshire, New York Northern, Oklahoma Western,

Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin Eastern.
The Report

3

sealed),3 and twelve districts (13%) have good-cause rules.4 These rules are compiled in Appendix B.5

Findings

We examined 288,846 civil cases that were filed in a sample of 52 districts. We

found 1,270 cases with sealed settlement agreements (0.44%). That is one in approximately 227 cases.

The sealed settlement rate for individual districts ranges from considerably

less than the national rate to considerably more than that rate. Figure 1 shows

sealed settlement rates for individual districts. Three districts (6%) had no sealed

settlement agreements—Indiana Northern, Iowa Southern, and South Dakota.

Three districts (6%) had sealed settlement rates more than twice the national

rate—Pennsylvania Eastern (0.94%), Hawaii (2.2%), and Puerto Rico (3.3%).6

We studied all eleven districts whose local rules require good cause to seal a

document. The rate of sealed settlement agreements in those districts was 0.37%.

The rate of sealed settlement agreements in the other districts was somewhat

higher—0.45%—but the difference was not statistically significant.7

Sealed settlement agreements appear in cases of many different types. Table 1

shows nature-of-suit frequencies. More than half of the cases with sealed settlement agreements are either personal injury cases (30%) or employment cases

(27%). Another fifth are either contract cases (11%) or civil rights cases (10%). Intellectual property cases account for 11% of civil cases with sealed settlement

agreements, but the rate of sealed settlement agreements in such cases is relatively high (1.5%). Cases identified as Fair Labor Standards Act cases have an

even higher rate of sealed settlement agreements (2.6%), almost six times the

overall average. Because the court must approve settlement agreements in such

cases, they are frequently filed.

 

3. Arizona, California Northern, California Southern, Connecticut, Florida Southern, Idaho,

Illinois Northern, Iowa Northern and Southern, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan Eastern, Michigan

Western, Minnesota, Mississippi Northern and Southern, Missouri Eastern, New York Eastern,

North Carolina Eastern, North Carolina Middle, North Carolina Western, North Dakota, Ohio

Northern, Ohio Southern, Oregon, Pennsylvania Middle, Tennessee Eastern, Texas Eastern, Texas

Northern, Utah, Virginia Western, Washington Western.

4. California Northern, Illinois Northern, Maryland, Michigan Western, Mississippi Northern

and Southern, Missouri Eastern, New York Western, Oklahoma Northern, Tennessee Eastern,

Utah, Washington Western. Note that the good-cause rule for the Western District of New York is

new (May 1, 2003).

5. In May 2003 we presented to the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules a compilation of both

federal and state rules on sealed trial court documents, at the committee’s request. This compilation is available in our unpublished report, “Sealed Settlement Agreements in Federal District

Court—May 2003 Progress Report,” which, like this report, is available at www.fjc.gov.

6. The high rate for Pennsylvania Eastern is due largely to a single multidistrict litigation case;

79% of the cases with sealed settlement agreements that we found in that district were in this

multidistrict litigation. The sealed settlement agreement rate in Hawaii is relatively high in part

because sealing the record of successful settlement conferences is a relatively frequent practice

there; approximately two-thirds of the cases we identified as containing sealed settlement agreements in Hawaii were so identified for this reason. The high rate of sealed settlement agreements in

Puerto Rico appears to reflect a relatively more common practice of filing and sealing such agreements there.

7. p = 0.63.
Sealed Settlement Agreements

4

Figure 1

Rate of Sealed Settlement Agreements in Civil Cases

(With Number of Terminated Cases 2001–2002)

Darker bars are districts with local rules

requiring good cause to seal court records.

0.09%

0.37%

0.45%

0.27%

0.58%

0.40%

0.52%

0.16%

0.70%

0.77%

2.17%

0.30%

0.37%

0.00%

0.15%

0.55%

0.00%

0.19%

0.19%

0.17%

0.29%

0.56%

0.19%

0.24%

0.42%

0.49%

0.35%

0.62%

0.33%

0.53%

0.42%

0.37%

0.11%

0.26%

0.50%

0.87%

0.56%

0.94%

0.21%

0.26%

3.28%

0.10%

0.00%

0.26%

0.57%

0.25%

0.34%

0.30%

0.78%

0.15%

0.20%

0.44%

0.26%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

AL-M (3,237)

AL-N (7,042)

AL-S (2,015)

AZ (6,604)

CA-N (12,140)

DE (2,250)

DC (5,368)

FL-M (13,678)

FL-N (3,045)

FL-S (15,928)

GU (130)

HI (1,752)

ID (1,350)

IL-N (19,378)

IN-N (4,103)

IN-S (5,831)

IA-N (1,096)

IA-S (1,976)

ME (1,070)

MD (7,851)

MI-E (9,561)

MI-W (2,775)

MN (4,792)

MS-N (2,603)

MS-S (5,775)

MO-E (4,798)

MO-W (4,857)

NH (1,157)

NM (3,084)

NY-E (16,001)

NY-N (3,928)

NY-S (20,976)

NY-W (3,000)

NC-E (2,808)

NC-M (2,284)

NC-W (2,203)

ND (574)

OK-N (1,954)

PA-E (19,520)

PA-M (4,678)

PA-W (6,218)

PR (3,562)

SC (8,126)

SD (820)

TN-E (3,128)

TN-M (3,162)

TN-W (2,759)

UT (2,387)

VA-E (14,448)

VA-W (3,593)

WA-E (1,355)

WA-W (6,116)

ALL (288,846)
The Report

5

Table 1. Types of Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

Nature of Suit

Number

of Cases

Proportion Among

Cases with Sealed

Settlement

Agreements1

Sealed

Settlement

Rate

Personal Injury 378 30% 0.82%

Personal Property 28 2% 0.64%

Real Property 7 1% 0.07%

ERISA 26 2% 0.19%

Fair Labor Standards Act 88 7% 2.58%

Other Employment/Labor 223 18% 0.75%

Other Civil Rights 124 10% 0.55%

RICO 9 1% 1.06%

Securities 10 1% 0.73%

Antitrust 10 1% 0.59%

Trademark 48 4% 1.19%

Patent 62 5% 2.17%

Copyright 29 2% 1.35%

Contract 145 11% 0.33%

Other 83 7% 0.08%

Total 1,270 100% 0.44%

1. Entries in the table sum to more than 100% because of rounding.

Sealed settlement agreements appear to be filed typically to facilitate their enforcement. If they are filed with the court, the same judge who heard the case can

enforce the agreement without a new action being filed, and the court can enforce the agreement with contempt powers. Often the agreement is filed so that

the court can approve it. Among cases with sealed settlement agreements, almost

one-quarter (22%) were actions typically requiring court approval of settlement

agreements. This includes cases involving minors or other persons requiring special protection (13%), actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (7%), and class

actions (6%).8

 

8. The three individual percentages add up to more than the overall percentage because some

cases had more than one reason for court approval of settlements. A few cases with Fair Labor

Standards Act claims had other nature-of-suit codes.
Sealed Settlement Agreements

6

Sometimes the settlement agreement is not filed until one party believes it has

been breached, and then it is filed as a sealed exhibit in a motion to enforce it. In

approximately 11% of the cases with sealed settlement agreements, this was how

the agreement came to be filed. In a few additional cases, there was a motion to

enforce after the agreement was filed.

Occasionally the settlement agreement is not a sealed document filed with the

court, but a part of a sealed or partially sealed proceeding or transcript. This was

true for 13% of the cases we found with sealed settlement agreements.

In 97% of the cases with sealed settlement agreements, the complaint is not

sealed. Almost the only time we encountered a sealed complaint was in cases in

which the entire record is sealed. (Sometimes the docket sheet is sealed;9 sometimes although the case file is sealed, the docket sheet is not.10

) In one additional

 

9. We encountered 23 cases with sealed docket sheets: Cahaba Pressure-Treated Forest Products

v. OM Group (AL-N 7:97-cv-01917 filed 07/25/1997) (fraud action dismissed as settled); Thomasson Lumber Co. v. Cahaba Pressure-Treated Forest Products (AL-N 7:98-cv-00043 filed

01/08/1998) (contract action dismissed as settled); Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. v. Cahaba Pressure-Treated Forest Products (AL-N 2:98-cv-01261 filed 05/19/1998) (insurance action dismissed as settled); Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant (CA-N 4:00-cv-02945 filed

08/14/2000) (statutory action dismissed as settled); Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant (CA-N

3:01-cv-01156 filed 03/21/2001) (statutory action dismissed as settled); Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed

Defendant (CA-N 3:01-cv-02928 filed 07/27/2001) (contract action dismissed as settled); Nick

Chorak Mowing v. United States (DC 1:99-cv-00587 filed 03/08/1999) (contract action dismissed as

settled); Engel v. Equifax Inc. (DC 1:01-cv-00882 filed 04/17/2001) (statutory action dismissed as

settled); United States v. Board of Regents (FL-N 4:93-cv-40226 filed 06/25/1993) (statutory action

dismissed as settled); Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant (FL-S 0:01-cv-01845 filed 05/04/2001)

(commerce action resolved by consent judgment); Casimiro v. Allstate (HI 1:99-cv-00527 filed

07/22/1999) (insurance action dismissed as settled); Kessler v. American Postal (MD 8:98-cv-03547

filed 10/21/1998) (statutory action dismissed as settled); United States v. Frederick Memorial (MD

1:01-cv-02923 filed 10/02/2001) (statutory action dismissed as settled); Compaq Computer Corp. v.

SGII Inc. (MI-W 1:02-cv-00028 filed 01/16/2002) (trademark action dismissed as settled); Sealed

Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant (MN 0:98-cv-02428 filed 11/10/1998) (fraud action dismissed as settled); Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant (MN 0:99-cv-00292 filed 02/18/1999) (fraud action dismissed as settled); Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant (MN 0:02-cv-00369 filed 02/12/2002) (fraud

action dismissed as settled); Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant (MN 0:02-cv-04270 filed

11/07/2002) (contract action dismissed as settled); Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant (MS-S 1:95-

cv-00161 filed 03/23/1995) (statutory action dismissed as settled); Compass Marine v. Lambert

Fenchurch (MS-S 1:99-cv-00252 filed 04/05/1999) (fraud action dismissed as settled); Arviso v.

Mission Manor Health (NM 6:02-cv-01072 filed 08/27/2002) (statutory action dismissed as settled);

United States v. Genesee Valley Card (NY-W 6:97-cv-06502 filed 11/12/1997) (statutory action

dismissed as settled); United States v. 2986 Tallman Road (NY-W 6:01-cv-06155 filed 03/23/2001)

(drug-related seizure of property case resolved by consent judgment).

10. We encountered 15 cases with sealed case files but unsealed docket sheets: a product liability action brought by a minor, Farr v. Newell Rubbermaid Inc. (AL-N 5:00-cv-00997 filed

04/18/2000); an employment action against the University of Michigan in which private medical

information was an issue, Baker v. Bollinger (MI-E 4:00-cv-40239 filed 06/26/2000); a civil rights

action by a minor against a county, M.K. v. Pinnacle Programs Inc. (MN 0:98-cv-02440 filed

11/13/1998); a wrongful death action against a city and a railroad, Schlicht v. Dakota Minnesota &

Eastern Railroad Corp. (MN 0:98-cv-02059 filed 12/28/1999); a job discrimination action brought

on behalf of children, Rowe v. Boys and Girls Club of America (MN 0:01-cv-202269 filed

12/10/2001); two consolidated foreclosure actions pertaining to gambling boat mortgages, Credit

Suisse First Boston Mortgage Capital LLC v. Doris (MS-N 4:99-cv-00283 filed 11/22/1999), consolidated with Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Capital Inc. v. Bayou Caddy’s Jubilee Casino (MSN 4:99-cv-00284 filed 11/22/1999); a qui tam action under the False Claims Act against a hospital,

United States ex rel. Padda v. Jefferson Memorial Hospital (MO-E 4:00-cv-00177 filed 02/03/2000);

a RICO action by one unnamed plaintiff against three unnamed defendants, Sealed Plaintiff v.

Sealed Defendant (NY-E 9:00-cv-04693 filed 08/11/2000); another product liability case with a mi-
The Report

7

case, all documents in the case file are sealed, including the complaint and the

settlement conference report, except for the agreed judgment, which specifies the

terms of settlement.11

We did not evaluate whether the sealing of documents complied with circuit

law and local rules, but we did observe that the public record almost never included specific findings justifying sealing.

Some of the cases with sealed settlement agreements are likely to be of greater

public interest than others. Table 2 lists some types of cases that might be of special public interest. The table shows how many cases of each type had sealed settlement agreements and the proportion of sealed settlement agreements that are

in cases of each type. Approximately two-fifths of the cases with sealed settlement agreements have at least one of the features in Table 2 that might make

them of special public interest. Appendix C contains case descriptions showing

what the public record reveals about each of the 1,270 cases with sealed settlement agreements. Because the complaints are almost never sealed, the public record almost always identifies the defendants and reveals what the defendants are

alleged to have done.

We had access to important terms of settlement in 18% of the cases with

sealed settlement agreements. Occasionally this was because we had access to

sealed documents. Sometimes sealed documents became unsealed. Sometimes

documents that are not sealed disclose some or all terms of the settlement

agreement. Analysis of information available in this way confirms that settlement agreements, sealed or otherwise, generally contain four essential elements:

(1) a denial of liability, (2) a release of liability, (3) the amount of settlement, and

(4) a requirement of confidentiality. In unfair competition cases, especially cases

involving patents, the terms of settlement typically bind the parties to certain actions in addition to or instead of the payment of a settlement amount. In general,

however, the only thing kept secret by the sealing of a settlement agreement is

the amount of settlement.

 

nor plaintiff, Keyes v. Deere & Co. (PA-E 2:98-cv-00602 filed 02/06/1998); an insurance case involving a workers’ compensation claim, Slater v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. (PA-E 2:98-cv-01711

filed 03/31/1998); a copyright case, Valitek Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-03024 filed

06/15/1999); an insurance case against a church, Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. v. Church of the

Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith (PA-E 2:00-cv-03320 filed 06/29/2000); a patent case, Graham Packaging Co. v. Mooney (PA-M 1:00-cv-02027 filed 11/20/2000); and a third product liability

case with a minor plaintiff, Angelo v. General Motors Corp. (PA-W 2:00-cv-00871 filed

05/04/2000).

11. This was a civil rights action for failure to prevent disclosure of the plaintiff’s medical condition, Doe v. City of Tulsa (OK-N 4:00-cv-00896 filed 10/18/2000). We counted this as a case with

a sealed settlement agreement, because although the agreed judgment was not sealed, other documents containing terms of settlement were sealed.
Sealed Settlement Agreements

8

Table 2. Types of Cases That Might Be of Special Public Interest

Type of Case Number of Cases

Proportion Among

Cases with Sealed

Settlement Agreements

Environmental 10 1%

Product Liability (includes cases

with other nature-of-suit codes)1 258 20%

Professional Malpractice 40 3%

Public Party Defendant 152 12%

Very Serious Injury (death or

serious permanent disability)2 334 26%

Sexual Abuse 31 2%

Any of These Reasons3 503 40%

None of These Reasons 767 60%

1. More than half of these cases arose from a 1998 airplane crash near Peggy’s Cove, Nova Scotia (144

cases in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania). The 1996 crash of TWA Flight 800 taking off from Kennedy

Airport also accounted for a substantial fraction of these cases (31 cases in the Southern District of New

York).

2. More than half of these cases arose from the Peggy’s Cove and TWA 800 airplane crashes (144 cases

in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and 33 cases in the Southern District of New York).

3. Some cases might be of special public interest for more than one reason. Over a third of these cases

arose from the Peggy’s Cove and TWA 800 airplane crashes.

Conclusion

Sealed settlement agreements are rare in federal court. They occur in less than

one-half of one percent of civil cases. In 97% of these cases, the complaint is not

sealed, so the public has access to information about the alleged wrongdoers and

wrongdoings. Although the public record seldom contains specific findings justifying the sealing of settlement agreements, generally the only thing kept secret

by the sealing is the amount of settlement.
A-1

Appendix A. Method

Districts

We looked for sealed settlement agreements in all 11 districts with local rules requiring good cause to seal a document and in a 50% random sample of the other

districts.12

We originally designed our method so that we might include all districts in

the study, but we studied the districts in a modified random order so that if we

concluded the research without studying all districts, we would have studied a

random sample. Because state court practices might influence federal practice,

we decided to study districts in the same state together, and we decided that the

same researcher should study all districts in the same state. So we listed the

states (plus the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands)

in random order and began studying the districts in that order.13

We modified random selection in the following ways. We began our research

with districts in North Carolina, which is home to the overseeing subcommittee’s

chair (the Honorable Brent McKnight, U.S. District Judge for the Western District

of North Carolina), so that his additional knowledge about cases in his district

would serve as a check on our work. We also put at the top of the list states with

districts that have local rules specifically concerning sealed settlement agreements. The Eastern District of Michigan has a rule calling for the unsealing of

settlement agreements after two years. E.D. Mich. L.R. 6.4. The District of South

Carolina has a new rule proscribing the sealing of settlement agreements. D.S.C.

L.R. 5.03(C). We also put Florida at the top of the list, because of the state’s

groundbreaking “Sunshine in Litigation” law, Fla. Stat. §!69.081.

We decided that the first 47 districts in the list would provide a sample of sufficient size, taking into account an estimate that it would take approximately a

year and a half to study that many districts. We determined that our time frame

would permit us to supplement the random sample with the five otherwise unselected districts with local rules requiring good cause to seal a document. Our

study would then include all 11 districts with good-cause rules,14 permitting a

rough comparison between those districts and a sample of other districts, especially with respect to sealed settlement rates.15

 

12. The Western District of New York adopted a good-cause rule after the cases in this study

were terminated.

13. The District of the Northern Mariana Islands is not included, because its docket sheets are

not available electronically.

14. California Northern, N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 79-5; Illinois Northern, N.D. Ill. L.R. 26.2; Maryland,

D. Md. L.R. 105.11; Michigan Western, W.D. Mich. L. Civ. R. 10.6; Mississippi Northern and Southern, N. & S. D. Miss. L.R. 83.6; Missouri Eastern, E.D. Mo. L.R. 83-13.05(A); Oklahoma Northern,

N.D. Okla. L.R. 79.1(D); Tennessee Eastern, E.D. Tenn. L.R. 26.2; Utah, D. Utah L. Civ. R. 5-2; and

Washington Western, W.D. Wash. L. Civ. R. 5. The Western District of New York adopted a goodcause rule after the cases in this study were terminated, see W.D.N.Y. L.R. 5.4(a) (adopted May 1,

2003).

15. Three of these additional districts—California Northern, Illinois Northern, and Oklahoma

Northern—are in multidistrict states. We did not study the other districts in those states.
Sealed Settlement Agreements

A-2

To test whether results from our modified random sample are likely to be different from an unmodified random sample, we computed the overall rate of

sealed settlement agreements using a procedure somewhat different from just

dividing the number of sealed settlements we found by the number of cases we

examined. Nine districts were selected before we started selecting districts at

random—districts in Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, and South Carolina. We

computed an average by weighting each of these districts as 1. There are 85 other

districts. Not considering the five districts that were selected only because they

have good-cause rules (California Northern, Illinois Northern, Maryland, Oklahoma Northern, and Utah), we selected 38 at random. So we weighted these districts 85/38 = 2.24 in computing an average. Using this weighting scheme, we

computed a sealed settlement rate of 0.46%, which is almost identical to the unweighted rate of 0.44%. We decided, therefore, to analyze our data as if our sample were truly random.

Termination Cohort

We decided to look at cases terminated over a two-year period—calendar

years 2001 and 2002. Because we include all calendar months, there are unlikely

to be any hidden seasonal biases. Looking at two years of terminations ensures

that our data will not be based only on an idiosyncratic year.

Finding Sealed Settlement Agreements

Our search for sealed settlement agreements was a process of step-by-step elimination—upon closer and closer review—of cases that do not have sealed settlement agreements.

We rejected the idea of looking only at cases with disposition codes of “settled” or “consent judgment” in data reported to the Administrative Office because that would have eliminated 37% of the cases we ultimately found.16 Even if

we also looked at cases with disposition codes of “voluntary dismissal” and

“other dismissal,” we would have eliminated 20% of the cases we ultimately

found.17

We attempted to download all 288,846 docket sheets for cases terminated in

2001 or 2002 in the study districts. We found 138 of the docket sheets (0.05%) to

be sealed. We searched each unsealed docket sheet for the word “seal.”18 This

search found “seal,” “sealed,” “unseal,” etc., including “Seal,” “Seale,” etc., in a

party name. Docket entries (and headers) with the word “seal” in them were extracted and assembled into a text file. If a docket sheet had the word “seal” in it,

then we also searched for the word “settle” (which found “settle,” “settled,”

“settlement,” etc.), extracted docket entries with the word “settle” in them, and

 

16. Sixty percent of the cases we found were coded 13 = “dismissed: settled” and 4% were

coded 5!=!“judgment on consent.”

17. Eight percent of the cases we found were coded 12 = “dismissed: voluntarily” and 9% were

coded 14!=!“dismissed: other.”

18. Because the Northern District of Illinois has a procedure for restricting public access to

documents without actually sealing them (although they may also be sealed), for that district we

also searched for the word “restrict.”
Appendix A. Method

A-3

assembled them into the same text file as the docket entries with the word “seal”

in them. Naturally, some docket entries had both the word “seal” and the word

“settle” in them.

We considered, but rejected, looking only at cases in which a docket entry

with the word “seal” had a date within two weeks, for example, of either the

termination date or a docket entry with the word “settle.” Had we done this, we

would have missed 6% of the cases we ultimately found.19

The docket entries compiled using this method came from 15,043 cases. If

“seal” and “settle” docket entries from the same case suggested that the case

might or did have a sealed settlement agreement, then we read the entire docket

sheet for that case. Sometimes, for example, a docket entry merely says “sealed

document,” and review of other docket entries is necessary to determine what

the sealed document might be.20

This review of 2,262 docket sheets eliminated cases with sealed documents

filed only at the beginning of qui tam actions or attached only to discovery motions, motions for summary judgment, or motions in limine.

When we reviewed a complete docket sheet, we determined two things. First,

we determined whether the case might or did include a sealed settlement agreement. If so, then we identified which documents in the case file to review to learn

what the case is about and to learn as much as possible about the sealed settlement agreement. We reviewed actual documents filed in 1,410 cases. Generally

we reviewed complaints, cross-claims and counterclaims, court opinions, and

documents pertaining, or possibly pertaining, to the settlement.

We were not able to determine with very good precision whether cases with

sealed docket sheets contained sealed settlement agreements, so we regarded

cases with sealed docket sheets that were terminated by consent judgment or

settlement as containing sealed settlement agreements and cases terminated otherwise as not containing sealed settlement agreements.21

In this way we identified 1,270 cases among cases terminated over a two-year

period in 52 districts that appear to have sealed settlement agreements.22 Table A

summarizes the number of cases reviewed in each district. Descriptions of these

cases are presented in Appendix C.

 

19. In one case the word “seal” is 627 days from both termination and the word “settle” (Franco

v. Saks & Co., NY-S 1:00-cv-05522 filed 07/26/2000).

20. For this project, researchers who examined docket sheets and court documents all have law

degrees—either a J.D. or an M.L.S. (master of legal studies, which typically requires approximately

one year of law school). Tim Reagan reviewed documents from districts in California, Guam, Iowa,

Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, and Virginia;

Shannon Wheatman reviewed documents from districts in Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Virginia, and Washington; Marie Leary reviewed

documents from districts in Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Idaho, New York, and South Dakota;

Natacha Blain reviewed documents from districts in Illinois, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico,

Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah; Steve Gensler reviewed documents from the District of Columbia.

21. We were given access to 17 of these sealed docket sheets, and our decision as to the presence

of a sealed settlement agreement was based on a review of the docket sheets rather than the less

precise rule of thumb.

22. This includes 23 cases (2%) with sealed docket sheets terminated either by consent judgment

or settlement, according to data reported to the Administrative Office.
Sealed Settlement Agreements

A-4

Table A. Number of Cases Examined in Each District

District

Cases

Terminated in2001 or 2002

Sealed Docket

Sheets

Docket Sheets

with EntriesExamined

Docket Sheets

Read

Case Files

Examined

Cases with

SealedSettlementAgreements

Alabama Middle 3,237 0 80 4 3 3

Alabama Northern 7,042 3 745 26 24 26

Alabama Southern 2,015 1 78 22 9 9

Arizona 6,604 18 347 32 21 18

California Northern1 12,140 11 635 146 82 70

Delaware 2,250 0 213 13 9 9

District of Columbia 5,368 5 469 39 35 28

Florida Middle 13,678 17 529 103 43 36

Florida Northern 3,045 2 160 11 5 5

Florida Southern 15,928 16 669 260 128 111

Guam 130 0 7 3 1 1

Hawaii 1,752 2 458 42 40 38

Idaho 1,350 6 440 10 5 4

Illinois Northern1 19,378 0 649 99 80 72

Indiana Northern 4,103 1 216 11 0 0

Indiana Southern 5,831 0 200 60 13 9

Iowa Northern 1,096 0 42 15 6 6

Iowa Southern 1,976 0 69 9 0 0

Maine 1,070 0 141 10 2 2

Maryland1 7,851 8 232 20 15 15

Michigan Eastern 9,561 0 351 52 19 16

Michigan Western2 2,775 2 181 13 7 8

Minnesota 4,792 13 300 31 27 27

Mississippi Northern2 2,603 0 54 22 5 5

Mississippi Southern2 5,775 11 211 38 18 14

Missouri Eastern2 4,798 0 342 53 22 20

Missouri Western 4,857 0 167 35 27 24

New Hampshire 1,157 2 83 10 4 4

New Mexico 3,084 3 86 23 19 19

New York Eastern 16,001 0 495 88 59 53

New York Northern 3,928 0 192 27 22 21
Appendix A. Method

A-5

Table A. Number of Cases Examined in Each District (continued)

District

Cases

Terminated in2001 or 2002

Sealed Docket

Sheets

Docket Sheets

with EntriesExamined

Docket Sheets

Read

Case Files

Examined

Cases with

SealedSettlementAgreements

New York Southern 20,976 0 948 130 95 89

New York Western 3,000 12 106 20 12 11

North Carolina Eastern 2,808 0 143 12 4 3

North Carolina Middle 2,284 0 63 10 7 6

North Carolina Western 2,203 2 101 27 14 11

North Dakota 574 0 126 8 6 5

Oklahoma Northern1 1,954 0 176 35 15 11

Pennsylvania Eastern 19,520 0 655 208 192 183

Pennsylvania Middle 4,678 0 520 25 12 10

Pennsylvania Western 6,218 0 306 44 20 16

Puerto Rico 3,562 0 223 159 120 117

South Carolina 8,126 0 311 25 8 8

South Dakota 820 0 40 6 0 0

Tennessee Eastern2 3,128 0 249 15 11 8

Tennessee Middle 3,162 0 581 39 24 18

Tennessee Western 2,759 0 222 37 16 7

Utah1 2,387 3 179 11 8 8

Virginia Eastern 14,448 0 330 57 47 44

Virginia Western 3,593 0 112 41 31 28

Washington Eastern 1,355 0 70 3 2 2

Washington Western2 6,116 0 741 23 16 12

Total Number of

Cases 288,846 138 15,043 2,262 1,410 1,270

1. District with a local rule requiring good cause for sealing and not part of the 50% random sample.

2. District with a local rule requiring good cause for sealing and part of the 50% random sample.
This page is left blank intentionally to facilitate printing of the document double-sided.
B-1

Appendix B

Federal District Court Local Rules on Sealed Records

This appendix is a compilation of federal district court local rules on sealed documents as of

January 2004.23

 

23. Marie Leary took the lead in compiling and analyzing these rules.

Middle District of Alabama

No relevant local rule.

Northern District of Alabama

No relevant local rule.

Southern District of Alabama

No relevant local rule.

District of Alaska

No relevant local rule.

District of Arizona

Analysis: No restriction on the court’s authority to

seal a document. A sealed document may not remain under seal indefinitely. A document filed

under seal in an action for which no trial commenced will be unsealed and eligible for destruction twenty-three years from the date final judgment or final disposition was entered. A document filed under seal in an action for which a trial

commenced or an action was consolidated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a) will be unsealed

twenty-three years from the date final judgment

or final disposition was entered and will remain

stored as a permanent record. This rule does not

apply to a document placed under seal in a case in

which final judgment or final disposition occurred

prior to 1990. Nor does it apply to sexual abuse

cases filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3509 and juvenile cases, unless the record has been expunged.

District of Arizona Local Rule 1.3. Custody and

Disposition of Exhibits and Sealed Documents.

(d) Sealed Documents—Generally. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, any sealed document,

paper, case file or thing in any action where final

judgment or final disposition occurred in 1990 or

thereafter, will be subject to the custody and disposition processes according to (e) or (f), below, as

applicable.

(e) Sealed Documents—Actions in Which No Trial

Commenced. Unless otherwise ordered by the

Court, any document, paper, case file or thing

filed under seal in any action for which no trial

commenced shall be eligible for destruction no

less than 23 years from the date of entry of final

judgment or final disposition. The seal will be vacated without further action by the Court at the

time of destruction.

(f) Sealed Documents—Actions in Which the Case

Was Terminated During or After Trial. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, any document, paper, case file or thing filed under seal in any action

for which a trial commenced shall be unsealed

without further action by the Court 23 years from

the date of entry of final judgment or final disposition, and will remain stored as a permanent record. This rule further applies to all cases consolidated pursuant to Rule 65 (a), Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure.

The following types of cases will be exempt

from this practice:

• Sexual abuse cases filed pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 3509.

• Juvenile cases, unless the record has been

expunged.

Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas

No relevant local rule.

Central District of California

Analysis: No restriction on the court’s authority to

seal a document. A sealed document may remain

sealed indefinitely; no durational limitations are

imposed by this rule. Disclosure can only occur

upon written order of the court.
Sealed Settlement Agreements

B-2

Central District of California Local Rule 79-5.

Confidential Court Records.

79-5.1. Filing Under Seal—Procedures. No

case or document shall be filed under seal without

prior approval by the Court. Where approval is

required, a written application and a proposed

order shall be presented to the judge along with

the document submitted for filing under seal. The

proposed order shall address both the sealing of

the application and order itself, if appropriate.

The original and judge’s copy of the document

shall be sealed in separate envelopes with a copy

of the title page attached to the front of each envelope. Conformed copies need not be placed in

sealed envelopes. Where under-seal filings are

authorized by statute or rule, the authority therefor shall appear on the title page of the proposed

filing.

79-5.2. Confidential Court Records—Disclosure. No sealed or confidential record of the Court

maintained by the Clerk shall be disclosed except

upon written order of the Court.

79-5.3. Procedure for Disclosure of Confidential Court Records. An application for disclosure

of sealed or confidential court records shall be

made to the Court in writing and filed by the person seeking disclosure. The application shall set

forth with particularity the need for specific information in such records. The procedures of L.R.

7-3 et seq. shall govern the hearing of any such

application.

Eastern District of California

Analysis: No restriction on the court’s authority to

seal a document. A sealed document may remain

sealed indefinitely; no durational limitations are

imposed by this rule. Unsealing of a document

must be made by court order.

Eastern District of California General Local Rule

39-138(b). Sealing of Documents.

Except as otherwise provided by statute or

rule, documents may be sealed only upon written

order of a Judge or Magistrate Judge. Court orders sealing documents are filed and maintained

in the public case file and should not reveal the

sealed information. A duplicate order is attached

to the envelope containing the sealed documents.

The case file shall reflect the date a document is

ordered unsealed and by whom, and, if a document is resealed, the date and by whom.

Northern District of California

Analysis: The court must find that good cause to

seal has been established before ordering a document or portions thereof to be placed under seal.

A sealed document may not remain under seal

indefinitely. Unless the court orders otherwise

upon a showing of good cause at the conclusion

of the case by a party that submitted the document that the court placed under seal, the document will be automatically unsealed and open to

public inspection ten years from the date the case

was transmitted to the National Archives and Records Administration or other court-designated

depository.

Northern District of California Civil Local Rule

79-5. Sealed or Confidential Documents.

(a) Applicability. When a statute, a federal or local rule or a Court order permits documents or

things to be filed under seal, i.e., not open to inspection by the public, the procedures set forth in

this local rule apply.

(b) Lodging Matter with Request to File Under

Seal. A party authorized by statute, rule or Court

order to file a document under seal must lodge

the document with the Clerk in accordance with

this rule. The Clerk shall refer the matter to the

assigned Judge pursuant to Civil L.R. 79-5(d). No

document shall be filed under seal except pursuant to a Court order that authorizes the sealing of

the particular document or portion thereof and is

narrowly tailored to seal only that material for

which good cause to seal has been established.

Any order sealing any documents shall direct the

sealing of only those documents, pages or, if

practicable, those portions of documents or pages,

which contain the information requiring confidentiality. All other portions of such documents

shall be included in the public file.

Commentary: As a public forum, the Court

will only entertain requests to seal that establish good cause and are narrowly tailored to

seal only the particular information that is

genuinely privileged or protectable as a trade

secret or otherwise has a compelling need for

confidentiality. Documents may not be filed

under seal pursuant to blanket protective orders covering multiple documents. Counsel

should not attempt to seal entire pleadings or

memoranda required to be filed pursuant to

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or these

Local Rules.
Appendix B. Local Rules

B-3

(c) Format. The lodged document must be

contained in an 81⁄2 inch by 11 inch sealed envelope

or other suitable container. The party must affix a

cover sheet to the document and to its envelope or

container, which must:

(1) Set out the information required by Civil

L.R. 3-4(a) and (b);

(2) Set forth the name, address and telephone number of the submitting party;

(3) If filed pursuant to a previous Court order, state the date and name of the Judge ordering the matter filed under seal and attach a

copy of the order; if filed pursuant to statute or

rule, state the authorizing statute or rule and

good cause for filing the submitted matter under seal;

(4) Prominently display the notation:

“DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL.” When

permitted by the Court order, the notation may

also include: “NOT TO APPEAR ON THE

PUBLIC DOCKET.”

(d) Motion to File Under Seal. Counsel seeking to

file a document or thing under seal, which is not

authorized by statute or rule to be so filed, may

file a motion under Civil L.R. 7-10 and lodge the

document or thing with the Clerk in a manner

which conforms with Civil L.R. 79-5(c). If pursuant to referral by the Clerk or motion of a party,

the Court orders that a lodged document be filed

under seal, the Clerk shall file the lodged document under seal. Otherwise, the lodged document

shall be returned to the submitting party and the

document shall not be placed in the file.

Commentary. Upon receipt of an order to file

a lodged document under seal, the Clerk shall

file-stamp the sealed envelope or container

containing the document. Following receipt

and away from public view, the clerk shall remove the item from the envelope, place a

dated filed-stamp on the original document,

enter it on the docket in a manner that ensures

confidentiality consistent with this local rule,

and place the document in a sealed folder

which shall be maintained in a secure location

at the courthouse of the assigned Judge or at

the national Archives and Records Administration or other Court-designated depository.

(e) Effect of Seal. Unless otherwise ordered by

the Court, any document, paper or thing filed under seal shall be kept from public inspection, including inspection by attorneys and parties to the

action during the pendency of the case. Once a

case is closed, any document, paper or thing filed

under seal in a case shall be open to public inspection without further action by the Court 10

years from the date the case is transmitted to the

National Archives and Records Administration or

other Court-designated depository. However, a

party that submitted documents, papers or other

things which the Court placed under seal in a case

may, upon showing good cause at the conclusion

of the case, seek an order which would continue

the seal until a specific date beyond the 10 years

provided by this rule. Nothing in this rule is intended to affect the normal records destruction

policy of the United States Courts.

Southern District of California

Analysis: No restriction on the court’s authority to

seal a document. A sealed document may not remain sealed indefinitely. Unless otherwise ordered by the court, a sealed document will be returned to the party that submitted it upon entry of

the final judgment or termination of the appeal, if

any.

Southern District of California Local Civil Rule

79.2. Books and Records of the Clerk.

b. Sealed Documents. Documents filed under

seal in civil actions will be returned to the party

submitting them upon entry of the final judgment

or termination of the appeal, if any, unless otherwise ordered by the court.

c. Sealing Orders. Documents that are to be filed

under seal must be accompanied by an order

sealing them. If the order is also to be filed under

seal, it shall so state.

District of Colorado

Analysis: No restriction on the court’s authority to

seal a document. A sealed document may remain

sealed indefinitely; no durational limitations are

imposed by this rule.

District of Colorado Local Civil Rule 7.2.

Motions to Seal; Motions to Close Court

Proceedings.

A. Scope. Upon motion and a showing of compelling reasons, a judicial officer may order that:

1. All or a portion of papers and documents

filed in a case shall be sealed; or

2. All or a portion of court proceedings shall

be closed to the public.

B. Motion Open to Public Inspection. A motion to

seal or close court proceedings will be placed in

the case file and open to public inspection.
Sealed Settlement Agreements

B-4

C. Proposed Filing. A proposed filing of papers

or documents will be submitted under seal until

the motion to seal is decided by a judicial officer.

D. Public Notice; Objections. On the business

day after the filing of a motion to seal or motion to

close court proceedings, a public notice will be

posted in the clerk’s office and on the court’s web

site. The public notice will advise of such motion

and state that any person or entity may file objections to the motion on or before the date set forth

in such public notice. The date will be not less

than three business days after the public notice is

posted.

E. Order. No order to seal or close court proceedings will be entered before the date set forth

in the public notice for filing objections, except in

emergency circumstances shown or referred to in

the motion.

District of Colorado Local Civil Rule 7.3.

Procedures for Filing Papers and Documents

Under Seal.

A. Manner of Filing. The following papers or

documents must be placed unfolded in a sealed

envelope with a copy of a cover page (see section

B. of this rule) affixed to the outside of the envelope:

1. papers or documents ordered sealed by

the court;

2. proposed filings of papers or documents

submitted under seal with a motion requesting

that the documents be sealed; and

3. documents required to be sealed by law.

B. Cover Page. The cover page affixed to the

outside of the sealed envelope must include:

1. the case caption;

2. the title of the paper or document;

3. the name, address, and telephone number of the attorney or pro se party filing the

paper or document;

4. a notation that the paper or document is

filed under seal;

5. the title and date of the court order pursuant to which the paper or document is

sealed, if applicable; or

6. the citation of the statute or other

authority pursuant to which the paper or

document is sealed, if applicable.

C. Copies. Copies of the papers or documents in

sealed envelopes shall be filed in accordance with

D.C. Colo. L. Civ. R. 10.1.L.

District of Connecticut

Analysis: No restriction on the court’s authority to

seal a document. A sealed document may not remain sealed indefinitely. If counsel did not file a

motion for return of the sealed document, ninety

days after final determination of the action the

clerk may destroy the sealed document or send it

with other parts of the file to the Federal Records

Center, whereupon the document will be automatically unsealed without notice to counsel.

District of Connecticut Local Civil Rule 5(d).

Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers.

Sealed Documents.

1. Counsel seeking to file a document under

seal shall file a motion to seal and shall attach to

the motion the document to be sealed. The document shall be submitted in an unsealed envelope,

bearing the caption of the case, the case number,

and the caption of the document to be sealed. The

Clerk of the Court shall file-stamp the motion to

seal and the document to be sealed, shall docket

the motion and document and shall forward the

motion to seal and the document to be sealed to

the Court for consideration. If ordered sealed by

the Court, the Clerk shall seal the document in the

envelope provided by counsel, shall note the date

of the sealing order on the envelope and docket

sheet. Until such document is ordered sealed, the

document shall be treated as a public document

subject to public inspection. In the alternative,

counsel can seek advance permission of the Court

to file a document under seal without submitting

the document to be sealed.

2. Counsel filing documents which are, or may

be claimed to be, subject to any protective or impounding order previously entered shall file with

the documents, and serve on all parties, a notice

that the documents are, or are claimed to be, subject to such order or orders, identifying the particular order or orders by date, and shall submit

such documents to the Clerk under seal.

3. Any file or document ordered sealed by the

Court upon motion of the parties, by stipulation

or by the Court, sua sponte, shall remain sealed

pending further order of this Court, or any Court

sitting in review. Upon final determination of the

action, as defined in Rule 14 of the Local Rules of

Civil Procedure, counsel shall have ninety (90)

days to file a motion pursuant to Rule 14 for the

return of the sealed documents. Any sealed

document thereafter remaining may be destroyed

by the Clerk pursuant to Rule 14 or retired by the

Clerk with other parts of the file to the Federal
Appendix B. Local Rules

B-5

Records Center, whereupon they shall be automatically unsealed without notice to counsel.

District of Delaware

Analysis: No restriction on the court’s authority to

seal a document. A sealed document may remain

sealed indefinitely; no durational limitations are

imposed by this rule.

District of Delaware Local Rule 5.3. Number of

Copies.

The original and one copy of pleadings, stipulations, motions, responses to motions, briefs,

memoranda of points and authorities, appendices

and any papers filed under seal shall be filed with

the Clerk of Court. Any party filing papers under

seal shall distinguish the original on the cover of

the paper. The original of all other papers required to be filed shall be filed with the Clerk.

Two copies of each paper filed with the Court

shall be served on local counsel for each of the

other parties. Whenever papers are captioned in

more than one action, sufficient copies shall be

furnished to permit the Clerk to file one copy in

each action.

District of the District of Columbia

Analysis: No restriction on the court’s authority to

seal a document. A sealed document may remain

sealed indefinitely; no durational limitations are

imposed by this rule.

District of Columbia Federal District Court

Local Civil Rule 5.1(j). Form and Filing of

Pleadings and Other Papers. Sealed or

Confidential Documents.

(1) Absent statutory authority, no cases or

documents may be sealed without an order from

the Court. Any pleading filed with the intention

of being sealed shall be accompanied by a motion

to seal. The document will be treated as sealed,

pending the outcome of the ruling on the motion.

Failure to file a motion to seal will result in the

pleading being placed in the public record.

(2) Unless otherwise ordered or otherwise specifically provided in these Local Rules, all documents submitted for a confidential in camera inspection by the Court, which are the subject of a

Protective Order, which are subject to an existing

order that they be sealed, or which are the subject

of a motion for such orders, shall be submitted to

the Clerk securely sealed in an envelope/box

needed to accommodate the documents. The envelope/box containing such documents shall

contain a conspicuous notation that carries

“DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL” or “DOCUMENTS

SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER,” or the

equivalent.

(3) The face of the envelope/box shall also

contain the case number, the title of the Court, a

descriptive title of the document and the case

caption unless such information is to be, or has

been, included among the information ordered

sealed. The face of the envelope/box shall also

contain the date of any order, or the reference to

any statute permitting the item sealed.

(4) Filings of sealed materials must be made in

the Clerk’s Office during the business hours of

9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. daily except Saturdays,

Sundays and legal holidays. Filings at the security

desk are prohibited because the Security Officers

are not authorized to accept this material.

Middle District of Florida

No relevant local rule.

Northern District of Florida

No relevant local rule.

Southern District of Florida

Analysis: No specific restriction on the court’s

authority to seal a document; the party seeking to

file a document under seal must set forth a reasonable basis for departing from the court’s general policy of public filings. A sealed document

may not remain sealed indefinitely unless the

court’s sealing order specifically provides for

permanent sealing of the matter. A sealed document will be unsealed, destroyed, or returned to

the filing party upon expiration of the time specified in the court’s sealing order, which may not

exceed five years from the date of filing absent

extraordinary circumstances.

Southern District of Florida General Local Rule

5.4. Filings Under Seal; Disposal of Sealed

Materials.

A. General Policy. Unless otherwise provided

by law, Court rule or Court order, proceedings in

the United States District Court are public and

Court filings are matters of public record. Where

not so provided, a party seeking to file matters

under seal shall follow the procedures prescribed

by this rule.

B. Procedure for Filings Under Seal. A party

seeking to make a filing under seal shall:
Sealed Settlement Agreements

B-6

1. Deliver to the Clerk’s Office an original

and one copy of the proposed filing, each contained in a separate plain envelope clearly

marked as “sealed document” with the case

number and style of the action noted on the

outside. The Clerk’s Office shall note on each

envelope the date of filing and docket entry

number.

2. File an original and a copy of the motion

to seal with self-addressed postage-paid envelopes, setting forth a reasonable basis for departing from the general policy of a public filing, and generally describing the matter contained in the envelope. The motion shall specifically state the period of time that the party

seeks to have the matter maintained under seal

by the Clerk’s Office. Unless permanent sealing is sought, the motion shall set forth how

the matter is to be handled upon expiration of

the time specified in the Court’s sealing order.

Absent extraordinary circumstances, no matter

sealed pursuant to this rule may remain sealed

for longer than five (5) years from the date of

filing.

3. File an “ORDER RE: SEALED FILING” in

the form set forth at the end of this rule. The

form is available at the Clerk’s Office. The

bottom portion should be left blank for the

Judge’s ruling.

C. Court Ruling. If the Court grants the motion

to seal, the Clerk’s Office shall maintain the matter under seal as specified in the court order. If the

Court denies the motion to seal, the original and

copy of the proposed filing shall be returned to

the party in its original envelope.

D. Disposition of Sealed Matter. Unless the

Court’s sealing order permits the matter to remain

sealed permanently, the Clerk will dispose of the

sealed matter upon expiration of the time specified in the Court’s sealing order by unsealing, destroying, or returning the matter to the filing

party.

Comment (2001): The current amendments

are intended to reflect more accurately existing

procedures, and to assist the court in the

maintenance and ultimate disposition of sealed

records by creating a form order which specifies how long the matter is to be kept under

seal and how it is to be disposed of after the

expiration of that time. By its terms, this rule

does not apply to materials covered by specific

statutes, rules or court orders authorizing, prescribing or requiring secrecy. However, litigants are required to complete an “Order Re:

Sealed Filing” in the form set forth at the end

of this rule for materials being filed under seal

after the entry of, and pursuant to, a protective

order governing the use of and disclosure of

confidential information.

Middle District of Georgia

No relevant local rule.

Northern District of Georgia

No relevant local rule.

Southern District of Georgia

Analysis: No restriction on the court’s authority to

seal a document. A sealed document may remain

sealed indefinitely; no durational limitations are

imposed by this rule.

Southern District of Georgia Local Rule 79.7.

Records and Documents. Sealed Documents.

(a) Papers submitted for filing with the Clerk

may be placed under seal only where required by

operation of law, these rules, or order of a judicial

officer.

(b) Any person desiring to have any matter

placed under seal shall present a motion stating

grounds why a document filed with the Clerk

should not be available for public inspection. The

Clerk shall: (i) docket the motion as a Motion to

Seal; (ii) refrain from labeling the filing as

“sealed” or identifying the person seeking the

sealing order unless the person consents; (iii)

designate any accompanying papers as “sealed

matter”; and (iv) maintain the motion and accompanying papers in a secure file pending a ruling

on the Motion to Seal.

(c) If the Motion to Seal is denied, any papers

which the person sought to have sealed, and

which were submitted to the Clerk with the motion, shall be returned to the person, who shall

then have the option of filing the papers in the

normal course.

(d) Motions to Seal may extend to three layers

of information: (1)!the name of the movant; (2)!the

title of the filing sought to be sealed; and (3)!the

contents of the filing itself. In most cases, only the

contents of the filing itself (e.g., proprietary data

embodied within an in limine motion) will warrant sealing, not the title of the filing (e.g., Motion

in Limine) or the identity of the movant (e.g., XYZ

Tire Company). Therefore, unless the Court specified otherwise, the Clerk shall construe all sealing

orders to extend only to the contents of the un-
Appendix B. Local Rules

B-7

derlying filing. The burden rests upon the moving

party to justify all three sealing levels.

Southern District of Georgia Local Rule 83.28.

Attorneys, Court Facilities, and Business.

Release of Information by Courthouse

Personnel.

All courthouse supporting personnel, including but not limited to the United States Marshal

and his deputies, the Clerk and his deputies, the

Probation Officer and probation clerks, bailiffs,

court reporters, and any employees or subcontractors retained by the official court reporters, are

prohibited from disclosing to any person, without

authorization from the Court, any information

relating to a pending grand jury proceeding,

criminal case, or civil case that is not part of the

public record of the Court. The public record of

each case shall be those materials which are contained in the court’s official file as maintained by

the Clerk except such parts thereto as may be

sealed, secret, impounded or specially set aside

for in camera inspection. . . .

District of Guam

No relevant local rule.

District of Hawaii

No relevant local rule.

District of Idaho

Analysis: No restriction on the court’s authority to

seal a document. A sealed document may not remain sealed indefinitely. Unless the court orders

otherwise, after the case is closed and the appeal

time has expired, or if the case is appealed, after

the conclusion of all appeals, the sealed document

will be returned to the submitting party.

District of Idaho Local Rule 5.3. Sealed

Documents and Public Access.

(a) Motion to File Under Seal. Counsel seeking to

file a document under seal shall file an ex parte

motion to seal, along with supporting memorandum and proposed order, and lodge the document with the Clerk of Court. Said motion must

contain “MOTION TO SEAL” in bold letters in

the caption of the pleading.

(b) Motion to Seal Existing Documents. Counsel

seeking to place a pending case or filed document

under seal shall file an ex parte motion to seal,

along with supporting memorandum and a proposed order with the court. Said motion must

contain “MOTION TO SEAL” in bold letters in

the caption of the pleading. Portions of a document cannot be placed under seal. Instead, the

entire document must be placed under seal in order to protect confidential information.

(c) Public Information. The Clerk of Court shall

file and docket the motion to seal in the public

record of the court. All lodged documents under

seal will not be docketed, scanned or available for

public inspection unless otherwise ordered by the

court.

(d) Format of Lodged Documents Under Seal.

Counsel lodging the material to be sealed shall

submit the material in an UNSEALED 81⁄2 x 11 inch

manila envelope. The envelope shall contain the

title of the court, the case caption, and case number.

(e) Procedures. The Clerk of Court will forward

the lodged documents to the assigned judge for

consideration. The assigned judge will direct the

clerk to:

(1) File the documents under seal with any

further specific instructions; or

(2) Return the documents to the offering

party with appropriate instructions; or

(3) File the documents or materials in the

public record.

(f) Return of Sealed Documents to Public Record.

Because the Federal Records Center prohibits the

storage of sealed records or documents, the clerk

must unseal all documents and cases prior to

shipment of any record to the Federal Records

Center. Absent any other court order, the sealed

documents will be returned to the submitting

party after the case is closed and the appeal time

has expired, or if appealed, after the conclusion of

all appeals.

Central District of Illinois

No relevant local rule.

Northern District of Illinois

Analysis: The court must find that good cause has

been shown before ordering a document to be

filed as a restricted or sealed document. A restricted or sealed document may not remain restricted or under seal indefinitely. Except where

the court, in response to a request of a party or on

its own motion, orders otherwise, the clerk will

place the restricted document in the public file

sixty-three days following final disposition, including appeals of the case. If on written motion

filed not more than sixty-three days following the
Sealed Settlement Agreements

B-8

closing of the case period a party requests to have

the restricted document turned over, the court

may authorize the clerk to turn over the document to the party, destroy it, or retain the document as a restricted document no longer than

twenty years and then destroy it.

Northern District of Illinois Local Rule 5.8.

Filing Materials Under Seal.

Any document to be filed as a restricted or

sealed document as defined by L.R. 26.2 must be

accompanied by a cover sheet which shall include

the following:

(A) the caption of the case, including the

case number;

(B) the title “Restricted Document Pursuant

to L.R. 26.2”;

(C) a statement indicating that the document is filed as restricted in accordance with

an order of court and the date of that order;

and

(D) the signature of the attorney of record

or unrepresented party filing the document.

Any document purporting to be a restricted or

sealed document as defined in L.R. 26.2 that is

presented for filing without the cover page or

copy of the order shall not be treated as a restricted or sealed document, but shall be processed like any other document. In such instances

the clerk is authorized to open the sealed envelope and remove the materials for processing.

Northern District of Illinois Local Rule 26.2.

Protective Orders; Restricted Documents.

(a) Definitions. As used in this rule the term:

“Restricted document” means a document

or an exhibit to which access has been restricted either by a written order or by a rule;

“Sealed document” means a restricted

document which the court has directed be

maintained within a sealed enclosure such that

access to the document requires breaking the

seal of the enclosure;

“Document awaiting expunction” means a

document or an exhibit which the court has

ordered held for possible expunction pursuant

to 21 U.S.C. §!844(b)(2) but for which the period for holding prior to final destruction has

yet to pass; and

“Protective order” means any protective

order entered pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c),

or any other order restricting access to one or

more documents filed or to be filed with the

court.

(b) Restricting Order. The court may on written

motion and for good cause shown enter an order

directing that one or more documents be restricted. The order shall also specify the persons,

if any, who are to have access to the documents

without further order of court. The minute order

accompanying the order shall specify any qualifications as to access and disposition of the documents contained in the order.

(c) Docket Entries. The court may on written

motion and for good cause shown enter an order

directing that the docket entry for a restricted

document show only that a restricted document

was filed without any notation indicating its nature. Absent such an order a restricted document

shall be docketed in the same manner as another

document except that the entry will indicate that

the document is restricted.

(d) Inspection of Restricted Documents. The clerk

shall maintain a record in a manner provided for

internal operating procedures approved by the

Court of persons permitted access to restricted

documents. Such procedures may require anyone

seeking access to show identification and to sign a

statement to the effect that they have been

authorized to examine the restricted document.

(e) Disposition of Restricted Documents. When a

case is closed in which an order was entered pursuant to section (b) of this rule, the clerk shall

maintain the documents as restricted documents

for a period of 63 days following the final disposition including appeals. Except where the court

in response to a request of a party made pursuant

to this section or on its own motion orders otherwise, at the end of the 63 day period the clerk

shall place the restricted documents in the public

file.

Any party may on written motion request that

one or more of the restricted documents be turned

over to that party. Such motions shall be filed not

more than 63 days following the closing of the

case period.

In ruling on a motion filed pursuant to this

section or on its own motion, the court may

authorize the clerk to do one of the following for

any document covered by the order:

(1) turn over a document to a party; or

(2) destroy a document; or

(3) retain a document as a restricted document for a period not to exceed 20 years and

thereafter destroy it.
Appendix B. Local Rules

B-9

Northern District of Illinois Internal Operating

Procedure 30. Restricted Documents.

(a) Separate Filing Area for Restricted Documents.

The clerk shall maintain restricted documents,

sealed documents, and documents awaiting expunction as defined by L.R. 26.2(a) separately

from the files of documents to which access has

not been restricted. Any area used to store documents to which access has been restricted shall be

secure from entry by any persons other than the

clerk or those designated in writing by the clerk as

authorized to have access. The clerk shall designate in writing deputies authorized to accept restricted documents either from chambers or for

filing pursuant to protective orders. Materials accepted for filing as restricted shall be maintained

in a secure area until collected by one of the designated deputies. Where the materials so accepted

are being filed pursuant to a protective order, the

deputy accepting them will stamp the cover of the

document with a FILED stamp indicating the date

of filing.

(b) Handling Sealed Documents. Where a document is ordered to be sealed, it is to be delivered

for filing pursuant to L.R. 5.9 with the seal on the

enclosure intact. If the document is sent from

chambers or returned from an appellate court

with the seal broken, one of the deputies authorized to handle restricted materials pursuant to

section (a) will forthwith deliver the document to

the courtroom deputy assigned to the judicial officer to whose calendar the proceedings to which

the sealed document was filed is assigned. If that

judicial officer is no longer sitting, the deputy will

forthwith deliver the document to the courtroom

deputy assigned to the emergency judge. The

courtroom deputy will promptly bring the document to the attention of the judge. The judicial

officer will either order that the document be resealed, or order that it continue to be handled as a

restricted document, but not as a sealed document, or enter such other order as required to indicate the status of the document. Where the

document is to be resealed, the judicial officer or

courtroom deputy will reseal the document and

transmit it to the appropriate deputy in the clerk’s

office. Where under the terms of a protective order a party is permitted to inspect a sealed document and that party appears in the clerk’s office

and requests the document, one of the deputies

authorized to handle restricted materials pursuant

to section (a) will obtain the document and provide an area where the person may inspect the

document other than in the public area of the

clerk’s office. The deputy will complete a form

showing the date, description of the document,

the name of the person requesting access to the

document, a statement indicating that the deputy

has checked the protective order and it does indeed authorize the person to inspect the document, and a statement that the deputy requested

of and was shown identification by the person

requesting access to the document. Any person

wishing to break the seal and inspect the document must sign the form completed by the deputy

to indicate that they are authorized to inspect the

document and have broken the seal. After the

person has completed the inspection, the deputy

will follow the procedures set out in the previous

paragraph for handling the resealing of the

document. . . .

Southern District of Illinois

No relevant local rule.

Northern District of Indiana

No relevant local rule.

Southern District of Indiana

Analysis: No restriction on the court’s authority to

seal a document. A sealed document may remain

sealed indefinitely; no durational limitations are

imposed by this rule.

Southern District of Indiana Local Rule 5.3.

Filing of Documents Under Seal.

(a) General Rule. No document will be maintained under seal in the absence of an authorizing

statute, Court rule, or Court order.

(b) Filing of Cases Under Seal. Any new case

submitted for filing under seal must be accompanied by a motion to seal and proposed order. Any

case presented in this manner will be assigned a

new case number, District Judge and Magistrate

Judge. The Clerk will maintain the case under seal

until a ruling granting the motion to seal is entered by the assigned District Judge. If the motion

to seal is denied, the case will be immediately unsealed with or without prior notice to the filing

party.

(c) Filing of Documents Under Seal. Materials

presented as sealed documents shall be inside an

envelope which allows them to remain flat. Affixed to the exterior of the envelope shall be an 81⁄2

x 11” cover sheet containing:

i. the case caption;

ii. the name of the document if it can be disclosed publicly, otherwise an appropriate title
Sealed Settlement Agreements

B-10

by which the document may be identified on

the public docket;

iii. the name, address and telephone number of the person filing the document; and

iv. in the event the motion requesting the

document be filed under seal does not accompany the document, the cover sheet must set

forth the citation of the statute or rule or the

date of the Court order authorizing filing under seal.

(d) Prohibition of Electronic Filing of Sealed

Documents. Sealed documents will not be filed

electronically, but rather manually on paper. The

party filing a sealed document shall file electronically a Notice of Manual Filing (see Form in Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and

Procedures Manual for the Southern District of

Indiana). The courtroom deputy to the District or

Magistrate Judge should be contacted for instructions when filing certain ex parte documents

which could not be disclosed by the electronic

Notice of Manual Filing.

Northern and Southern Districts of Iowa

Analysis: No restriction on the court’s authority to

seal a document. A sealed document may not remain sealed indefinitely. Thirty days after a

judgment has become final (sixty days if the

United States is a party), or, if an appeal from the

judgment is filed, thirty days after the issuance of

the mandate by the circuit court, the clerk of court

may unseal a document not claimed and withdrawn after (1) the clerk gives notice to the attorneys of record in the case and to any pro se parties

of the clerk’s intention to unseal the document;

and (2) no response to the notice is filed within

thirty days after the notice was sent. If a timely

objection is filed, the document will be unsealed

only upon an order of the court.

Northern and Southern Districts of Iowa Local

Rule 1.1(k). General Provisions; Effective Date;

Scope. Public Records.

All filings with the Clerk of Court’s Office are

public records and are available for public inspection unless otherwise ordered by the court or

provided by a Local Rule or a statute of the

United States. Materials may be filed under seal

with the Clerk of Court, but only in accordance

with the procedures prescribed in L.R. 5.1(e).

Northern and Southern Districts of Iowa Local

Rule 5.1(e). Service, Filing of Papers, and Proof

of Service. Sealed Documents and Exhibits.

A party seeking to file under seal a pleading,

motion, document, or exhibit first must file a

written request for leave to do so. The pleading,

motion, document, or exhibit thereafter may be

filed under seal only if the court so orders. If the

court enters an order permitting or directing the

parties to file certain designated materials under

seal, the parties thereafter must file all such materials under seal without filing a further request to

do so.

A request for leave to file materials under seal

may be filed under seal ex parte and without prior

court order. The request must be delivered by the

Clerk of Court in a sealed envelope marked with

the caption of the case and the notation, “FILED

UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO L.R. 5.1(e).”

Materials to be filed under seal must be filed in

a sealed envelope marked with the caption of the

case and the notation, “SEALED PURSUANT TO

COURT ORDER ENTERED [DATE].”

All materials filed in response to or in connection with other materials filed under seal also

must be filed in a sealed envelope marked with

the caption of the case and the notation, “SEALED

PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER ENTERED

[DATE].”

Envelopes containing materials filed under

seal may be opened only by the Clerk of Court,

deputy clerks, federal judges, and their staff

members.

Thirty days after a judgment has become final

(60 days if the United States is a party), or, if an

appeal from the judgment is filed, 30 days after

the issuance of the mandate by the circuit court,

sealed materials not claimed and withdrawn pursuant to L.R. 83.7(e) may be unsealed by the Clerk

of Court after the following occurs:

1. The Clerk of Court gives notice to the attorneys of record in the case and to any pro se

parties of the Clerk of Court’s intention to unseal the materials; and

2. No response to the notice is filed within

30 days after the notice has been sent.

If a timely objection is filed, the document or

exhibit will be unsealed only upon an order of the

court.

A party intending to object to a notice of intention to unseal a document must, before filing the

objection, confer with opposing counsel and any
Appendix B. Local Rules

B-11

pro se parties and attempt to reach an agreement

on the disposition of the exhibit pursuant to L.R.

83.7(e) in lieu of the unsealing of the exhibit. An

objection to a notice of intention to unseal must

contain a statement describing the results of these

efforts.

The procedures in this section do not apply to

preindictment ex parte filings by the government

in criminal cases or to cases where other procedures are required by statute.

District of Kansas

Analysis: No restriction on the court’s authority to

seal a document. A sealed document may not remain sealed indefinitely. A document placed under seal after October 22, 1998, will be unsealed

ten years after a final judgment or dismissal was

entered in the case, unless the court ordered otherwise at the time of entry of such judgment or

dismissal. If a document placed under seal before

October 22, 1998, is contained in a case that has

been closed by entry of final judgment or order of

dismissal for ten years or more, the clerk will lift

the seal on the document after notifying the parties by written notice, unless a motion to extend

the seal, served on all parties to the action, is filed

within six months.

District of Kansas Local Rule 5.4.6. In re

Procedural Rules for Electronic Case Filing.

Sealed Documents.

Until the Electronic Filing System has adequate

confidentiality procedures for sealed documents,

documents ordered to be placed under seal must

be filed conventionally and not electronically unless specifically authorized by the court. A motion

to file documents under seal may be filed electronically unless prohibited by law. The order of

the court authorizing the filing of documents under seal may be filed electronically unless prohibited by law. A paper copy of the order must be

attached to the documents to be filed under seal

and be delivered to the clerk.

District of Kansas Local Rule 79.4. Sealed Files

and Documents in Civil Cases.

(a) Documents/files sealed after the effective date of

this rule. Any file, pleading, motion, memorandum, order or other document placed under seal

by order of this court in any civil action shall be

unsealed by operation of this rule ten years after

entry of a final judgment or dismissal unless otherwise ordered by the court at the time of entry of

such judgment or dismissal. Any party, upon

motion filed no more than six months before the

seal is to be lifted, with notice to the remaining

parties, may seek to renew the seal for an additional period of time not to exceed ten years.

There shall be a rebuttable presumption that the

seal shall not be renewed, and the burden shall be

on the moving party to establish an appropriate

basis for renewing the seal.

(b) Documents/files under seal before the effective

date of this rule. On an ongoing basis, for a term of

ten years from the effective date of the adoption

of this rule, the clerk of the court will identify all

civil files which have been sealed, or civil files in

which sealed pleadings, motions, memoranda,

orders or other documents are contained, and

which files have been closed by entry of final

judgment or order of dismissal, for a term of ten

years or more, and at that time shall notify the

parties, by written notice mailed to the last known

address of counsel representing each party to the

action, that:

(1) unless a motion to extend the seal,

served on all parties to the action, is filed

within six months, the seal will be lifted; and

(2) if a motion to extend the seal is filed, the

burden shall be on the moving party to overcome a rebuttable presumption that the seal

shall not be renewed and to establish an appropriate basis for renewing the seal.

In the event of a pro-se litigant all notices required by this rule shall be mailed to the last

known mailing address of such litigant as reflected in the records of the Clerk of the District

court in the file in issue.

(c) By its terms, this rule applies only to civil

actions and does not apply to sealed files, documents, records, transcripts, or any other matter

sealed in criminal cases.

Eastern and Western Districts of Kentucky

No relevant local rule.

Eastern District of Louisiana

No relevant local rule.

Middle District of Louisiana

No relevant local rule.

Western District of Louisiana

No relevant local rule.
Sealed Settlement Agreements

B-12

District of Maine

No relevant local rule.

District of Maryland

Analysis: To file a document under seal, the court

must consider the parties’ joint motion to seal

portions of the court record and any opposition

thereto, refrain from ruling on the joint motion for

at least fourteen days to permit interested parties

to file objections, and consider any objections by

interested parties. Then, the court must find and

hold that alternatives to sealing would not provide sufficient protection and that sealing of the

specified portion of the record would be appropriate. A sealed document may not remain under

seal indefinitely. Upon final termination of an action, if any counsel fails to remove from the record the sealed document within thirty days of

receiving notice from the clerk, the clerk may return the document to the parties, destroy it, or

otherwise dispose of it.

District of Maryland Local Rule 105.11. Motions,

Briefs and Memoranda. Sealing.

Any motion seeking the sealing of pleadings,

motions, exhibits or other papers to be filed in the

Court record shall include (a) proposed reasons

supported by specific factual representations to

justify the sealing and (b) an explanation why alternatives to sealing would not provide sufficient

protection. The Court will not rule upon the motion until at least 14 days after it is entered on the

public docket to permit the filing of objections by

interested parties. Materials that are the subject of

the motion shall remain temporarily sealed

pending a ruling by the Court. If the motion is

denied, the party making the filing will be given

an opportunity to withdraw the materials.

Authors’ Note: The district’s form “Order Sealing Portions of the Court Record (Local Rule

105.11)” includes provisions not stated in Local

Rule 105.11:

2. That the Sealed Record (as defined

above) be, and hereby is, PLACED UNDER

SEAL by the Clerk of the Court and that the

Sealed Record shall be placed in an envelope

or other container which is marked ‘SEALED,

SUBJECT TO ORDER OF COURT DATED

___________.’

3. A copy of this Order shall be mailed to all

counsel of record and to any other person entitled to notice hereof, and shall be docketed in

the Court file.

District of Maryland Local Rule 113.2.

Disposition of Exhibits. Upon Final Termination

of Action.

Upon the final termination of an action, the

Clerk shall send a notice to counsel advising them

to remove from the record within thirty days of

the notice all trial and hearing exhibits and all

sealed materials which they presented at any time

during the pendency of the action. If any counsel

fails to do so, the clerk may return the materials to

the parties, destroy the materials, or otherwise

dispose of them.

District of Massachusetts

No relevant local rule.

Eastern District of Michigan

Analysis: No restriction on the court’s authority to

seal a document. A sealed document may not remain sealed indefinitely. Unless the court orders

otherwise, a sealed settlement agreement will be

unsealed and placed in the case file two years after the date on which it was sealed. The time limit

for other sealed documents is sixty days from entry of final judgment and appellate mandate, if

appealed.

Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 5.3.

Civil Discovery Material Sealed Under

Protective Orders.

(a) Filing. Documents subject to a protective

order must be filed pursuant to L.R. 5.1. In addition, each document subject to a protective order

must be placed in a separate 91⁄2 x 12 inch envelope

and sealed closed. Each envelope must plainly

state the full case caption, title of the document

enclosed and the text, “FILED UNDER SEAL

PUSUANT TO A PROTECTIVE ORDER” in bold,

capital letters not less than one inch high.

(b) Disposition. Sixty days after the entry of a

final judgment and an appellate mandate, if appealed, attorneys must present to the court a proposed order specifying whether the material

sealed with protective order is (a) to be returned

to the parties or (b) unsealed and placed in the

case file. Failure to present the order will result in

the court ordering the clerk to unseal the material

and place it in the case file.

Comment: L.R. 5.3 makes attorneys responsible for material sealed with a protective order. Upon receipt of sealed material, the

Clerk’s Office will provide copies of this Rule

to the submitting party.
Appendix B. Local Rules

B-13

Attorneys are cautioned to seal only those

documents specifically referenced in the protective order. If the sealed documents are exhibits to a motion, only the exhibits are to be

filed under seal. Attorneys are instructed not to

fasten, staple or bind sealed and public documents together.

Sealed settlement agreements or other material provided by statute, e.g., Qui Tam cases,

are not covered by L.R. 5.3.

Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 5.4.

Sealed Settlement Agreements in Civil Cases.

Absent an order to the contrary, sealed settlement agreements will remain sealed for two years

after the date of sealing, after which time they will

be unsealed and placed in the case file.

Comment: L.R. 5.4 is an exception to L.R. 5.3.

If a sealed settlement agreement is submitted

to chambers for filing, the judge’s courtroom

deputy clerk will provide a copy of this Rule to

the attorneys of record.

Western District of Michigan

Analysis: The court must find that there was good

cause shown in order to seal a document. A sealed

document may not remain sealed indefinitely.

Unless the court orders otherwise, a sealed document will be unsealed thirty days after the case is

terminated or any appeal is terminated, whichever is later.

Western District of Michigan Local Civil Rule

5.7(d)(ii). Service and Filing of Pleadings and

Other Papers. Filing and Service by Electronic

Means. Electronic Filing. Papers That May Not

Be Filed Electronically.

The following documents may not be filed

electronically, but must be submitted in paper

form:

a. Documents filed under seal pursuant to

W.D. Mich. L. Civ. R. 10.6;

. . . .

Western District of Michigan Local Civil Rule

10.6. Form of Pleadings and Other Papers; Filing

Requirements. Filing Under Seal.

(a) Request to Seal. Requests to seal a document

must be made by motion and will be granted only

upon good cause shown. If the document accompanies the motion, it shall be clearly labeled “Proposed Sealed Document” and shall include an

envelope suitable for sealing the document. The

envelope shall have the caption of the case, case

number, title of document, and the words “Contains Sealed Documents” prominently written on

the outside. The document shall not be considered

sealed until so ordered by the Court.

(b) Documents Submitted Pursuant to Court Order. A document submitted pursuant to a previous order by the Court authorizing the document

to be filed under seal shall be clearly labeled

“Sealed Document,” shall be submitted in an envelope suitable for sealing the document, and

identify the order or other authority allowing filing under seal. The caption of the case, case number, title of document, and the words “Contains

Sealed Documents” shall be prominently written

on the outside of the envelope.

(c) Expiration of Seal. Unless otherwise ordered

by the Court, thirty days after the termination of a

case or any appeal, whichever is later, sealed

documents and cases will be unsealed by the

Court.

District of Minnesota

Analysis: No restriction on the court’s authority to

seal a document. A sealed document may not remain sealed indefinitely. Four months after a case

is closed, or if the case is appealed, thirty days

after the filing and recording of the mandate of

the appellate court disposing of the case, the parties must take away a sealed document in the

clerk’s custody, unless the court orders otherwise

on its own motion or on the motion of any party

or nonparty. If the document remains in the

clerk’s custody after the expiration of the time

periods mentioned above, the clerk shall destroy

the sealed document thirty days after the clerk

notifies counsel in the case by mail, unless the

court orders otherwise.

District of Minnesota Local Rule 79.1.

Custody and Disposition of Records, Exhibits

and Documents Under Seal.

(c) Documents Subject to a Protective or Confidentiality Order. Original documents filed subject to a

protective or confidentiality order shall be separately stored and maintained by the Clerk and

shall not be disclosed or otherwise made available

to any person except as provided by the terms

and conditions of the relevant order.

(d) Removal of Models, Diagrams, Exhibits and

Documents under Seal. All models, diagrams, exhibits and documents subject to a protective or

confidentiality order remaining in the custody of

the Clerk shall be taken away by the parties
Sealed Settlement Agreements

B-14

within four months after the case is finally decided unless an appeal is taken. In all cases in

which an appeal is taken, they shall be taken

away within 30 days after the filing and recording

of the mandate of the Appellate Court finally disposing of the cause. On motion of any party, or on

the request of any nonparty, or on the court’s own

initiative, the court may order that any model,

diagram, exhibit or document shall be retained by

the Clerk for such longer period of time as may be

determined by the court, notwithstanding any of

the foregoing requirements of this paragraph (d).

(e) Other Disposition by the Clerk. When models,

diagrams, exhibits and documents subject to a

protective or confidentiality order in the custody

of the Clerk are not taken away within the time

specified in the preceding paragraph of this rule,

it shall be the duty of the Clerk to notify counsel

in the case, by mail, of the requirements of this

rule. Any articles, including documents subject to

a protective or confidentiality order, which are

not removed within 30 days after such notice is

given shall be destroyed by the Clerk, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

Northern and Southern Districts

of Mississippi

Analysis: In order to seal a document the court

must find good cause for placing the document

under seal. A sealed document cannot remain

sealed indefinitely. A sealed document will be

unsealed and placed in the case file thirty days

following final disposition (including direct appeal) of the action, unless the court (upon motion)

orders otherwise. Any order permitting a document to be maintained under seal longer than

thirty days must set a date for unsealing.

Northern and Southern Districts of Mississippi

Local Rule 83.6. Sealing of Court Records.

(A) Court Records Presumptively in Public Domain. Except as otherwise provided by statute,

rule, or order, all pleadings and other materials

filed with the court (“court records”) shall become

a part of the public record of the court.

(B) When and How Sealed; Redactions. Court records or portions thereof shall not be placed under seal unless and except to the extent that the

person seeking the sealing thereof shall have first

obtained, for good cause shown, an order of the

court specifying those court records, categories of

court records, or portions thereof, which shall be

placed under seal. The court may, in its discretion,

receive and review any document in camera

without public disclosure thereof and, in connection with any such review, determine whether

good cause exists for the sealing of the document.

Unless the court orders otherwise, the party

seeking sealing shall file with the court redacted

versions of court records when only a portion

thereof is to be sealed.

(C) Criminal Matters; Unsealing. The Office of

the United States Attorney shall present to the

court a proposed order in connection with any

indictment, complaint, or bill of information that

the United States Attorney wishes to file under

seal. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, indictments, complaints, and bills of information

filed under seal shall be unsealed after all defendants have made an appearance before the court.

(D) Duration of Sealing. Court records filed under seal in civil and criminal actions shall be

maintained under seal for thirty days following

final disposition (including direct appeal) of the

action. After that time, all sealed court records

shall be unsealed and placed in the case file unless

the court, upon motion, orders that the court records be maintained under seal beyond the thirtyday period. All such orders shall set a date for

unsealing of the court records.

Eastern District of Missouri

Analysis: The court must find that good cause exists before ordering a document to be placed under seal. A sealed document may not remain under seal indefinitely. Unless the court orders otherwise, a document filed under seal will be placed

in the public file thirty days after a final order or

other disposition has been issued in a civil action

in the district court, or thirty days after the receipt

of a mandate from the court of appeals in a case in

which an appeal has been taken. Prior to the expiration of the thirty-day period following the termination of a case, a party may move for an order

of the court either extending the seal for a specified additional time period or returning the sealed

document to the filing party upon a showing of

good cause.

Eastern District of Missouri Local Rule

83-13.05(A). Pleadings and Documents Filed

Under Seal. Pleadings and Documents in Civil

Cases.

(1) Upon a showing of good cause in a written

motion of any party, the court may order that a
Appendix B. Local Rules

B-15

document or series of documents filed in a civil

case be received and maintained by the clerk under seal. The clerk of court shall maintain such

documents in a restricted area apart from the case

file to which the public has access. Unless the

docket reflects prior entry of an order to file under

seal or the party offering a pleading or document

presents the clerk with an order of the court

authorizing a filing under seal or a motion for

such order, all pleadings and documents received

in the office of the clerk shall be filed in the public

record of a civil case, except as otherwise required

by law.

(2) Not less than thirty (30) days after a final

order or other disposition has been issued in a

civil action in the district court, or thirty (30) days

after the receipt of a mandate from the court of

appeals in a case in which an appeal has been

taken, the clerk shall place in the public file all

documents previously filed under seal, unless

otherwise ordered by the court. Prior to the expiration of the thirty day period following the termination of a case, a party may move for an order

of the court either extending the seal for a specified additional time period or returning sealed

documents to the filing party upon a showing of

good cause.

Western District of Missouri

No relevant local rule.

District of Montana

Analysis: No restriction on the court’s authority to

seal a document. A sealed document may remain

sealed indefinitely; no durational limitations are

imposed by this rule.

District of Montana Local Rule 77.6. Filing

Under Seal.

Unless otherwise provided by statute or rule,

no case or document shall be filed under seal

without prior approval by the Court. If a filing

under seal is requested, a written application and

a proposed order shall be presented to the judge

along with the document submitted for filing under seal. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court,

the application and proposed order and document shall not be served on opposing parties. The

original and judge’s copy of the document shall

be sealed in separate envelopes with a copy of the

title page attached to the front of each envelope.

Conformed copies need not be placed in sealed

envelopes.

District of Nebraska

No relevant local rule.

District of Nevada

No relevant local rule.

District of New Hampshire

Analysis: No restriction on the court’s authority to

seal a document. A sealed document may remain

sealed indefinitely; no durational limitations are

imposed by this rule. The court may specify the

duration of the sealing order in the court’s order

sealing the document.

District of New Hampshire Local Rule 83.11.

Sealed Documents.

(a) Filings, Orders, and Docket Entries. All filings,

orders, and docket entries shall be public unless:

(1) a filing, order, or docket entry must be

sealed pursuant to state law, federal law, the

Federal Rules of Criminal or Civil Procedure,

or these rules;

(2) a filing, order, or docket entry has been

sealed by order of another court or agency; or

(3) this court issues an order sealing a filing,

order, or docket entry.

(b) Levels of Sealed Filings, Orders, and Docket Entries.

(1) Level I. Filings, orders, and docket entries sealed at Level I may be reviewed by any

attorney appearing in the action without prior

leave of court.

(2) Level II. Filings, orders, and docket entries sealed at Level II may be reviewed only

by the filer or, in the case of an order, the person to whom the order is directed without

prior leave of court.

(c) Motions to Seal. A motion to seal must be

filed before the sealed material is submitted or,

alternatively, the item to be sealed may be tendered with the motion and both will be accepted

provisionally under seal, subject to the court’s

subsequent ruling on the motion. The motion

must explain the basis for sealing, specify the

proposed duration of the sealing order, and designate whether the material is to be sealed at

Level I or Level II. Any motion to seal, upon specific request, may also be sealed if it contains a

discussion of the confidential material. If the court

denies the motion to seal, any materials tendered

under provisional seal will be returned to the

movant.
Sealed Settlement Agreements

B-16

(d) Filing Procedures. All material submitted by

a party either under seal or requesting sealed

status, provisionally or otherwise, shall be placed

in a sealed envelope with a copy of the document’s cover page affixed to the outside of the

envelope. The party shall designate the envelope

with a conspicuous notation such as “DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL,” “DOCUMENTS SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER,” or the equivalent. If the basis for the document’s sealed status

is not apparent, an explanatory cover letter should

also be attached to alert the clerk’s staff of its special status.

Parties cannot seal otherwise public documents merely be agreement or by labeling them

“sealed.”

District of New Jersey

No relevant local rule.

District of New Mexico

No relevant local rule.

Eastern District of New York

Analysis: No restriction on the court’s authority to

seal a document. A sealed document may not remain sealed indefinitely. Following the issuance

of an administrative order on February 21, 2001,

all sealed records in civil and criminal cases that

have been closed through calendar year 1995 were

indexed and archived at the Federal Records

Center, where they will remain sealed for twenty

years, and then they will be destroyed after notice

is given to the court. The court will periodically

review sealed records in civil and criminal cases,

and sealed records in cases that have been closed

for at least five years also will be indexed and archived at the Federal Records Center.

Eastern District of New York Administrative

Order 2001-02. In re Sealed Records (E.D.N.Y.

February 21, 2001).

Whereas the Clerk of Court has within his possession in the Clerk’s Office vault scores of boxes

of sealed records in civil and criminal cases that

have been closed for at least five (5) years;

it is ORDERED that all sealed records in civil

and criminal cases that have been closed through

calendar year 1995 be indexed and archived at the

Federal Records Center, and remain sealed, with

disposition within prescribed guidelines, after

twenty years’ time and upon prior notice to the

Court,

and it is further ORDERED that records sealed

in civil and criminal cases after the effective date

of this Order be reviewed periodically and when

closed for at least five (5) years, also shall be indexed and archived at the Federal Records Center.

SO ORDERED.

Northern District of New York

Analysis: No restriction on the court’s authority to

seal a document. A sealed document may remain

sealed indefinitely; no durational requirements

are imposed by this rule. A document sealed by

court order will remain under seal until the court

enters a subsequent order unsealing the document, either on its own motion or in response to a

motion of a party.

Northern District of New York Local Rule 83.13.

Sealed Matters.

Cases may be sealed in their entirety, or only

as to certain parties or documents, when they are

initiated, or at various stages of the proceedings.

The court may on its own motion enter an order

directing that a document, party or entire case be

sealed. A party seeking to have a document, party

or entire case sealed shall submit an application,

under seal, setting forth the reason(s) why the

document, party or entire case should be sealed,

together with a proposed order for approval by

the assigned judge. The proposed order shall include language in the “ORDERED” paragraph

stating the referenced document(s) to be sealed

and should include the phrase “including this

sealing order.” Upon approval of the sealing order by the assigned judge, the clerk shall seal the

document(s) and the sealing order. A complaint

presented for filing with a motion to seal and a

proposed order shall be treated as a sealed case,

pending approval of the order. Once a document

or case is sealed by court order, it shall remain

under seal until subsequent order, upon the

court’s own motion or in response to the motion

of a party, is entered directing that the document

or case be unsealed.

Southern District of New York

No relevant local rule.

Western District of New York

Analysis: A party must demonstrate a substantial

showing for the court to place a document under

seal. The party must submit an application under

seal which sets forth the reasons for sealing the
Appendix B. Local Rules

B-17

document. A sealed document may remain sealed

indefinitely unless the court orders otherwise. A

party must obtain a court order in order to unseal

the document.

Western District of New York Local Rule 5.4.

Sealing of Complaints and Documents in Civil

Cases.

(a) Except when otherwise required by statute

or rule, there is a presumption that Court documents are accessible to the public and that a substantial showing is necessary to restrict access.

(b) Upon the proper showing, cases may be

sealed in their entirety, or only as to certain parties or documents, when they are initiated, or at

various stages of the proceedings. The Court may,

on its own motion, enter an order directing that a

document, party or entire case be sealed. A party

seeking to have a document, party or entire case

sealed shall submit an application, under seal,

setting forth the reasons for sealing, together with

a proposed order for approval by the assigned

Judge. The proposed order shall include language

in the “ORDERED” paragraph stating the referenced document(s) to be sealed. Upon approval of

the sealing order by the assigned Judge, the Clerk

shall seal the document(s). Upon denial of a sealing application, the Clerk shall notify the party of

such decision. The party shall have five business

days from the date of the notice to withdraw the

document(s) submitted for sealing or appeal the

decision denying the sealing request. If the party

fails to withdraw the document(s) or otherwise

appeal after the expiration of five business days,

the document(s) shall be filed by the Clerk and

made a part of the public record.

(c) When the sealing of a civil complaint is appropriate under either statute or this rule, the

Clerk shall inscribe in the public records of the

Court only the case number, the fact that a complaint was filed under seal, the name of the District Judge or Magistrate Judge who ordered the

seal, and (after assignment of the case to a District

Judge and a Magistrate Judge in the normal fashion) the names of the assigned District Judge and

the assigned Magistrate Judge.

(d) A complaint presented for filing with a

motion to seal and a proposed order shall be

treated as a sealed case, pending approval of the

order.

(e) Documents authorized to be filed under

seal or pursuant to a protective order must be

presented to the Clerk in envelopes bearing sufficient identification. The envelopes shall not be

sealed until the documents inside have been filed

and docketed by the Clerk’s office.

(f) Unless an order of the court otherwise directs, all sealed documents will remain sealed after final disposition of the case. The party desiring

that a sealed document be unsealed after disposition of the case must seek such relief by motion on

notice.

Eastern District of North Carolina

Analysis: No restriction on the court’s authority to

seal a document. A sealed document may not remain sealed indefinitely. If counsel fails to retrieve

the sealed document after the action concludes

and all appeals are completed, within thirty days

of final disposition the court may order the

document to be unsealed upon ten days’ notice by

mail to counsel for all parties.

Eastern District of North Carolina Local Civil

Rule 79.2. Sealed Documents.

(a) Filing Sealed Documents. Absent statutory

authority, no cases or documents may be sealed

without an order from the court. A party desiring

to file material under seal must first file a motion

seeking leave to file the information under seal, or

have a court-approved protective order in place.

(b) Proposed Sealed Documents. All proposed,

sealed material which accompanies a Motion to

Seal shall be received by the clerk and temporarily

sealed, pending a ruling on the motion to seal.

The filing of a Motion to Seal documents will toll

the time for filing the material. If the Motion to

Seal is allowed, the sealed material shall be filed

on the same date as the order allowing the filing

under seal. If the motion to file the material under

seal is denied, the movant will be given an option

of retrieving the material or having it filed the

same date as the order denying the filing under

seal.

(c) Docketing Sealed Documents. When material

is filed under seal, the docket will indicate generically the type of document filed under seal, but it

will not contain a description that would disclose

its identity.

(d) Return of Sealed Materials. After the action

concludes and all appeals have been completed,

counsel is charged with the responsibility of retrieving and maintaining all sealed documents.

Upon 10 days notice by mail to counsel for all

parties, and within 30 days after final disposition,

the court may order the documents to be unsealed

and they will thereafter be available for public

inspection.
Sealed Settlement Agreements

B-18

(e) Form. All under seal or potentially under

seal documents shall be delivered to the clerk’s

office enclosed in a red envelope, marked with the

case caption, case number, and a descriptive title

of the document, unless such information is to be,

or has been, among the information ordered

sealed. Additionally, the following information

will be prominently displayed:

SEALED PURSUANT TO THE

PROTECTIVE ORDER

ENTERED ON ___/___/98

or

PROPOSED SEALED MATERIAL:

SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO MOTION

TO SEAL FILED ON __/__/98

Middle District of North Carolina

Analysis: No restriction on the court’s authority to

seal a document. A sealed document may not remain sealed indefinitely. Within thirty days after

the time for appeal has expired or thirty days after

an appeal has been decided, the clerk may return

a sealed document to the parties or destroy it. If

the case file is transferred to the GSA for records

holding, the court cannot ensure the confidentiality of a sealed document.

Middle District of North Carolina Local Rule

83.5(c). Custody and Disposition of Trial

Exhibits, Sealed Documents, and Filed

Depositions. Disposition of Exhibits, Sealed

Documents, and Filed Depositions by Clerk.

Any exhibit, sealed document, disk, or filed

deposition in the clerk’s custody more than 30

days after the time for appeal, if any, has expired,

or an appeal had been decided and mandate received, may be returned to the parties or destroyed by the clerk. Complaints, answers, motions, responses and replies, whether sealed or

not, must be forwarded to the General Services

Administration for permanent storage. The confidentiality of sealed documents cannot be assured

after the case file is transferred to the General

Services Administration for records holding.

Western District of North Carolina

Analysis: No restriction on the court’s authority to

seal a document. At final disposition of the case, a

sealed document will be unsealed unless the court

orders otherwise.

Western District of North Carolina Local Rule

5.1(D). Filing of Papers, Presenting Judgments,

Orders, and Communications to Judge and

Sealed Records. Sealed Matters.

(1) New Civil Cases. A civil complaint may be

sealed at the time the case is filed if the complaint

is accompanied by an ex parte motion of the

plaintiff/petitioner accompanied by an order

sealing the case. The case will be listed on the

clerk’s index as Sealed Plaintiff vs. Sealed Defendant.

(2) Pending Cases. A pending case may be

sealed at any time upon motion of either party

and execution by the court of a written order.

Unless otherwise specified in the order, neither

the clerk’s case index nor the existing case docket

will be modified.

(3) Documents. Documents ordered sealed by

the court or otherwise required to be sealed by

statute shall be marked as such within the document caption and submitted together with the

judge’s copy prepared in the same manner. If the

document is sealed pursuant to a prior order of

the court, the pleading caption shall include a

notation that the document is being filed under

court seal and include the order’s entry date.

No document shall be designated by any party

as “filed under seal” or “confidential” unless:

(a) it is accompanied by an order sealing the

document;

(b) it is being filed in a case that the court

has ordered sealed; or

(c) it contains material that is the subject of

a protective order entered by the court.

(4) Case Closing. Unless otherwise ordered by a

court, any case file or documents under court seal

that have not previously been unsealed by the

court order shall be unsealed at the time of final

disposition of the case.

(5) Access to Sealed Documents. Unless otherwise

ordered by the court, access to documents and

cases under court seal shall be provided by the

clerk only pursuant to court order. Unless otherwise ordered by the court, the clerk shall make no

copies of sealed case files or documents.

District of North Dakota

Analysis: No restriction on the court’s authority to

seal a document. A sealed document in a civil action may not remain sealed indefinitely. Unless

otherwise ordered by the court, the clerk must

return a document filed under seal in a civil action
Appendix B. Local Rules

B-19

to the submitting party upon entry of a final

judgment or termination of appeal, if any.

District of North Dakota Local Rule 5.1(F).

Sealed Documents and Files.

(1) The clerk must return documents filed under seal in civil actions to the party submitting

them, upon entry of a final judgment or termination of appeal, if any, unless otherwise ordered by

the court.

(2) The clerk must retain custody of documents

filed under seal in criminal cases, unless otherwise ordered by the court.

(3) The clerk must retain custody of entire files

which are permanently sealed by statute or court

order.

District Court for the Northern

Mariana Islands

No relevant local rule.

Northern District of Ohio

Analysis: No restriction on the court’s authority to

seal a document. A sealed document may not remain sealed indefinitely. Unless the court orders

to continue the seal for a specified period, the

court will order the document to be unsealed

thirty days after the termination of the case or any

appeal, whichever is later.

Northern District of Ohio Local Civil Rule 5.2.

Filing Documents Under Seal.

No document will be accepted for filing under

seal unless a statute, court rule, or prior court order authorizes the filing of sealed documents. If

no statute, rule, or prior order authorizes filing

under seal, the document will not be filed under

seal.

Materials presented as sealed documents shall

be in an envelope which shows the citation of the

statute or rule or the filing date of the court order

authorizing the sealing, and the name, address,

and telephone number of the person filing the

documents.

If the sealing of the document purports to be

authorized by court order, the person filing the

documents shall include a copy of the order in the

envelope. If the order does not authorize the filing

under seal, or if no order is provided, the Clerk

will unseal the documents before filing them. Before unsealing the documents, the Clerk will notify the person whose name and telephone number appears on the envelope in person (if he or she

is present at the time of filing) or by telephone.

The filer may withdraw the documents before

4:00 p.m. the day the Clerk notifies him or her of

the defect. If not withdrawn, the documents will

be unsealed and filed.

New cases submitted for filing without a

signed sealing order will be assigned a new case

number, District Judge and Magistrate Judge. The

Clerk, without further processing, will send the

file to the assigned District Judge for a sealing

order. If a sealing order is signed, the Clerk will

enter as much information as is permitted by the

sealing order into the system to open and identify

the case.

Thirty days after the termination of the case or

any appeal, whichever is later, sealed documents

and cases will be unsealed pursuant to court order, unless either a motion to continue the seal for

a specified period of time or a motion to withdraw the document is filed and granted by the

Court.

Southern District of Ohio

Analysis: No restriction on the court’s authority to

seal a document. A sealed document may not remain sealed indefinitely. Unless the court orders

otherwise, counsel must withdraw the sealed

document within six months after final termination of the action; if the document is not withdrawn by counsel, the clerk will dispose of it after

the six-month withdrawal period has expired.

Southern District of Ohio Local Rule 79.2.

Disposition of Exhibits, Models, Diagrams,

Depositions, and Other Materials.

(a) Withdrawal By Counsel. All models, diagrams, depositions, photographs, x-rays and other

exhibits and materials filed in an action or offered

in evidence shall not be considered part of the

pleadings in the action and, unless otherwise ordered by the Court, shall be withdrawn by counsel without further Order within six (6) months

after final termination of the action.

(b) Disposal By The Clerk. All models, diagrams,

depositions, x-rays and other exhibits and materials not withdrawn by counsel shall be disposed of

by the Clerk as waste at the expiration of the

withdrawal period.

Southern District of Ohio Local Rule 79.3.

Sealed, or Confidential Documents.

(a) Unless otherwise ordered or otherwise specifically provided in these Rules, all documents

submitted for a confidential in camera inspection
Sealed Settlement Agreements

B-20

by the court, which are the subject of a Protective

Order, which are subject to an existing order that

they be sealed, or which are the subject of a motion for such orders, shall be submitted to the

Clerk securely sealed in an envelope approximately 9” x 12” in size, or of such larger size as

needed to accommodate the documents.

(b) The envelope containing such documents

shall contain a conspicuous notation that it carries

“DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL,” “DOCUMENTS

SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER,” or the

equivalent.

(c) The face of the envelope shall also contain

the case number, the title of the court, a descriptive title of the document and the case caption,

unless such information is to be, or has been, included among the information ordered sealed.

The face of the envelope shall also contain the

date of any order, or the reference to any statute

permitting the item to be sealed. The date of filing

of an order formally sealing documents, submitted in anticipation of such an order, shall be

added by the Clerk when determined.

(d) The Clerk’s file stamp and appropriate related information or markings shall be made on

the face of the envelope. Should the document be

ordered opened and maintained in that manner in

the case records, the actual date of filing will be

noted on the face of the document by the Clerk

and the envelope retained therewith.

(e) Sealed or confidential documents shall be

disposed of in accordance with Rule 79.2.

Eastern District of Oklahoma

No relevant local rule.

Northern District of Oklahoma

Analysis: The court must find that good cause exists before ordering that a document be placed

under seal. A sealed document may remain under

seal indefinitely; no durational limitations are imposed by this rule. Only the court or a court order

can unseal the document.

Northern District of Oklahoma Local Rule

79.1(D). Records Kept by the Court Clerk.

Sealing of Records.

No pleading, document, or record shall be

placed under seal without a prior, specific order

of the court finding good cause to do so. No seal

shall be lifted, except by the court, or by court order.

Western District of Oklahoma

Analysis: No restriction on the court’s authority to

seal a document. A sealed document may remain

sealed indefinitely; no durational limitations are

imposed by this rule.

Frequently Asked Questions

(www.okwd.uscourts.gov/faq). Filing

Documents.

What is the procedure for filing a motion/document

under seal?

When filing a motion/document under seal,

you should follow these steps:

• Place the motion/document to be sealed

in an open, large manila envelope.

• Prepare a cover motion requesting permission to file your motion/document

under seal.

• Attach the cover motion by stapling it

outside the envelope containing the motion/document to be sealed.

• File the motion/document to be sealed at

the intake counter. The intake clerk will

stamp both the documents and will immediately give it to the Chief Deputy

Clerk or the Operations Manager for

docketing and delivery to the presiding

judge or magistrate judge.

• Once the judge or magistrate judge has

ruled upon the cover motion to seal, the

sealed motion/document will be sealed

and placed in the vault or, in the case of

denial of the motion, will be placed in the

case file.

District of Oregon

Analysis: No restriction on the court’s authority to

seal a document. A sealed document may not remain sealed indefinitely. Unless a party submits

to the clerk a motion to return the sealed document within sixty days after a case is closed or

sixty days after an appeal is concluded, the

document will be unsealed before it is sent to the

Federal Records Center.

District of Oregon Local Rule 3.8. Sealed Cases.

(a) New Action. At the time a complaint is presented for filing, any party seeking to file the case

under seal, must either:

(1) File a motion and supporting memoranda requesting the court to seal the file.

Pending the court’s ruling on the motion to
Appendix B. Local Rules

B-21

seal, the case file and records will be withheld

from the public record; or

(2) Provide a citation to the authorizing

legislation (if any). Upon verification of the

legislation, the case file and associated records

will be sealed and withheld from the public record.

(b) Pending Action. A party seeking to place a

pending case under seal must file an appropriate

motion requesting the court to seal the file and all

associated electronic records.

(c) Court’s Responsibility. After reviewing the

motion and supporting materials, the court will

either:

(1) Grant the motion and direct the clerk to

file the case and all subsequent papers and

electronic records under seal, and to limit future access to the sealed case to those individuals included in the order; or

(2) Deny the motion and direct the clerk to

file the case in the public records of the court.

(d) Access to Sealed Cases. Subsequent access to

the sealed case will be regulated by controlling

statute or court order.

District of Oregon Local Rule 3.9. Sealed

Documents.

(a) Sealed Documents Generally. Portions of a

document cannot be placed under seal. Instead,

the entire document must be placed under seal in

order to protect confidential information.

(b) Filing a Document Sealed by Previous Court

Order. When a previous court order authorizes the

filing of a document or other materials under seal,

the filing party must present the clerk with a copy

of the court order and submit the materials in an

envelope provided by the clerk’s office marked

“SEALED MATERIALS”. In addition, all documents authorized to be filed under seal must have

the words “AUTHORIZED TO BE FILED UNDER

SEAL” typed directly below the document title.

(c) Motions to File a New Document Under Seal.

Motions to file a new document under seal—even

those offered by stipulation of the parties—will be

handled as in camera submissions pursuant to

L.R. 3.10.

(d) Motion to Seal Previously Filed Documents. A

party seeking to place under seal a document that

is currently in the public record, must file and

serve a motion and proposed order pursuant to

L.R. 3.9(e). Unless requested, the motion will be

treated as a discovery motion pursuant to L.R.

26.5.

(e) Order to Seal Documents and/or Cases. (See

L.R. 79.2.) A proposed order to seal a document or

case must include language that:

(1) Identifies the persons authorized to review, copy, photograph, and/or inspect the

sealed materials; and

(2) Instructs the clerk whether the document should be excluded from the electronic

docket as well as the public case file.

(f) E-Government Act of 2002. In accordance

with this rule, and the E-Government Act of 2002,

a party authorized to file a document under seal

may file an unredacted document which will be

retained by the court as part of the official record.

At the court’s direction, the filing party may also

be required to file a redacted copy of the sealed

document for inclusion in the public case file. (See

L.R. 10.3).

District of Oregon Local Rule 3.10. In Camera

Submissions.

(a) During Court Proceedings. Documents or

other materials offered and accepted for in camera

inspection during a court proceeding will be handled in accordance with L.R. 3.10(c).

(b) Tendered to the Clerk’s Office. Documents

tendered ex parte to the clerk’s office for transmission to the court and subsequent in camera

inspection, must be:

(1) Accompanied by a transmittal letter or

motion to the assigned judge requesting that

the materials be reviewed in camera; and

(2) Enclosed in a separate envelope provided by the clerk’s office and marked:

SEALED MATERIALS

For in Camera Inspection

(c) Court Responsibility. After completing the in

camera inspection, the court will direct the clerk’s

office to:

(1) File the documents or materials in the

public record; or

(2) File the documents under seal with appropriate disclosure instructions to the clerk;

or

(3) Direct that the documents should be

returned to the offering party with appropriate

instructions.

(d) Order Regulating Subsequent Disclosure. See

L.R. 3.9(e).
Sealed Settlement Agreements

B-22

District of Oregon Local Rule 3.11. Return of

Sealed Documents to the Public Record.

(a) Unsealing Documents and Cases. Because the

Federal Records Center prohibits storage of sealed

records or documents, the clerk must unseal all

documents and cases prior to shipment of any

record to the Federal Records Center.

(b) Application to Return Sealed Documents.

Therefore, not later than sixty (60) days after a

case is closed, or within sixty (60) days after the

conclusion of any appeal, any party may file and

serve a motion to have the clerk return a sealed

document.

(c) Authorization to Unseal Documents or Cases.

Unless otherwise restricted by federal law, and

absent an application pursuant to L.R. 3.11(b), the

clerk is authorized to unseal all previously sealed

civil documents and cases before a record is

shipped to the Federal Records Center.

District of Oregon Local Rule 100.17(c). Public

Access to Electronic Records. Sealed Documents.

(See also L.R. 3.9.) A motion to file documents

under seal may be filed electronically unless prohibited by law or otherwise ordered by the court.

The order of the court authorizing the filing of

documents under seal may be filed electronically

unless prohibited by law. Documents ordered to

be placed under seal must be filed conventionally

and not electronically. A paper copy of the order

must be attached to the documents filed under

seal and delivered to the clerk.

Eastern District of Pennsylvania

No relevant local rule.

Middle District of Pennsylvania

Analysis: No restriction on the court’s authority to

seal a document. A sealed document may not remain sealed indefinitely. Unless good cause is

shown, for all documents that are still under seal

after the case is terminated, the court will unseal

them no later than two years after the final judgment or the exhaustion of all appeals.

Middle District of Pennsylvania Local Rule 79.5.

Unsealing of Civil Cases/Documents.

Unless good cause is shown, all civil cases

and/or documents in those cases which still remain under seal after the case is terminated will

be unsealed by the court no later than two (2)

years after the final judgment and/or the exhaustion of all appeals.

Western District of Pennsylvania

No relevant local rule.

District of Puerto Rico

No relevant local rule.

District of Rhode Island

Analysis: No restriction on the court’s authority to

seal a document. A sealed document may remain

sealed indefinitely; no durational limitations are

imposed by this rule. The document will remain

under seal until the court vacates or amends the

order to seal.

District of Rhode Island Amended General

Order 2002-01 (January 31, 2003). Motions to

Seal.

A motion to seal shall be accompanied by the

document(s) sought to be sealed and a written

memorandum not exceeding 5 pages which sets

forth the basis for seeking an order to seal. Upon

receipt of a motion to seal and the supporting

memorandum, the clerk shall docket the items

received and transmit them immediately to the

chambers of the judge to whom the case has been

assigned. Any opposition to the motion to seal

likewise shall be docketed and transmitted to the

judge to whom the case has been assigned.

If the Court grants the motion to seal, all

documents sealed shall be placed in an envelope

and a copy of the Court’s order shall be affixed

thereto. The sealed envelope and its contents shall

be retained by the clerk in a secure location until

such time as the Court vacates or amends the order to seal. If the Court denies the motion to seal,

the document shall be placed in the Court file in

accordance with this Order and the Local Rules.

District of South Carolina

Analysis: Local rules prohibit the sealing of a settlement agreement, but local rules can be suspended for good cause.

District of South Carolina Local Civil Rule 1.02.

Suspension or Modification.

For good cause shown in a particular case, the

Court may suspend or modify any Local Civil

Rule.
Appendix B. Local Rules

B-23

District of South Carolina Local Civil Rule 5.03.

Filing Documents Under Seal.

Absent a requirement to seal in the governing

rule, statute, or order, any party seeking to file

documents under seal shall follow the mandatory

procedure described below. Failure to obtain prior

approval as required by this Rule shall result in

summary denial of any request or attempt to seal

filed documents. Nothing in this Rule limits the

ability of the parties, by agreement, to restrict access to documents which are not filed with the

Court. See Local Civil Rule 26.08.

(A) A party seeking to file documents under

seal shall file and serve a “Motion to Seal” accompanied by a memorandum. See Local Civil Rule

7.04. The memorandum shall:

(1) identify, with specificity, the documents

or portions thereof for which sealing is requested;

(2) state the reasons why sealing is necessary;

(3) explain (for each document or group of

documents) why less drastic alternatives to

sealing will not afford adequate protection;

and

(4) address the factors governing sealing of

documents reflected in controlling case law.

E.g., Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288 (4th

Cir. 2000); and In re Knight Publishing Co., 743

F.2d 231 (4th Cir. 1984). A non-confidential descriptive index of the documents at issue shall

be attached to the motion. A separately sealed

attachment labeled “Confidential Information

to be Submitted to Court in Connection with

Motion to Seal” shall be submitted with the

motion. This attachment shall contain the

documents at issue for the Court’s in camera

review and shall not be filed. The Court’s

docket shall reflect that the motion and memorandum were filed and were supported by a

sealed attachment submitted for in camera review.

(B) The Clerk shall provide public notice of the

Motion to Seal in the manner directed by the

Court. Absent direction to the contrary, this may

be accomplished by docketing the motion in a

manner that discloses its nature as a motion to

seal.

(C) No settlement agreement filed with the

court shall be sealed pursuant to the terms of this

Rule.

District of South Dakota

No relevant local rule.

Eastern District of Tennessee

Analysis: The court must find that good cause exists before ordering a document to be placed under seal. Unless the court, upon motion, orders

otherwise, a document filed under seal will be

unsealed and placed in the case file thirty days

following final disposition (including direct appeal) of the action. If the court orders that a

document is to be maintained under seal longer

than thirty days, the court order must set a date

for unsealing the document.

Eastern District of Tennessee Local Rule 26.2.

Sealing of Court Records.

(a) Public Record. Except as otherwise provided

by statute, rule or order, all pleadings and other

papers of any nature filed with the Court (“Court

Records”) shall become a part of the public record

of this court.

(b) Procedure. Court Records or portions

thereof shall not be placed under seal unless and

except to the extent that the person seeking the

sealing thereof shall have first obtained, for good

cause shown, an order of the Court specifying

those Court Records, categories of Court Records,

or portions thereof which shall be placed under

seal. The Court may, in its discretion, receive and

review any document in camera without public

disclosure thereof and, in connection with any

such review, determine whether good cause exists

for the sealing of the document. Unless the Court

orders otherwise, the parties shall file with the

Court redacted versions of any Court Record

where only a portion thereof is to be placed under

seal.

(c) Criminal Matters. . . .

(d) Expiration of Order. Court Records filed under seal in civil and criminal actions shall be

maintained under seal for thirty (30) days following final disposition (including direct appeal)

of the action. After that time, all sealed court records shall be unsealed and placed in the case file

unless the Court, upon motion, orders that the

Court Records be maintained under seal beyond

the thirty (30) days. All such orders shall set a

date for the unsealing of the Court Records.

Middle District of Tennessee

No relevant local rule.

Western District of Tennessee

No relevant local rule.
Sealed Settlement Agreements

B-24

Eastern District of Texas

Analysis: No restriction on the court’s authority to

seal a document. A sealed document may not remain sealed indefinitely. Thirty days after the civil

action has been finally disposed of by the appellate courts or thirty days from the date the appeal

time lapsed, the clerk may destroy the paper

original of the document after scanning. The clerk

will maintain the database and prevent unauthorized access to the scanned document for the

foreseeable future.

Eastern District of Texas Local Rule CV-79(a).

Books and Records Kept by the Clerk.

Disposition of Exhibits and/or Sealed

Documents by the Clerk.

Thirty days after a civil action has been finally

disposed of by the appellate courts or from the

date the appeal time lapsed, the clerk is authorized to take the following actions:

(1) Exhibits. . . .

(2) Sealed documents. Scan the original

documents into electronic images that are

stored on the court’s computer system in lieu

of maintaining the original paper copies. The

clerk shall ensure that the database of scanned

images is maintained for the foreseeable future, and that no unauthorized access of the

stored images occurs. Once a document has

been scanned, the paper original will be destroyed.

Northern District of Texas

Analysis: No restriction on the court’s authority to

seal a document. A sealed document may not remain sealed indefinitely. Unless the court orders

otherwise, a sealed document will be unsealed

sixty days after final disposition of the case.

Northern District of Texas Local Rule 79.3.

Ex Parte and Sealed Documents.

(a) Unless exempted by subsection (b) of this

rule—

(1) An ex parte document, or a document

that a party desires to be filed under seal, shall

not be filed by the clerk under seal absent an

order of a judge of the court directing the clerk

to file the document under seal. The term

“document,” as used in this rule, means any

pleading, motion, other paper, or physical item

that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit or require to be filed.

(2) A party who desires to file a document

under seal must at the time the document is

presented to the clerk for filing either present a

motion to file the document under seal or

demonstrate that a judge has ordered that the

document be filed under seal. If no judge has

been assigned to a case in which a motion is

filed, the clerk may direct the motion to the

duty judge or to another judge of the court for

consideration.

(3) The clerk of court shall defer filing an ex

parte document, or document that a party desires to be filed under seal, until a judge of the

court has ruled on the motion to file the document under seal.

(b) The clerk shall file under seal any document that a statute or rule requires or permits to

be so filed.

Northern District of Texas Local Rule 79.4.

Disposition of Sealed Documents.

Unless an order of the court otherwise directs,

all sealed documents will be deemed unsealed 60

days after final disposition of a case. A party who

desires that such a document remain sealed must

move for this relief before the expiration of the 60-

day period. The clerk may store, transfer, or otherwise dispose of unsealed documents according

to the procedure that governs publicly available

court records.

Southern District of Texas

No relevant local rule.

Western District of Texas

No relevant local rule.

District of Utah

Analysis: The court must find that good cause has

been shown before ordering a document to be

sealed. A sealed document may not remain under

seal indefinitely. Unless otherwise ordered by the

court, a sealed document will be unsealed upon

final disposition of the case.

District of Utah Local Civil Rule 5–2. Filing

Cases and Documents Under Court Seal.

(a) General Rule. On motion of one or more

parties and a showing of good cause, the court or,

upon referral, a magistrate judge may order all or

a portion of the documents filed in a civil case to

be sealed.

(b) Sealing of New Cases.
Appendix B. Local Rules

B-25

(1) On Ex Parte Motion. A case may be

sealed at the time it is filed upon ex parte motion of the plaintiff or petitioner and execution

by the court of a written order. The case will be

listed on the clerk’s case index as Sealed Plaintiff

vs. Sealed Defendant.

(2) Civil Actions for False Claims. When an

individual files a civil action on behalf of the

individual and the government alleging a violation of 31 U.S.C. §!3729, the clerk will seal the

complaint for a minimum of sixty (60) days.

Extensions may be approved by the court on

motion of the government.

(c) Sealing of Pending Cases. A pending case

may be sealed at any time upon motion of either

party and execution by the court of a written order. Unless the court otherwise orders, neither the

clerk’s automated case index nor the existing case

docket will be modified.

(d) Procedure for Filing Documents Under Seal.

Documents ordered sealed by the court or otherwise required to be sealed by statute must be

placed unfolded in an envelope with a copy of the

cover page of the document affixed to the outside

of the envelope. The pleading caption on the

cover page must include a notation that the

document is being filed under court seal. The

sealed document, together with a judge’s copy

prepared in the same manner, must be filed with

the clerk. No document may be designated by any

party as Filed under Seal or Confidential unless:

(1) it is accompanied by a court order sealing the document;

(2) it is being filed in a case that the court

has ordered sealed; or

(3) it contains material that is the subject of

a protective order entered by the court.

(e) Access to Sealed Cases and Documents. Unless

otherwise ordered by the court, the clerk will provide access to cases and document under court

seal only on court order. Unless otherwise ordered by the court, the clerk will make no copies

of sealed case files or documents.

(f) Disposition of Sealed Documents. Unless otherwise ordered by the court, any case file or

documents under court seal that have not previously been unsealed by court order will be unsealed at the time of final disposition of the case.

District of Vermont

Analysis: No restriction on the court’s authority to

seal a document. A sealed document may remain

sealed indefinitely; no durational limitations are

imposed by this rule.

District of Vermont Local Rule 83.8. Sealed

Documents.

(a) Order Required. All official files in the possession of the court are considered to be public

documents available for inspection unless otherwise ordered. Cases or documents cannot be

sealed without an order from the court.

(b) Filing Procedure. To request that a filing be

sealed, a separate Motion to Seal must accompany

the specific item to be sealed.

(c) Documents Filed Under Protective Order. Any

party filing a prospectively sealed document must

place the document in a sealed envelope and affix

a copy of the document’s cover page (with confidential information deleted) to the outside of the

envelope. The party must designate the envelope

with a conspicuous notation such as “DOCUMENTS SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER,” or

the equivalent.

District Court for the Virgin Islands

No relevant local rule.

Eastern District of Virginia

No relevant local rule.

Western District of Virginia

Analysis: No restriction on the court’s authority to

seal a document. A sealed document may not remain sealed indefinitely. Unless a district judge or

magistrate judge expressly orders otherwise, a

sealed document will be unsealed within thirty

days of the date that it was ordered sealed.

Western District of Virginia Local Rules,

Part XIII.A. Standing Order in re Unsealing of

Documents Placed Under Seal with the Court.

This Standing Order governs the unsealing of

documents, pleadings and files (except presentence reports, pretrial service reports, psychiatric

and psychological reports and any other matter

required by statute or rule of court to be sealed)

placed under seal with the Court in criminal, civil

or miscellaneous matters unless the provisions of

this Order are expressly countermanded by a

District Judge or Magistrate Judge in a matter

pending before him or her. Nothing in this

Standing Order shall be construed to prevent a

District Judge or Magistrate Judge from expressly

excepting a document, pleading or file pending

before him or her from this Standing Order. This

Standing Order is not retroactive.
Sealed Settlement Agreements

B-26

Unless a District Judge or Magistrate Judge of

this Court expressly orders to the contrary in a

matter pending before him or her, it is hereby

ORDERED as follows as to documents, pleadings

and files that have been ordered sealed:

(1) search warrants are to be unsealed

within twenty-four (24) hours of execution;

(2) arrest warrants are to be unsealed after

execution;

(3) indictments are to be unsealed within

thirty (30) days of return of the indictment or

when all defendants are in custody or summoned, whichever is sooner;

(4) criminal complaints are to be unsealed

within thirty (30) days of issuance or when all

defendants are in custody or summoned,

whichever is sooner;

(5) motions to seal shall be unsealed when

the documents, pleadings or files to which they

pertain are unsealed;

(6) all other documents, pleadings and files

are to be unsealed within thirty (30) days from

the date of the order to seal; and

(7) each defendant shall be provided an unredacted copy of the charges against him or her

even if the matter is otherwise sealed.

Unless a District Judge or Magistrate Judge expressly orders to the contrary in a matter pending

before him or her, the sealing of any document,

pleading or file shall be considered only upon

written motion.

It is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the

Court shall maintain a list of sealed matters assigned to each District Judge and Magistrate

Judge for that Judge’s review.

The Clerk is directed to enter this order in the

order books for each division of this Court and to

send certified copies to the District Judges, Magistrate Judges and United States Attorney for this

District.

ENTERED this 19th day of December 1997.

Eastern District of Washington

No relevant local rule.

Western District of Washington

Analysis: In order to seal a document, the court

must find that the strong presumption in favor of

public access to the court’s files and records has

been overcome by a compelling showing that the

interests of the public and the parties in protecting

the document from public review outweigh this

presumption. A sealed document may not remain

sealed indefinitely. If the court has ordered only

the document in a civil action to be placed under

seal, the court will return the sealed document to

the submitting counsel or party after the case has

terminated and the time for appeal has run. In

civil actions in which the court ordered that the

entire case file, including the document, be placed

under seal, the court will destroy the sealed case

file after the case has terminated, the time for appeal has run, and the parties have been given

sixty days’ notice.

Western District of Washington Local Civil Rule

5(g). Service and Filing of Pleadings and Other

Papers. Sealing of Court Records.

(1) This rule sets forth a uniform procedure for

sealing court files, cases, records, exhibits, specified documents, or materials in a court file or record. There is a strong presumption of public access to the court’s files and records which may be

overcome only on a compelling showing that the

public’s right of access is outweighed by the interests of the public and the parties in protecting

files, records, or documents from public review.

Nothing in this rule shall be construed to expand

or restrict statutory provisions for the sealing of

files, records, or documents.

(2) The court may order the sealing of any files

and records on motion of any party, on stipulation and order, or on the court’s own motion. If no

defendant has appeared in the case, the motion to

seal may be presented ex parte. The law requires,

and the motion and the proposed order shall include, a clear statement of the facts justifying a

seal and overcoming the strong presumption in

favor of public access.

(3) Each document to be filed under seal must

be submitted in a separate envelope, clearly identifying the enclosed document and stating that the

document is “FILED UNDER SEAL.” For example, if both the motion and the accompanying affidavit should be filed under seal, the two documents must be submitted in separate, clearly

marked envelopes so that each may be entered on

the docket. If only one exhibit or document needs

to be filed under seal, only that exhibit or document should be submitted in an envelope.

(4) Sealed files and records, or any part thereof,

shall remain sealed until the court orders unsealing on stipulation of the parties, motion by any

party or intervenor, or the court’s own motion.

Any party opposing the unsealing must make a

compelling showing that the interests of the parties in protecting files, records, or documents from
Appendix B. Local Rules

B-27

public review continue to outweigh the public’s

right of access.

(5) If the court orders the sealing of any files or

documents pursuant to the above provisions, the

clerk shall:

(A) file the order to seal;

(B) seal the file, record, or documents designated in the order to seal and secure it from

public access;

(C) in civil actions in which only portions of

the file have been placed under seal, return

sealed documents to the submitting counsel or

party after the case has concluded and the time

for appeal has run;

(D) in civil actions in which the entire file

has been placed under seal, destroy the sealed

file after the case has concluded, the time for

appeal has run, and the parties have been

given sixty days’ notice of the proposed destruction.

Northern District of West Virginia

No relevant local rule.

Southern District of West Virginia

No relevant local rule.

Eastern District of Wisconsin

Analysis: No restriction on the court’s authority to

seal a document. A sealed document may remain

sealed indefinitely; no durational limitations are

imposed by this rule.

Eastern District of Wisconsin General Local

Rule 79.4. Confidential Matters.

(a) Grand Jury Proceedings. . . .

(b) All documents which a judge or magistrate

judge has ordered to be treated as confidential

must be filed in a sealed envelope conspicuously

marked “SEALED”.

(c) Subject to General L.R. 83.9(c) and Civil L.R.

26.4, the Court will consider all documents to

have been filed publicly unless they are accompanied by a separate motion requesting that the

documents, or portions thereof, be sealed by the

Court.

(d) All documents which a party seeks to have

treated as confidential, but as to which no sealing

order has been entered, must be filed in a sealed

envelope conspicuously marked “Request for

Confidentiality Pending,” together with a motion

requesting an appropriate order. The separate

motion for sealing must be publicly filed and

must generally identify the documents contained

in the sealed envelope. The documents must be

transmitted by the Clerk of Court in a sealed envelope to the judge or magistrate judge, together

with the moving papers. If the motion is denied,

the documents must be filed by the Clerk of Court

in an open file, unless otherwise ordered by the

judge or magistrate judge assigned to the case.

Western District of Wisconsin

No relevant local rule.

District of Wyoming

No relevant local rule.
This page is left blank intentionally to facilitate printing of the document double-sided.
C-1

Appendix C

Descriptions of Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

An examination of 288,846 federal civil cases terminated in 2001 and 2002 in 52 districts revealed 1,270 cases with sealed settlement agreements, a rate of 0.44%. Descriptions of these

cases follow.24 For each district we briefly summarize local rules and practices and provide statistics on how many cases we searched to find sealed settlement agreements. Districts are presented in alphabetical order; cases are presented within a district in order of filing date. Consolidated and companion cases are counted separately, but described together.

 

24. Each case description reflects the status of the case file at the time of review, some time in 2002–2004. Matters

pending at the time of review (appeals, for example) may have been resolved between the time of review and the

conclusion of the study.

Middle District of Alabama

No relevant local rule.

Statistics: 3,237 cases in termination cohort; 80

docket sheets (2.5%) have the word “seal” in

them; 4 complete docket sheets (0.12%) were reviewed; actual documents were examined for 3

cases (0.09%); 3 cases (0.09%) appear to have

sealed settlement agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

Principal Financial Group v. Principal Equity

Mortgage Inc. (AL-M 2:00-cv-00326 filed

03/16/2000).

Action seeking injunctive and monetary relief for

trademark infringement, dilution, unfair competition, and counterfeiting. After the parties agreed

to settle and submit a final judgment and permanent injunction by consent to the court, the court

ordered the parties to submit a joint stipulation of

dismissal. The plaintiffs requested more time to

finalize the settlement terms and inadvertently

attached exhibits containing draft settlement papers, which were filed with the court. Because the

draft settlement papers contained confidential

information, the plaintiffs moved to have them

sealed. The court granted the motion, and the

parties filed under seal the settlement documents

and the final judgment and permanent injunction

by consent. The court approved the judgment and

permanent injunction, ordered the clerk to ensure

that they remain sealed, and retained jurisdiction

over the case as needed to enforce the settlement.

The case was closed but remains on the court’s

administrative docket.

Robson v. Dale County Board of Education (AL-M

1:00-cv-01037 filed 08/02/2000).

Civil rights action by a substitute teacher for retaliation for exercising her First Amendment freedom of speech. The parties settled, and the court

granted the parties’ joint stipulation to dismiss

with prejudice the individual defendants (the

principal and the school superintendent). The settlement agreement with the remaining defendant

school board apparently was filed under seal, because the docket sheet indicates that after the

court granted the parties’ sealed joint motion to

seal, the case was closed pursuant to a sealed order and a document was filed under seal the same

day.

Johnson v. Dothan Coca Cola Bottling Enterprises

(AL-M 1:01-cv-00901 filed 07/20/2001).

Employment civil rights action by a black employee against a bottling company for race discrimination and retaliation. The parties settled,

the court ordered costs to be taxed against the

defendant, and the case was dismissed with

prejudice. The defendant contested the bill of cost

filed by the plaintiff and moved to file the parties’

confidential settlement agreement under seal to

show that the parties had an agreement with respect to the payment of costs. The court granted

the motion, and the defendant filed a copy of the

confidential settlement agreement for in camera

review by the court. Prior to an evidentiary hearing, the parties agreed to split payment of the

costs, and the court closed the case.
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-2

Northern District of Alabama

No relevant local rule.

Statistics: 7,042 cases in termination cohort; 3

docket sheets are sealed (0.04%)—all of these

cases’ disposition codes suggest sealed settlement

agreements;25 745 unsealed docket sheets (11%)

have the word “seal” in them; 26 complete docket

sheets (0.37%) were reviewed; actual documents

were examined for 24 cases (0.34%); 26 cases

(0.37%) appear to have sealed settlement agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

Woodruff v. City of Birmingham (AL-N 2:96-cv02196 filed 08/21/1996).

Employment civil rights action for sex discrimination and retaliation by a female buildings inspector employed by the city. Pursuant to a sealed

court order, judgment was entered for the plaintiff and the defendant was ordered to comply

with the terms contained in the sealed order. Because no motion preceded the order, the sealed

order probably incorporated the terms of a settlement agreement reached by the parties. Four

years later, the plaintiff brought a motion to enforce the court order still under seal and a motion

for contempt against the defendant. The court denied the plaintiff’s motions and the case was

closed.

Robinson v. Boohaker Schillaci (AL-N 2:96-cv-03198

filed 12/09/1996).

Contract action by a former shareholder/director/employee for breach of several agreements

made with the defendant accounting corporation,

including a buy–sell agreement. The defendant

filed a counterclaim alleging that the plaintiff’s

breach of a non-compete provision was the reason

for its refusal to honor the terms of its agreement.

After a jury trial had commenced, the parties settled. Settlement terms were stated on the record,

and the transcript was sealed. The case was dismissed.

Cahaba Pressure-Treated Forest Products v. OM

Group (AL-N 7:97-cv-01917 filed 07/25/1997).

Fraud action. The docket sheet is sealed. The case

was dismissed as settled.

 

25. Three cases settled.

Thomasson Lumber Co. v. Cahaba Pressure-Treated

Forest Products (AL-N 7:98-cv-00043 filed

01/08/1998).

Contract action. The docket sheet is sealed. The

case was dismissed as settled.

Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance

Co. v. Cahaba Pressure-Treated Forest Products (ALN 2:98-cv-01261 filed 05/19/1998).

Insurance action. The docket sheet is sealed. The

case was dismissed as settled.

Jones v. Samford University (AL-N 2:98-cv-02530

filed 10/06/1998).

Employment civil rights class action by female

faculty and staff members alleging sex discrimination by the defendant university in compensation, tenure, hiring, and promotion. The court denied certification of the case as a class action. The

parties settled, and the court dismissed the case

with prejudice. The court sealed the transcript of

the settlement proceedings.

Faddis v. Roehuf Restaurants Inc. (AL-N 2:99-cv01214 filed 05/13/1999).

Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act

alleging that the defendant restaurant discriminated against female employees regarding wages.

In addition, allegations of race and age discrimination, retaliation, and failure to pay overtime

wages were brought by named plaintiffs. The

court denied class certification. A settlement apparently was reached, because two weeks after

the court dismissed the case with prejudice, the

defendant moved to enforce the settlement and

for sanctions. The court denied the defendant’s

motions and ordered the clerk to place the defendant’s motion to enforce the settlement under

seal. The case was closed.

Martin v. Davenport AME Zion Church (AL-N 4:99-

cv-01908 filed 07/23/1999).

Personal injury action by a minor and her mother

for molestation of the minor by the defendant

pastor. The parties settled, and the case was dismissed without prejudice. Less than a month later

the parties moved to reopen the case to accept the

parties’ petition for pro ami settlement to effectuate the settlement that involves the minor. Pro ami

proceedings were held. The court filed its order

regarding the proposed settlement and final

judgment under seal.
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-3

Smith v. Cohen (AL-N 5:99-cv-02907 filed

10/29/1999).

Employment civil rights action against the Department of Defense for sex and race discrimination against a black female employee and retaliation for participation in the EEO process. The

parties reached a confidential settlement agreement, which was sealed. The case was dismissed

without prejudice.

Hawkins v. Electronic Data Systems Corp. (AL-N

2:99-cv-03451 filed 12/30/1999).

Employment discrimination action by black employees. The plaintiffs also brought claims under

the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime

compensation. The parties negotiated a settlement

agreement at a mediation session. Two weeks

later the defendant moved to enforce the settlement agreement. Attached exhibits that contained

the terms of the settlement agreement were filed

under seal. The court granted the defendant’s

motion and the parties’ stipulation to dismiss the

case with prejudice.

IMI International Medical Innovations Inc. v. MQS

Inc. (AL-N 2:00-cv-00131 filed 01/14/2000).

Contract action for incomplete performance. The

case settled, and the court granted the plaintiff’s

motion to place the confidential settlement

agreement under seal. The court also sealed a

consent judgment.

DeSanto v. Howard (AL-N 2:00-cv-00171 filed

01/20/2000).

Personal injury action on behalf of a minor for

inappropriate contact by an intoxicated passenger

during a flight on the defendant airline. The parties settled. The court granted the defendant’s

motion to allow the filing of all future pleadings

under seal until a proposed settlement was approved by the court, because the claims were filed

on behalf of a minor. In support of its motion, the

defendant disclosed that confidentiality of the

settlement amount was a material element upon

which it relied. The plaintiff’s motion to approve

the proposed settlement and the report of the

guardian ad litem were filed under seal. The court

approved the pro ami settlement and dismissed

the case.

McWhorter v. Lawson State Community College (ALN 2:00-cv-00401 filed 02/17/2000).

Employment action by a female professor against

the defendant university for sex discrimination

and retaliation. The parties settled during courtordered mediation, and the court dismissed the

case without prejudice, retaining jurisdiction to

enforce the parties’ settlement agreement. The

court ordered the mediation agreement, which

was filed with the court, to be placed under seal.

Farr v. Newell Rubbermaid Inc. (AL-N 5:00-cv-00997

filed 04/18/2000).

Product liability action by a minor. The specific

allegations of this case are not known because, as

the assigned judge’s docket clerk confirmed, the

entire case file is sealed. The docket sheet indicates that the parties settled and that the settlement agreement was sealed. In addition, following a pro ami hearing, the court filed under seal a

confidential order and approval of the minor’s

settlement. The court ordered the contents of the

file sealed to preserve confidentiality. The case

was closed.

Shrader v. Mallard (AL-N 4:00-cv-01050 filed

04/21/2000).

Civil rights action for sexual abuse by city jail employees while the plaintiff was detained following

arrest. The parties settled, and the case was dismissed without prejudice. Four months later the

parties filed a joint motion to seal the settlement

agreement to maintain its confidentiality for the

benefit of the parties’ reputations. The court

granted the joint motion, and the settlement

agreement was sealed, with the exception that it

could be produced to plaintiff’s counsel in a separate suit against the same defendant.

Livingston v. City of Attalla (AL-N 4:00-cv-01989

filed 07/18/2000).

Personal injury action for sexual abuse by city jail

employees. The parties settled and the case was

dismissed without prejudice. Four months later

the parties filed a joint motion to seal the settlement agreement to maintain its confidentiality for

the benefit of the parties’ reputations. The court

granted the joint motion and filed the settlement

agreement under seal.

Bell v. Jacksonville City Board of Education (AL-N

1:00-cv-02035 filed 07/21/2000).

Employment action by a female teacher against

the board of education for sex and age discrimination in repeatedly denying the plaintiff promotions. Prior to opening statements at a jury trial,

the parties announced settlement of all pending

claims and issues. The terms of settlement were
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-4

read into the record, and the settlement portion of

the transcript was sealed. The case was dismissed,

and the court reserved jurisdiction for thirty days

for the filing of motions to enforce the settlement.

Jordan v. API Outdoors Inc. (AL-N 2:00-cv-02059

filed 07/24/2000).

Product liability action for serious injuries sustained in a fall when a climbing belt designed and

manufactured by the defendant suddenly failed.

The parties settled, and the court ordered the case

dismissed without prejudice, retaining jurisdiction over the parties to enforce their settlement

agreement. The court ordered that the parties’

stipulation regarding the settlement agreement be

filed under seal. The court granted the parties’

stipulation to dismiss the case with prejudice.

EEOC v. Employers Mutual Casualty Co. (AL-N

2:00-cv-02605 filed 09/15/2000).

Employment action on behalf of a female employee of the defendant insurance company for

failure to promote her because of her sex. The

parties settled, and the defendant moved to allow

the parties to file under seal the settlement agreement and the general release that was referenced

in the proposed consent decree filed with the

court. The court granted the defendant’s motion.

The court ordered the clerk to close the file, but

the court retained jurisdiction either for the next

four months to resolve any dispute that might

arise out of administration of the consent decree,

or until the defendant certified that the payment

and training required under the consent decree

were completed, whichever occurred first.

Brockway v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (AL-N 5:00-cv02970 filed 10/19/2000).

Employment action by a female employee for sex

discrimination and sexual harassment. The defendant filed a motion to enforce a settlement

agreement. Exhibits and a brief in support of the

motion were filed under seal. The plaintiff’s response to the motion also was filed under seal.

The court denied the motion after an evidentiary

hearing. All claims against the defendant were

dismissed by summary judgment.

Reifenentsforgumsgesell Schaft mbH v. Oxy Tire Inc.

(AL-N 2:00-cv-02977 filed 10/20/2000).

Contract action for breach of an agreement to

make timely payments for tires and not to sell

tires to certain countries. The parties settled, and

the court granted their request to enter judgment

against the defendant under seal and for the

judgment to remain under seal until the defendant defaulted in payment. The case was dismissed with prejudice. Seven months later the

court granted the plaintiff’s motion to unseal the

judgment because the defendant failed to make

the second installment payment.

Hill v. CVS Rx Services Inc. (AL-N 2:00-cv-03355

filed 11/21/2000).

Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act

by CVS pharmacists for failure to pay overtime

wages. The parties settled and filed their confidential settlement and release agreement under

seal with the court. The court also sealed the transcript of the fairness hearing and settlement conference. The court approved the settlement of

class claims and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Wilson v. Saks Inc. (AL-N 2:01-cv-00237 filed

01/24/2001).

Employment action by a black employee for race

discrimination and retaliatory discharge. The

parties agreed on a confidential settlement

agreement. Six days later the defendant moved to

enforce the settlement agreement with sealed exhibits attached (letters confirming the settlement).

The court granted the motion and dismissed the

case.

Estate of Westboro v. PGT Trucking Inc. (AL-N 5:01-

cv-00498 filed 02/23/2001).

Motor vehicle action for the wrongful killing of a

driver (father) and a passenger (daughter), and

for severe injuries sustained by another minor

passenger (another daughter) when a tractortrailer collided head on with the plaintiffs’ vehicle. The parties settled. The plaintiffs filed under

seal a motion for an order approving the pro ami

settlement pertaining to the minor plaintiff. The

court approved the terms of the pro ami settlement

and granted the parties’ stipulation and order of

dismissal with prejudice.

Holcombe v. Therapeutic Programs Inc. (AL-N 2:01-

cv-00918 filed 04/13/2001).

Employment action for racial discrimination and

wrongful termination by a black employee of a

corporation providing foster care services to the

state of Alabama. The parties apparently settled,

because the defendant moved to enforce the settlement. The court sealed the transcript of the

hearing on the motion to enforce the settlement
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-5

agreement. The court’s order dismissing the case

with prejudice also was sealed.

EMCO Building Products Inc. v. ARES Corp. (AL-N

5:01-cv-01226 filed 05/14/2001).

Contract action for failure to pay a balance due for

goods. After a jury trial had commenced, the case

settled, and the settlement agreement as dictated

into the court record was sealed. The court filed

under seal a judgment by agreement of the parties

terminating the case. The court granted the plaintiff’s request to unseal the agreed order and

judgment for the limited purpose of allowing it to

be registered and recorded in another judicial

district.

Southern District of Alabama

No relevant local rule.

Statistics: 2,015 cases in termination cohort; 1

docket sheet is sealed (0.05%)—this case’s disposition code suggests no sealed settlement agreement;26 78 unsealed docket sheets (3.9%) have the

word “seal” in them; 22 complete docket sheets

(1.1%) were reviewed; actual documents were

examined for 9 cases (0.45%); 9 cases (0.45%) appear to have sealed settlement agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

In re Amtrak “Sunset Limited” Train Crash (AL-S

1:94-cv-05000, MDL 1003 filed 03/02/1994),

multidistrict litigation including Schmidt v. CSX

Transportation Inc. (AL-S 1:94-cv-05015 filed

03/02/1994) and Procaccini v. CSX Transportation

Co. (AL-S 1:94-cv-05017 filed 03/03/1994).

Personal injury and wrongful death actions arising from the “Sunset Limited” passenger train

derailment and crash into Big Bayou Canot on

September 22, 1993. The train struck a bridge

girder displaced by the collision of a towboat and

barges with the railroad bridge over Big Bayou

Canot in Alabama. Cases filed by or on behalf of

injured or deceased passengers or crew members

were transferred by the MDL panel to the Southern District of Alabama and consolidated for pretrial purposes. A master file was created for all

pretrial proceedings and assigned docket numbers MDL 1003 and AL-S 94-05000.

The defendants were ordered to submit under

seal lists of all settlements, and each settlement

agreement was to be disclosed only if all parties to

it agreed. In December 1998, a global settlement

 

26. One voluntary dismissal.

was reached in the remaining 42 wrongful death

actions, but it was contingent upon all of the

wrongful death plaintiffs’ approving the settlement. Each plaintiff’s attorney previously settling

a wrongful death case with one of the defendants

was ordered to complete a “confidential case settlement questionnaire” and file it under seal with

the court, after which the plaintiff’s attorney

would receive the terms of the proposed confidential global settlement and other necessary settlement documents. After all plaintiffs executed

the appropriate releases, and the defendants filed

a notice of their receipt, the plaintiff steering

committee filed under seal a request for disbursement of the settlement funds. All forty-two

remaining wrongful death actions were dismissed

in March 1999.

Case 94-05015 was brought by a minor, and

case 94-05017 was brought by the minor’s mother.

One of the defendants filed a motion to enforce a

settlement in these two cases, which was later

placed under seal by the court; the court denied

the motion, and a jury trial was held in these two

cases. In both cases final judgment was entered

for the plaintiffs against one defendant and in favor of another defendant who had been granted

summary judgment. The court dismissed the remaining claims in both cases pursuant to a sealed

settlement agreement.

Strong v. City of Selma (AL-S 2:98-cv-00191 filed

02/27/1998).

Civil rights class action for police brutality against

black men. The court dismissed the case as settled.

Three days later the case was reopened, and the

court gave the parties twenty days to file under

seal a jointly proposed consent order embodying

the terms of the confidential settlement agreement. The case was closed upon entry of the

sealed consent order.

O’Gwynn v. Foley Police Department (AL-S 1:00-cv00273 filed 03/31/2000).

Action by a mentally ill plaintiff for civil rights

violations during her detention at the city jail.

After summary judgment for the city, the plaintiff

and the police officer entered into a confidential

settlement agreement. Because the plaintiff was

committed and found to be incompetent, a pro ami

hearing was required under state law to determine the fairness of the settlement. The court

granted the guardian ad litem’s request to seal the

motion to approve the settlement agreement. The

court approved the settlement agreement and

dismissed the case.
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-6

Huber v. Tillman (AL-S 1:01-cv-00019 filed

01/05/2001).

Employment action by a female police officer for

sex discrimination and retaliation, including retaliation for a previous religious discrimination

charge. After summary judgment for the defendant on the retaliation claim, the parties reached a

confidential settlement agreement. The plaintiff

filed a motion to enforce it. Because the terms of

the settlement were confidential, the court ordered the plaintiff to file under seal a supplemental motion setting forth the terms of the settlement agreement and the basis for her claim. A

notice of voluntary dismissal was filed before the

court ruled on the motion to enforce the settlement agreement.

Curry v. Kimberly Clark Paper Co. (AL-S 1:01-cv00445 filed 06/20/2001).

Action under the National Labor Relations Act

and the Labor and Management Relations Act

arising out of theft of property from the plaintiff’s

place of employment. The court dismissed the

case as settled and gave the parties thirty days to

perfect their agreement. The plaintiff moved to

enforce the settlement agreement after refusing to

sign the general release. The defendants moved to

enforce the settlement agreement and the general

release. The motions were filed under seal pursuant to a confidentiality provision of the proposed

settlement agreement. The parties agreed that the

court’s resolution of the settlement dispute would

end the case. The court denied both motions. Pursuant to inherent authority to enforce settlements,

the court ordered the plaintiff to sign a release

and the defendants to pay the undisputed settlement amount.

EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (AL-S 1:01-cv-00522

filed 07/19/2001).

Employment action on behalf of female Wal-Mart

employees for sexual harassment and retaliation

for reporting the harassment to supervisory employees. In July 2002, the parties notified the court

that the action had settled, and the court dismissed the case with prejudice. The settlement

agreement included a confidential release. The

transcript of the settlement agreement apparently

was sealed, because in January 2003, the court

granted the defendant’s motion to unseal it.

Williams v. Davis & Feder PA (AL-S 1:02-cv-00188

filed 03/21/2002).

Legal malpractice action concerning the plaintiff’s

claim for medical complications caused by a diet

drug. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants’

false representations induced her to accept an inadequate settlement that did not compensate her

for an undiscovered serious heart condition. Following settlement and a voluntary dismissal, the

defendants moved for relief from judgment and to

submit evidence under seal. The court ordered

sealed all documents related to the defendants’

motion. The court granted the defendants’ motion

for relief from judgment and ordered the parties

to conform to the terms of the settlement agreement and release. The parties agreed that the

court should have continuing jurisdiction over

any alleged breach of the settlement agreement or

violation of its terms. The case was dismissed

with prejudice.

District of Arizona

Documents may remain sealed for no more than

23 years. D. Ariz. L.R. 1.3(d)-(f).

Statistics: 6,604 cases in termination cohort; 18

docket sheets are sealed (0.27%)—all of these

cases’ disposition codes suggest no sealed settlement agreements;27 347 unsealed docket sheets

(5.3%) have the word “seal” in them; 32 complete

docket sheets (0.48%) were reviewed; actual

documents were examined for 21 cases (0.32%); 18

cases (0.27%) appear to have sealed settlement

agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

Grimes v. Golden Eagle Distributors Inc. (AZ 4:96-

cv-00689 filed 11/26/1996).

Employment discrimination action by current and

former employees for age discrimination, wrongful termination, and retaliation in violation of the

Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Three

plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their claims with

prejudice in consideration of a confidential settlement agreement reached by each plaintiff with

the defendant. One of the three plaintiffs filed a

motion to enforce the agreement. The court

granted the defendant’s unopposed request to file

the plaintiff’s motion under seal as well as any

future pleadings or papers containing confidential

 

27. One case remanded to state court, 10 cases dismissed for want of prosecution, 5 cases with judgments

on motions before trial, 1 multidistrict litigation transfer, 1 “other” judgment.
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-7

data regarding the settlement agreement and/or

negotiations. The parties stipulated to withdraw

all pending motions, except for motions for attorney fees filed on behalf of two of the plaintiffs.

Morton v. United Parcel Service Inc. (AZ 2:96-cv02813 filed 12/23/1996).

Employment discrimination action under the

Americans with Disabilities Act for refusal to consider the plaintiff for a driver position because of

her hearing disability and for failure to accommodate her disability, which resulted in a constructive discharge. The parties settled eight months

after the case was reopened following the court of

appeals’ reversal of summary judgment for the

defendant. The court ordered the record of the

telephonic settlement agreement sealed. The parties stipulated to a court order providing for confidentiality of the settlement agreement and for

dismissal of the case with prejudice.

Unisys Corp. v. Varilease Technology Group (AZ

2:98-cv-02251 filed 12/17/1998).

Copyright and trade secret action concerning

maintenance and product support materials and

diagnostic software. All parties to the case

reached a confidential settlement agreement. Because of delay by one of the defendants in signing

the stipulation for dismissal, the plaintiff filed

under seal a motion to enforce the settlement

agreement. Before the motion was considered, the

necessary signatures were obtained, and the case

was dismissed upon the filing of the stipulation to

enter a permanent injunction and dismiss the

claims with prejudice.

Progressive Electronics Inc. v. Aines Manufacturing

Corp. (AZ 2:99-cv-01184 filed 06/30/1999).

Patent infringement action concerning an inductive amplifier used in the telephone service industries. The parties settled and filed a proposed

consent judgment under seal. The court approved

the sealed consent judgment.

Ransom v. Arizona (AZ 2:99-cv-01962 filed

11/02/1999).

Employment action by an African-American security officer for race discrimination and for retaliation for filing an internal complaint alleging a racially biased internal affairs investigation of the

plaintiff. The case settled, and the court ordered

the record of the terms of the settlement to be

sealed.

Southwest Gas Corp. v. ONEOK Inc. (AZ 2:00-cv00119 filed 01/24/2000), consolidated with

Southwest Gas Corp. v. Southern Union Co. (AZ

2:00-cv-00452 filed 03/13/2000).

This is a consolidation of three cases, two of

which were identified by our search. The lead

case was not included because it has not been

terminated. The two cases listed above are contract actions also alleging fraud regarding a

merger agreement and a confidentiality agreement. These two cases settled. The court sealed

the transcript of the settlement hearing. The settlement agreement subsequently was unsealed by

stipulation, except for attachments to an exhibit.

Borenstein v. Finova Group (AZ 2:00-cv-00619 filed

04/06/2000).

Securities class action alleging false financial

statements. A court-approved settlement agreement was filed unsealed, but a “supplemental

agreement” was filed under seal and the court

sealed the portion of the transcript of a telephonic

settlement hearing pertaining to the supplemental

agreement.

M&I Heat Transfer Products Ltd. v. VAW Systems

Ltd. (AZ 2:00-cv-00908 filed 05/15/2000).

Patent infringement action. The plaintiff accepted

the defendant’s offer of judgment, which the court

ordered to be filed under seal.

Gregory v. Assisted Living Concepts Inc. (AZ 2:00-

cv-01339 filed 07/13/2000).

Personal injury action for physical and mental

injuries, including a stroke, because of negligent

care by a nursing home. The court permitted the

parties to file their “Joint Motion for Expedited

Approval of Settlement and Stipulation to Dismiss

with Prejudice” and all exhibits under seal; on the

same day the court approved the parties’ settlement agreement and dismissed the action with

prejudice.

Ritchie v. Yanchunis (AZ 2:00-cv-01533 filed

08/09/2000).

Personal injury action for legal malpractice in allowing the statute of limitation on an action for

wrongful termination to lapse. The parties agreed

to a confidential settlement agreement, and the

court ordered the transcript of the settlement

agreement filed under seal.
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-8

Noriega v. City of Scottsdale (AZ 2:00-cv-01646 filed

08/28/2000).

Employment discrimination action by ten current

or former Hispanic employees, alleging retaliation

for filing complaints with the EEOC. The court

sealed a joint notice regarding the status of settlement discussions reached by the parties. The

court granted the parties’ stipulation to dismiss

the case with prejudice.

FTC v. RJB Telcom Inc. (AZ 2:00-cv-02017 filed

10/25/2000).

Action under the Federal Trade Commission Act

for an injunction to halt defendants’ unauthorized

billing for access to sexually explicit Web pages

and Web sites. The court filed under seal two appendices to the stipulated final injunction. These

appendices apparently “contain details on the

efforts that will be made to eliminate or at least

minimize potential for fraud and would be damaging if made available to those wishing to perpetrate a fraud.”

Cieslinski v. Taurus International Manufacturing Inc.

(AZ 4:00-cv-00712 filed 12/18/2000).

Personal injury action against the manufacturer of

an allegedly defective firearm for serious physical

injury suffered by the plaintiff when the firearm

misfired, striking the plaintiff in the abdomen.

The court sealed the record of the settlement conference. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce

any settlement.

Biesiada v. American Financial Resources Inc. (AZ

2:01-cv-00511 filed 03/19/2001).

Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act by two

former bank employees for unpaid wages. The

case was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement.

Hannan v. Pacific Indemnity Co. (AZ 4:01-cv-00471

filed 09/14/2001).

Insurance contract action for bad faith in handling

the plaintiff’s claim for a fire that partially destroyed her home. Apparently the parties settled

their claims, because five months after the case

was filed the court found good cause to file under

seal the defendant’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement. The case was dismissed with

prejudice shortly thereafter.

Stephens v. Arizona Association of Community Health

Centers (AZ 2:01-cv-01936 filed 10/10/2001).

Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act by a

former employee of the Arizona Association of

Community Health Centers for unpaid overtime

wages. The case settled, and the court ordered the

terms of the settlement to be sealed.

Ishmail v. Honeywell Inc. (AZ 2:01-cv-02355 filed

12/03/2001).

Employment action involving a machinist of Macedonian descent suing his former employer for

race and age discrimination and wrongful termination. The case settled, and the court ordered the

settlement agreement to be sealed.

Northern District of California28

“No document shall be filed under seal except

pursuant to a Court order that authorizes the

sealing of the particular document or portion

thereof and is narrowly tailored to seal only that

material for which good cause to seal has been

established.” N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). “Documents may not be filed under seal pursuant to

blanket protective orders covering multiple

documents. Counsel should not attempt to seal

entire pleadings or memoranda required to be

filed pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or these Local Rules.” Id. (commentary). Absent an order to the contrary, sealed documents

are unsealed ten years after being sent to the records center. Id. R. 79-5(e).

Statistics: 12,140 cases in termination cohort; 11

docket sheets are sealed (0.09%)—the disposition

codes for 8 of these cases suggest no sealed settlement agreements29 and the disposition codes

for 3 of these cases suggest sealed settlement

agreements;30 635 unsealed docket sheets (5.2%)

have the word “seal” in them; 146 complete

docket sheets (1.2%) were reviewed; actual documents were examined for 82 cases (0.68%); 70

cases (0.58%) appear to have sealed settlement

agreements.

 

28. This district is included in the study because of

its good-cause rule.

29. One case transferred, 1 case dismissed for want

of prosecution, 1 case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction,

1 judgment on motion before trial, 2 voluntary dismissals, 1 “other” dismissal, 1 “other” judgment.

30. Three cases settled.
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-9

Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

Selby v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. (CA-N

4:93-cv-04160 filed 11/23/1993).

Employment action by a female road foreman of

engines for sex discrimination and sexual harassment. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant and the plaintiff appealed. The court of appeals found two errors in the judgment. The case

ultimately settled. The settlement agreement was

put on the record at a settlement conference, the

transcript of which was filed under seal. An unsatisfied execution of judgment showed

$20,765.98 due, but the case subsequently was

dismissed.

Margetis v. Avant! Corp. (CA-N 5:96-cv-20132 filed

12/15/1995).

Securities class action by investors, alleging that

defendants’ software products were based on

misappropriated computer code. The court approved a $35 million settlement and sealed a

“supplemental agreement regarding requests for

exclusion.” The supplemental agreement, however, was filed unsealed.

Sun Microsystems Inc. v. Dataram Corp. (CA-N 4:02-

cv-01010 filed 08/29/1996).

Patent action concerning single in-line memory

modules. A settlement agreement was put on the

record at a settlement conference before a magistrate judge. One month later, the defendant

moved ex parte to preempt the plaintiff’s planned

motion before the district judge to enforce the settlement agreement, arguing that the district judge

should be shielded from matters of settlement

negotiations. The magistrate judge recused herself

because she had become “too close to the parties

and the issues in this case,” and the motion to enforce was filed under seal and heard by a second

magistrate judge. He denied the motion to enforce

by sealed order. After three more months of litigation, the case was dismissed by stipulated

sealed order. A year and a half later the defendant

filed a sealed motion to enforce a settlement

agreement. Six months later the case again was

dismissed by stipulated order.

Taurus Impressions Inc. v. General Binding Corp.

(CA-N 5:96-cv-21029 filed 12/10/1996).

Contract action for putting on hold a project to

develop computer-controlled desktop hot stamping machines for personalizing folders, binders,

etc. The case settled at a settlement conference.

The court sealed a stipulation to dismiss and

agreement to transfer intellectual property.

Media Financial Group v. W Publishing Group (CAN 3:97-cv-02343 filed 06/23/1997).

Fraud action alleging business reorganization to

avoid $1,251,883 in judgments from a New Jersey

court for tortious interference with magazine accounts receivable. At a settlement conference,

some defendants entered into a confidential settlement agreement with the plaintiffs and then

moved for a determination of good-faith settlement. The motion was granted, and the action

against the settling defendants was dismissed.

The agreement was filed under seal. The court

thereafter signed a stipulated judgment against

the principal defendant for $839,633.89.

Adobe Systems Inc. v. Image & Business Solutions Inc.

(CA-N 5:97-cv-20979 filed 10/30/1997).

Designated a copyright action, the complaint alleges various forms of unfair competition arising

from possession and sale of unlicensed copies of

the plaintiff’s software. The case was dismissed

pursuant to a consent decree that provided injunctive relief but did not specify any recovery of

damages. The plaintiff filed an ex parte motion to

reopen the case, alleging violations of the agreement. A declaration supporting the motion was

sealed. The defendant’s opposition also was

sealed. The matter ultimately was resolved.

Xecom Inc. v. Xecom Corp. (CA-N 5:97-cv-21099

filed 11/24/1997).

Trademark action by a manufacturer of telecommunications equipment. The court awarded the

plaintiff a default judgment and permanent injunction. The defendant’s motion to set aside the

judgment was denied. Before the plaintiff filed a

motion for fees and damages, the case settled at a

settlement conference, and the agreement was put

on the record under seal. The following month the

action was stayed by the defendant’s bankruptcy.

Three years later the court ordered the parties to

show cause why the dormant case should not be

dismissed and then dismissed it.

Lawrence v. Cessna Aircraft Co. (CA-N 3:98-cv02837 filed 07/17/1998).

Airplane action alleging severe burns because the

plaintiff was unable to escape from a crashed

plane manufactured by the defendant. The case

settled. The court sealed the minutes of the hearing on settlement approval.
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-10

Amersham Pharmacia Biotech Inc. v. Perkin-Elmer

Corp. (CA-N 3:98-cv-04167 filed 09/08/1998);

Amersham Pharmacia Biotech Inc. v. Applera Corp.

(CA-N 3:00-cv-04707 filed 12/18/2000).

Patent actions concerning DNA sequencing techniques. The actions apparently were dismissed

pursuant to sealed settlement agreements.

Berarducci v. General Electric Co. (CA-N 3:98-cv03448 filed 09/09/1998).

Labor litigation for wrongful termination and age

discrimination. The case settled pursuant to a settlement agreement, which was filed under seal.

EEOC v. C. & M. Packing Inc. (CA-N 5:98-cv-20975

filed 09/24/1998).

Employment action for sex discrimination and

retaliation on behalf of two named employees and

a class. The case settled pursuant to a consent decree. Two exhibits to the decree were filed under

seal. One was a written reprimand for a named

male employee. The second exhibit specified how

much of the $90,000 settlement each of four

women would get.

Affymetrix Inc. v. Synteni Inc. (CA-N 5:99-cv-21164

filed 11/24/1998).

Patent action concerning “high density array

technology for gene expression monitoring.” The

case apparently settled, and the plaintiff was

granted a motion to file under seal a motion for

entry of final judgment.

Za-Za Inc. v. Eastman Chemical Co. (CA-N 3:98-cv04886 filed 12/22/1998).

Antitrust consolidated class action alleging an

international conspiracy to fix prices on food preservatives known as sorbates. (The consolidated

action is titled In re Sorbates Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation.) The Justice Department pursued

criminal actions separately. Over the course of

litigation, all defendants settled; settlements totaled $96,478,000. The court sealed a “side letter to

settlement agreement” with one defendant.

Marketel International Inc. v. Priceline.com (CA-N

3:99-cv-00161 filed 01/19/1999).

Designated a copyright action, this is an action for

unfair competition and misappropriation of trade

secrets in electronic travel auctions. The parties

engaged in settlement negotiations. The plaintiff

believed that an agreement was reached, but the

defendant did not. The plaintiff sought permission to file under seal an amended complaint

pleading existence of the agreement. The

amended complaint was filed under seal, and the

parties litigated under seal a restraining order on

the defendant’s issuing an initial public offering

as a violation of the settlement agreement. The

plaintiff subsequently withdrew its claim of settlement and filed an unsealed second amended

complaint. A third amended complaint was filed

later, and the court granted the defendant summary judgment on many of the claims. The plaintiff agreed to dismiss the remaining claims so that

it could appeal the partial summary judgment.

The court of appeals affirmed.

Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. v. Connectix Corp.

(CA-N 3:99-cv-00390 filed 01/27/1999).

Copyright action by the makers of the PlayStation

against the makers of the Virtual Game Station,

which was designed to emulate the PlayStation on

Apple computers. On the morning of trial the

parties settled. “The parties submitted to the court

a sealed Order of Intent which will be lodged

with” the judge. The transcript of proceedings

discloses that the plaintiff decided to buy certain

intellectual property rights from the defendant.

The minutes for a subsequent settlement conference state that the case did not settle. The defendant filed under seal a motion to enforce the settlement agreement. Opposition and reply papers

also were filed under seal. The court granted the

motion. The case was dismissed by stipulation.

Arlow v. Novato Police Department (CA-N 3:99-cv02272 filed 05/18/1999).

Designated a prison-conditions action, this is an

action by a prisoner for an illegal arrest and beating by police officers prior to confinement. The

case settled. The court granted the parties’ request

to file the settlement agreement under seal. The

case was dismissed by stipulation.

Insituform Technologies Inc. v. Ultraliner Inc. (CA-N

5:01-cv-20599 filed 05/21/1999), consolidated

with Ultraliner Inc. v. Nupipe Inc. (CA-N 5:01-cv20601 filed 09/08/1999).

Patent actions concerning PVC pipe liners. The

actions were resolved by consent judgment and

permanent injunction, and a stipulation of facts

and conclusions of law were filed under seal.
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-11

Provident Life and Accident Insurance Co. v. Khan

(CA-N 3:99-cv-02479 filed 05/25/1999).

Insurance action for restitution of disability benefits paid upon discovery that the defendant was

unable to work because of a suspended medical

license, not because of disability. The case settled

at a settlement conference, but the following

month the plaintiff filed a sealed motion to enforce the settlement agreement. The court granted

the motion and sanctioned the defendant $720. A

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation

discloses that the settlement agreement essentially

entailed a payment of $450,000 to the defendant in

exchange for her surrendering the insurance policy.

Martin v. John F. Kennedy University (CA-N 3:99-

cv-02902 filed 06/15/1999).

Pro se civil rights action by a disabled black female law student against her law school, alleging

various forms of mistreatment. The case was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement.

Guy F. Atkinson Co. of California v. PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP (CA-N 3:99-cv-04334 filed

09/23/1999).

Bankruptcy withdrawal alleging negligence in

financial management and monitoring. The

plaintiffs settled with some defendants, and a

motion for good-faith settlement was litigated

under seal and apparently granted by sealed order. The following year the action against the remaining defendant was dismissed as settled.

Sanchez v. Safeway Inc. (CA-N 4:99-cv-05035 filed

11/22/1999).

Civil rights action by a customer against a supermarket for sexual assault by an employee. The

plaintiff alleged that the employee grabbed her

breast and buttock and asked her to feel his erection. The defendant claimed the employee, who

had earlier refused the plaintiff’s invitation for a

date, merely engaged in verbal pleasantries and

refused the plaintiff’s hug. During discovery, the

plaintiff revealed that her minor daughter may

have claims against the defendants as well. The

plaintiff was appointed guardian ad litem for her

daughter, and the case was dismissed pursuant to

a sealed settlement agreement.

United National Insurance Co. v. TIG Insurance Co.

(CA-N 3:00-cv-00058 filed 01/06/2000).

Insurance action by one insurance company

against another, alleging that the defendant was

liable for two payments of $2 million instead of

one. The terms of settlement were put on the record at a settlement conference, the transcript of

which was filed under seal.

Foster v. Columbia Good Samaritan Health Systems

(CA-N 5:00-cv-20116 filed 01/31/2000).

Employment action for failure to accommodate a

back injury. The plaintiff alleged that she was injured while working for the defendant as a radiological technologist and was not hired for

other hospital openings that would accommodate

her injury. The terms of settlement were put on

the record at a settlement conference, and the tape

of the conference was ordered sealed.

Adobe Systems Inc. v. Dallas Computer Inc. (CA-N

5:00-cv-20236 filed 03/02/2000).

Copyright action for sale of unauthorized copies

of software. The case was dismissed upon a

stipulated permanent injunction and a judgment

of $2,433,386.05 in favor of the plaintiff. The court

granted the plaintiff’s request to file the injunction

and judgment under seal, but several unsealed

copies are in the court’s file and the docket sheet

discloses the amount of judgment.

Evoke Software Corp. v. Evoke Communications Inc.

(CA-N 3:00-cv-00965 filed 03/17/2000).

Trademark action over use of the name “Evoke.”

The defendant received permission to file under

seal an amended answer with counterclaims and a

motion to enforce a settlement agreement. Opposition and reply papers on the motion to enforce

also were filed under seal. The motion was denied. The court subsequently granted the plaintiff

a preliminary injunction, and the defendant appealed. The case settled while on appeal.

Adobe Systems Inc. v. Publitek Inc. (CA-N 5:00-cv20375 filed 04/05/2000).

Copyright action for unauthorized distribution of

the plaintiff’s software. The action was dismissed

pursuant to a sealed stipulated injunction. Correspondence in the file refers to settlement payments as well.
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-12

American Motorists Insurance Co. v. Neighbor (CA-N

3:00-cv-01321 filed 04/14/2000).

Contract action by the issuer of a performance

bond for indemnity of liability resulting from a

developer’s bankruptcy. The defendant filed a

third-party complaint against the city. The case

was dismissed pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement, which was filed under seal.

Hardy v. Alaska Air Group (CA-N 3:00-cv-01878

filed 05/24/2000); Estate of Choate v. Alaska Airlines

Inc. (CA-N 3:00-cv-02737 filed 08/01/2000); Estate

of Lake v. Alaska Airlines Inc. (CA-N 3:00-cv-03127

filed 08/29/2000); Estate of Forshee v. Alaska Air

Group (CA-N 3:00-cv-03332 filed 09/14/2000).

Airplane wrongful death actions against the airline, the airplane’s manufacturers, and manufacturers of the airplane’s parts. The case was consolidated with others as part of a multidistrict litigation, In re Air Crash Off Point Mugu (MDL 1343).

The cases were dismissed pursuant to sealed settlement agreements approved by the court.

Perkins v. Sortwell (CA-N 4:00-cv-01920 filed

05/26/2000).

Shareholders’ derivative action alleging improper

hiding of financial difficulties. The case was consolidated with Steiner v. Aurora Foods Inc. (CA-N

4:00-cv-00602 filed 02/22/2000), a class action on

behalf of more than 3,000 shareholders. A filed

stipulation of settlement specified changes in corporate governance, former officers’ surrender of

$12.6 to $15.0 million in shares, recovery of $26

million from their insurance policies, and $350,000

in fees and expenses for plaintiffs’ attorneys. More

specific details were spelled out in “definitive

agreements” with individual defendants, which

were filed under seal, because the defendants relied upon that level of confidentiality in reaching

the agreements.

Penley v. Vales (CA-N 3:00-cv-02147 filed

06/16/2000).

Civil rights action for conspiracy to prevent the

plaintiff’s observation of protests against Neiman

Marcus for selling clothes made from animals

“killed through gassing, trapping, and anal electrocution.” The case settled, and the settlement

agreement was put on the record of a settlement

conference. The transcript of the conference was

filed under seal.

Marques v. North Beach Pizza Inc. (CA-N 3:00-cv02200 filed 06/21/2000).

Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act by two

pizza delivery drivers, alleging that their compensation by commission, although they were not

responsible for sales, deprived them of overtime

compensation. The case was consolidated with an

action by a third driver, and the actions settled for

$45,000. The plaintiffs were awarded $78,649 in

fees and $1,538.02 in costs. A dispute arose over a

payment plan, and a letter from the defendant

was construed as a motion to enforce the settlement agreement, sealed, and denied. The court

subsequently ordered a specific payment plan.

Bravo Corp. v. Concept Designs Inc. (CA-N 3:00-cv02285 filed 06/28/2000).

Trademark action challenging the defendant’s use

of the plaintiff’s Kryptonics trademark in marketing the defendant’s wheel spinner. Kryptonics

is a trademark for skateboard and in-line skate

wheels. The action was dismissed pursuant to a

sealed settlement agreement.

Moreno v. Dolores Heights Property Inc. (CA-N 3:00-

cv-02308 filed 06/29/2000).

Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act for

failure to pay an immigrant residential maintenance and renovation laborer minimum wage and

overtime. A confidential settlement was reached

at a settlement conference, and a conference exhibit—presumably the settlement agreement—was filed under seal. The transcript of the

conference also was filed under seal.

Oracle Corp. v. Moellhoff (CA-N 3:00-cv-02789 filed

08/04/2000).

Statutory action for judicial determination of responsibilities under a long-term equity incentive

plan for a terminated vice president. The case settled at a settlement conference, and the confidential terms were put on the record. Subsequently

the plaintiff filed a sealed motion to resolve a settlement dispute, but the matter was resolved

without court action and the case was dismissed.

Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant (CA-N 4:00-cv02945 filed 08/14/2000).

Statutory action. The docket sheet is sealed. The

case was dismissed as settled.
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-13

Vallis v. CNF Transportation Inc. (CA-N 4:00-cv04226 filed 11/14/2000).

Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act

on behalf of freight operations supervisors for

unpaid overtime compensation. The class claims

were dismissed by stipulation, and the individual

claims were dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement.

Choi v. Doctor’s Associates (CA-N 5:00-cv-21173

filed 11/17/2000); Ounniyom v. Doctor’s Associates

(CA-N 5:00-cv-21174 filed 11/17/2000).

Civil rights actions claiming barriers to persons

with disabilities in Subway restaurants violated

the Americans with Disabilities Act. The cases

settled, and the settlement agreement, which

specified changes to the defendants’ restaurants,

was filed. The amounts of recovery by twenty individuals were filed under seal.

Cerpas v. University of California, San Francisco (CAN 3:00-cv-04505 filed 12/01/2000).

Employment action by a customer service representative claiming that her supervisor coerced her

into accompanying him to a motel room for sex.

The case settled at a settlement conference, and

the confidential settlement agreement was placed

on the record. The reporter’s transcript was filed

under seal.

Jones v. National Association of Letter Carriers (CA-N

3:00-cv-04637 filed 12/11/2000).

Civil rights action for failure to accommodate disabilities in union activities. The case was dismissed pursuant to a confidential settlement

agreement. The court retained jurisdiction for

ninety days to enforce the agreement. Nearly

eight months after the dismissal, the plaintiff sent

the court a letter asking for help in resolving settlement issues. The court filed the letter under seal

and determined it no longer had jurisdiction over

the case.

Hornes v. County of Alameda (CA-N 3:01-cv-00914

filed 03/05/2001); Hornes v. City of Oakland (CA-N

3:01-cv-01998 filed 05/22/2001).

Civil rights actions for wrongful killing by a police officer. One action was by the decedent’s

mother, and the other was by his wife and children. The actions were dismissed pursuant to a

sealed minor’s settlement agreement, approved

by the court. An unsealed stipulation stated that

the plaintiffs would recover nothing from the

county.

Orsino v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Co.

(CA-N 3:01-cv-01091 filed 03/16/2001).

ERISA action for denial of disability benefits because of a disagreement over whether the plaintiff

suffered from depression or chronic fatigue syndrome. A settlement was placed on the record at a

settlement conference, and the reporter’s transcript was sealed.

Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant (CA-N 3:01-cv01156 filed 03/21/2001).

Statutory action. The docket sheet is sealed. The

case was dismissed as settled.

RCN Telecom Services Inc. v. David (CA-N 3:01-cv01181 filed 03/22/2001).

Rent, lease, and ejectment action involving a dispute as to whether commercial tenants were occupying more space than leased, especially on the

roof. The parties filed a joint motion to approve a

settlement agreement, which was filed under seal

“so as to protect their privacy interests and trade

secrets.” The court approved the settlement, and

the case was dismissed. Six months later it was

reopened and the case continues.

Folkens v. Wyland (CA-N 3:01-cv-01241 filed

03/27/2001).

Copyright action by a pen-and-ink illustrator for

misappropriation of his work. The parties filed a

sealed settlement agreement, but the case continued and went to trial. It appears that the settlement agreement resolved some issues of liability,

and the trial was over damages.

Food.com Inc. v. QuikOrder Inc. (CA-N 3:01-cv01251 filed 03/27/2001).

Patent action concerning a method for ordering

products on-line. The case was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement.

Buffo v. Henkel Corp. (CA-N 3:01-cv-01442 filed

04/12/2001).

Employment action for insufficient payment of

retirement benefits upon employment termination. A certification of early neutral evaluation

was filed under seal, and an order dismissing the

case was filed under seal the following day. Two

months later an unsealed order dismissing the

case was filed.
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-14

SanDisk Corp. v. Viking Components Inc. (CA-N

3:01-cv-01816 filed 05/01/2001).

Patent infringement action concerning electronic

flash memory cards. The parties stipulated to an

injunction preventing the defendant from selling

flash memory cards that include any of enumerated models of flash memory controllers. The

stipulated injunction states that the court will retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement

to be filed under seal and incorporated by reference into the injunction. The day after the judge

signed the stipulated injunction, a settlement

agreement was filed under seal pursuant to an

order granting permission to do so.

Fresh Express Inc. v. Bravo Packing Inc. (CA-N 5:01-

cv-20743 filed 05/15/2001).

Patent action concerning a method for washing

lettuce. The case was consolidated with Fresh Express Inc. v. Elioco Produce Inc. (CA-N 5:01-cv20747). The original action was dismissed pursuant to “a confidential Settlement and License

Agreement which contains information that is not

generally known to the public and which Fresh

Express and Bravo would, in the ordinary course

of business, not disclose to competitors or other

third parties. The confidentiality of the information contained in the Settlement and License

Agreement cannot adequately be maintained so as

to protect the interests of Fresh Express and Bravo

in maintaining its confidentiality unless this information is kept from public disclosure.” Thereafter the consolidated action similarly was dismissed, and the sealed settlement agreement was

filed in the lead case’s file.

Bruntjen v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. (CA-N

4:01-cv-01982 filed 05/21/2001).

RICO action for fraudulent solicitation of a

$500,000 investment in a scheme to develop energy-related business interests in the Far East. All

defendants except a law firm allegedly involved

in the scheme were voluntarily dismissed pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement. Settling defendants sought a bar order protecting

them from liability to the remaining law firm defendant. The law firm complained that the fairness of the settlement could not be evaluated unless presented to the court. Settling defendants’

reply brief specified terms of settlement, which

were redacted from the public file copy. A sealed,

presumably unredacted, version of the brief also

was filed. The court granted the bar order and

dismissed the remaining claims against the law

firm. Both plaintiffs and the law firm appealed.

The case settled on appeal.

Caymus Vineyards v. Lisa Frank Inc. (CA-N 3:01-cv02131 filed 05/31/2001).

Trademark infringement action. According to the

complaint, the defendant liked the plaintiff’s

Caymus wine so much, she named her dog Caymus, and used her dog Caymus to market “Caymus” toys and related products for children. The

case was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement.

Pickern v. Best Western Inn at the Square (CA-N

4:01-cv-02202 filed 06/06/2001).

Civil rights action for failure to remove architectural barriers to persons with physical disabilities

at the defendants’ hotel. The case was dismissed

pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement.

Bryant v. Rich (CA-N 3:01-cv-02613 filed

07/09/2001).

Personal injury action for unauthorized and untrue statements about the plaintiff in the defendants’ advertising materials extolling the health

benefits of their methylsulfonylmethane products.

The parties reached a confidential settlement

agreement during trial, and the agreement was

filed under seal. The plaintiff paid jury costs of

$2,403.11.

Lawton v. Prison Health Services (CA-N 4:01-cv02761 filed 07/19/2001).

Designated a labor and management relations

action, this is an employment action alleging race

and age discrimination in failure to promote an

African-American woman. An oral settlement was

reached and the case was provisionally dismissed,

but the plaintiff repudiated her oral settlement

and the court agreed to vacate the dismissal. The

case subsequently settled at a settlement conference, the minutes for which read, “Case settled.

Court’s Exhibit A received into evidence and is

sealed. Settlement placed on the record and is

confidential.” Exhibit A was filed under seal the

same day.

Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant (CA-N 3:01-cv02928 filed 07/27/2001).

Contract action. The docket sheet is sealed. The

case was dismissed as settled.
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-15

Unobskey v. Taubman (CA-N 3:01-cv-03171 filed

08/17/2001).

Contract action for indemnification of tax liability.

The complaint alleges that the indicted former

chair of Sotheby’s had participated in a real estate

scheme a decade previously that the IRS now

claims involved almost $1 billion in underreported income to a partnership. The complaint

alleges that he agreed to indemnify the plaintiff

partner for such circumstances, but now repudiates that agreement. The case settled. The plaintiff

asked the court to sign a stipulated order directing the defendant not to dispose of property securing the agreement. Thereafter the court ordered that a letter from the plaintiff be construed

as a motion to interpret the settlement agreement.

The court ordered the letter sealed. Subsequent

letters were construed as opposition and reply

briefs, and they also were sealed. At a sealed telephonic hearing, the court denied the motion. A

subsequent letter from the plaintiff asked for assistance in enforcing the settlement agreement.

This letter was not sealed, and it includes a copy

of the agreement. The letter states that the defendant agreed to post art worth $19.5 million to secure his indemnification responsibilities, but had

so far designated art worth only $11.56 million.

Kent v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (CA-N 3:01-cv-03293

filed 08/28/2001).

Class action under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty

Act alleging that the Jeep’s automatic transmission has “an unreasonably dangerous propensity

to self shift from park into reverse.” The action

was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement

agreement approved by the court.

Peninsula Creamery v. Fischer (CA-N 5:01-cv-20887

filed 09/20/2001).

Trademark action alleging that the defendant,

Peninsula Fountain and Grill, which was licensed

by the plaintiff to operate a downtown Palo Alto

restaurant, opened up a similarly named Stanford

Shopping Center restaurant without a license. The

case settled, and the transcript for the successful

settlement conference was filed under seal.

Christopher S. v. Orchard Union School District (CAN 5:01-cv-21197 filed 09/20/2001).

Designated a statutory action for civil rights of a

handicapped child, this is a suit for $39,416.30 in

attorney fees and costs in an administrative action. (The parties settled the case for $28,000.) The

case was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement approved by the court.

Arrow Electronics Inc. v. Redback Networks Inc. (CAN 5:01-cv-20918 filed 09/28/2001).

Contract action for amounts due on electronic

components. The action was dismissed pursuant

to a sealed joint stipulation.

EEOC v. Coastal Valley Management Inc. (CA-N

5:01-cv-21105 filed 11/28/2001).

Employment action on behalf of four women for

sexual harassment, including unwanted sexual

advances. The women intervened on behalf of a

class. The case settled, and the court issued a consent decree stating the defendant’s denial of the

allegations but reciting the defendant’s agreement

to pay the plaintiffs $200,000. The court retained

jurisdiction to enforce the decree for two years.

The allocation of the settlement to the four women

and their attorneys is stated in a sealed attachment. In addition, the sealed attachment states

what other class members would receive.

Cooper v. UNUM Life Insurance Co. (CA-N 3:02-cv01478 filed 03/26/2002).

Insurance action for denial of long-term disability

benefits for Parkinson’s disease. The case settled

at a settlement conference. The settlement agreement was designated confidential, and the transcript of the conference was filed under seal.

Brooke v. Sydran Services Inc. (CA-N 3:02-cv-02151

filed 05/02/2002).

Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act by a

Burger King assistant manager for unpaid overtime wages. The action was dismissed pursuant to

a sealed consent decree.

Moore v. Yeast (CA-N 5:02-cv-02297 filed

05/13/2002).

Copyright action concerning ownership of computer software code. This case illustrates an interesting interplay among the parties and the court

over what should be sealed and how to accomplish that.

Three months after the case was dismissed as

settled, the plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the

settlement agreement, alleging that the defendants failed to properly notify a third party of the

terms of the intellectual property agreement. The

plaintiffs moved to attach a copy of the settlement

agreement without seal, because “disclosure of

the terms of the Settlement Agreement would not
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-16

release confidential trade secrets or compromise

national security.” The defendants responded that

the plaintiffs’ “attempt to file the Settlement

Agreement without Seal is in violation of the confidentiality provision of the Settlement Agreement.” The court ordered the defendants to “file a

declaration from a competent witness setting forth

the specific facts that justify protection under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c),” admonishing

that “[b]road allegations of harm, however, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated

reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test”

(quoting Beckman Industries Inc. v. International

Insurance Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992)).

The court said that the plaintiffs should have

lodged the settlement agreement with the court

with a request to file it under seal pursuant to Local Rule 79-5, stating that the request was based

solely on the opponents’ claim of confidentiality.

The docket sheet shows that five days later the

court received a request to file the settlement

agreement under seal and a notice of lodgment of

the settlement agreement. The docket sheet entry

states that the latter document was filed under

seal, although there does not appear to be a

document number for the filing.

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the agreement on the merits and also on jurisdictional grounds. Because the original case

was over and the court did not retain jurisdiction

to enforce the agreement, and there did not appear to be independent jurisdiction over the enforcement action, the court lacked subject-matter

jurisdiction over the motion.

District of Delaware

The court’s local rule on sealing pertains only to

administrative details. See D. Del. L.R. 5.3.

Statistics: 2,250 cases in termination cohort; 213

docket sheets (9.5%) have the word “seal” in

them; 13 complete docket sheets (0.58%) were reviewed; actual documents were examined for 9

cases (0.40%); 9 cases (0.40%) appear to have

sealed settlement agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

Interactive Channel Technologies Inc. v. Worldgate

Communications Inc. (DE 1:98-cv-00257 filed

05/11/1998).

Patent infringement action for selling a product

that permits cable television providers to offer

Internet access to their subscribers over existing

cable infrastructure. The parties informed the

court in September of a settlement, but between

September and February the parties reached three

different settlement agreements. In March the defendants filed a motion under seal to enforce one

of these agreements. The court agreed to enforce

the second settlement agreement. The parties filed

the second settlement agreement under seal, and

the court dismissed the action with prejudice in

accordance with the terms of the stipulation of

dismissal attached to this settlement agreement.

Advanced Energy Industries Inc. v. Astec America Inc.

(DE 1:98-cv-00450 filed 07/31/1998).

Patent infringement action involving power conversion products for plasma-based thin film process technologies. After the parties settled, but before they filed a stipulation of dismissal, the court

dismissed the case with leave to reopen. Prior to

finalizing their settlement, the parties’ requested

reopening of the case. Two weeks later the parties

signed a settlement agreement that included a

provision requiring the parties to submit the settlement agreement and proposed consent judgment to the court under seal. The court approved

the consent judgment and closed the case.

Elonex IP Holdings Ltd. v. MAG Technology Co. (DE

1:99-cv-00338 filed 05/28/1999).

One of several consolidated patent infringement

actions concerning methods of reducing power

consumption in computer systems and monitors.

In this case, the parties agreed to a consent judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The court closed

the case but retained jurisdiction to enforce the

settlement agreement. Four months later the

plaintiffs filed a brief under seal in support of a

motion to enforce the settlement agreement and

hold the defendants in contempt. The court approved a supplemental consent judgment retained under seal by the court and dismissed the

plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the settlement as

moot.

Barnes v. Town of Elsmere (DE 1:99-cv-00472 filed

07/23/1999).

Civil rights action against a fire company for indefinitely suspending the plaintiff firefighter for

his membership in the Pagan Motorcycle Club.

The parties settled and filed their settlement

agreement and proposed order governing confidentiality with the court under seal. The court

signed the order and dismissed the case with

prejudice.
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-17

National Office Partners Ltd. Partnership v. Hyatt

Corp. (DE 1:00-cv-00478 filed 05/12/2000).

Antitrust litigation concerning management of the

plaintiffs’ hotel. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant received undisclosed kickbacks from

vendors. The parties settled and submitted a consent order of dismissal to the court incorporating

by reference the settlement agreement. The court

sealed the settlement agreement, granted the consent order of dismissal, and closed the case, retaining jurisdiction to enforce the terms and provisions of the settlement agreement.

France Telecom v. Compaq Computer Corp. (DE 1:00-

cv-00967 filed 11/16/2000).

Patent infringement action concerning MPEG-2

video compression. During a teleconference the

parties informed the court that they reached a

settlement in principle but wanted to stay the case

instead of entering a stipulated dismissal. The

court stayed the case, sealed the transcript of the

teleconference, and ordered the parties to submit

biweekly status reports of their settlement negotiations. These status reports on settlement negotiations were placed under seal when received by

the court. Eight months later the court entered the

parties’ stipulation of dismissal with prejudice

and ordered the case closed.

Housey Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Boehringer-Ingelheim

Pharmaceuticals Inc. (DE 1:00-cv-01002 filed

11/30/2000).

Patent infringement action concerning cell-based

technology. The court granted the parties’ stipulation of dismissal with prejudice and placed it

under seal.

Jupiter Media Metrix Inc. v. NetRatings Inc. (DE

1:01-cv-00193 filed 03/27/2001).

Patent infringement action concerning a method

for logging and reporting on-line activity of computer users in the United States. Five months after

two of the defendants were dismissed without

prejudice pursuant to a joint stipulation, the remaining parties settled and agreed to dismiss the

case with prejudice. The parties filed a copy of the

settlement agreement under seal and consented to

allow the court to reserve jurisdiction over the

case in order to enforce the terms of the settlement

agreement. The case was closed.

Oratec Interventions Inc. v. Radionics Inc. (DE 1:01-

cv-00558 filed 08/15/2001).

Patent infringement action concerning an apparatus for treating annular fissures of intervertebral

disks. Seven months after one of the two defendants was voluntarily dismissed, the plaintiff informed the court that an oral settlement agreement had been reached with the remaining defendant. Pursuant to an order marked “confidential filed under seal,” the court agreed to stay the

case for sixty days to permit the parties to finalize

negotiations. One month later the plaintiff filed a

motion under seal to enforce the settlement

agreement. Before the motion was decided, the

court granted the parties’ stipulation and dismissal with prejudice, and closed the case.

District of the District of Columbia

“Absent statutory authority, no cases or documents may be sealed without an order from the

Court.” D.D.C. L. Civ. R. 5.1(j)(1).

Statistics: 5,368 cases in termination cohort; 5

docket sheets are sealed (0.09%)—the disposition

codes for 3 of these cases suggest no sealed settlement agreements31 and the disposition codes

for 2 of these cases suggest sealed settlement

agreements;32 469 unsealed docket sheets (8.7%)

have the word “seal” in them; 39 complete docket

sheets (0.73%) were reviewed; actual documents

were examined for 35 cases (0.65%); 28 cases

(0.52%) appear to have sealed settlement agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

Sharma v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit

Authority (DC 1:94-cv-00305 filed 02/16/1994).

Employment discrimination action for failure to

promote, harassment, and retaliation. The parties

submitted their settlement agreement with the

court to be incorporated into a dismissal with

prejudice, but asked that the agreement be sealed

to preserve confidentiality. The court complied.

Kolstad v. American Dental Association (DC 1:94-cv01578 filed 07/19/1994); Kolstad v. American

Dental Association (DC 1:97-cv-00306 filed

02/14/1997).

Employment actions for sex discrimination. The

first suit alleged a discriminatory failure to pro-

 

31. Two judgments on motions before trial, 1

“other” dismissal.

32. Two cases settled.
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-18

mote. The second suit alleged constructive termination in retaliation for the first suit. It appears

that the parties reached a global settlement.

Stipulated dismissals with unspecified attachments were filed under seal on the same day in

both cases.

Sims v. Browner (DC 1:97-cv-00570 filed

03/21/1997).

Employment action against the Environmental

Protection Agency for sex, age, and disability discrimination. The plaintiff filed a motion to enforce

an alleged settlement agreement. A letter purporting to set forth the terms of settlement—which primarily provided for reassignment, work-at-home privileges, and retraction of

discipline from her personnel file—was attached

to the motion. Subsequently, the court granted

motions to seal several related documents, including a brief in opposition to the motion to enforce and a motion for a protective order.

Scott v. District of Columbia (DC 1:98-cv-01645 filed

06/29/1998).

Civil rights action against the District of Columbia

and its Department of Corrections for a prison

murder brought by the decedent’s estate and only

child. The complaint alleged that the department

knew or should have known that the victim was

in danger from another inmate but failed to prevent his murder. The parties settled and submitted the settlement agreement under seal for the

court’s approval, specifically citing D.C. Code

§!21-120(a), which requires court approval of settlements in suits brought on behalf of minors. The

court approved it.

BMC – Benchmark Management Co. v. Meristar

Hospitality Corp. (DC 1:98-cv-02394 filed

10/05/1998).

Contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud action

arising out of a failed commercial relationship

between a real estate holding company and a

property management firm. The parties settled

after a jury trial. The settlement agreement was

filed under seal. A stipulation of dismissal was

then filed under seal and “fiated” by the judge.

Lukas Nace Gutierrez & Sachs v. Havens (DC 1:99-

cv-00395 filed 02/19/1999).

Contract action to recover unpaid legal fees. The

plaintiff filed a motion to enforce a mediated settlement agreement and attached a handwritten

agreement, signed by both parties, that called for

a general release of all claims in exchange for an

undisclosed cash payment. Later, the parties

submitted their own draft settlement agreements

intended to implement that earlier, less detailed

agreement. Those draft settlement agreements

were placed under seal.

William M. Mercer Inc. v. Mulder (DC 1:99-cv-00435

filed 02/24/1999).

Disability insurance fraud action against an insured employee and her alleged co-conspirator

psychiatrist. The complaint alleges that the psychiatrist fabricated a diagnosis of “major depression” so that the patient would qualify for shortterm disability. The parties apparently settled

during a status conference on the eve of trial. The

court sealed the record of that proceeding. Later,

the court sealed a series of documents arising out

of the defendant’s motion to enforce that settlement agreement. Finally, the court, upon consent

motion by the parties, ordered that the complaint

and defendant Mulder’s answer and counterclaim

be sealed. (The complaint, however, remains in

the open court file.)

Nick Chorak Mowing v. United States (DC 1:99-cv00587 filed 03/08/1999).

Contract action. The docket sheet is sealed. The

action was dismissed as settled.

Lewis v. Booz-Allen & Hamilton Inc. (DC 1:99-cv00713 filed 03/23/1999).

Employment action for race discrimination

against a worldwide consulting firm by an African-American former technology consultant. A

stipulation of voluntary dismissal, signed by all

parties, and an order dismissing the case with

prejudice were filed under seal on the same day

shortly before trial.

L.L. v. Chimes District of Columbia Inc. (DC 1:99-cv03277 filed 12/10/1999).

Pseudonymous personal injury action for the sexual assault of a mentally and physically disabled

person. The defendant is a private company that

employs mentally and physically disabled persons to provide building maintenance to third

parties. The plaintiff, a mentally retarded 34-yearold woman, was raped by a nonimpaired coworker who had a considerable criminal record

and who was alleged to have been repeatedly

violent and insubordinate during his employment

with the defendant. The case concluded with a
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-19

stipulated order filed under seal shortly before

trial.

Reddick v. Georgetown University Hospital (DC 1:99-

cv-03377 filed 12/20/1999).

Medical malpractice action for the death of one

twin in utero and severe mental and physical disabilities of the other twin born live. The parties

settled and submitted the settlement agreement

under seal for the court’s approval. The court approved it.

Groenfeldt v. George Washington University (DC

1:99-cv-03470 filed 12/29/1999).

Medical malpractice wrongful death action for

failure to diagnose a cancer while it was still

treatable. The plaintiffs include two surviving

children. The parties settled and submitted the

settlement agreement under seal for the court’s

approval. The court approved it.

Komori Corp. v. Akiyama Printing Machine

Manufacturing Co. (DC 1:00-cv-00432 filed

03/02/2000).

Designated a copyright action, this is really an

action for declaration of noninfringement of the

defendant’s patent by the plaintiffs’ offset printers

that print multiple colors on both sides during a

single pass through the press. The parties settled

privately. Earlier in the suit, the plaintiffs had

filed an apparent settlement agreement under seal

as part of a motion to enforce it.

Jennings v. Family Management Services Inc. (DC

1:00-cv-00434 filed 03/02/2000).

Fraud action against a nursing company, a financial management company, and banks. The claims

alleged various abusive financial dealings with an

elderly woman. The suit resulted in a consent decree approving a private settlement agreement,

which was filed under seal.

National Federation of the Blind v. Chevy Chase Bank

(DC 1:00-cv-01167 filed 05/24/2000).

Civil rights action under the Americans with Disabilities Act to require installation of ATM machines accessible to the blind. The parties settled

privately. Earlier in the suit, the plaintiffs filed a

settlement agreement with the court under seal,

although subsequent documents show that settlement negotiations continued thereafter.

Poindexter v. May Department Stores (DC 1:00-cv01238 filed 05/31/2000).

Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act

on behalf of assistant buyers and media coordinators for overtime payments. The parties settled

and sought approval of the settlement agreement

from the court, attaching the agreement under

seal. The court approved it.

Grant v. Riley (DC 1:00-cv-01595 filed

07/05/2000).

Employment discrimination class action against

the Department of Education. The parties settled

and submitted the settlement agreement to the

court for approval. The court approved it. While

the settlement agreement itself was public, the

court sealed a list of the twenty-four individuals

who would receive promotions as part of the settlement.

Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild v. Bureau of

National Affairs (DC 1:00-cv-02045 filed

08/24/2000).

Labor and management relations action to compel

arbitration. The employer had refused to proceed

with arbitration based on a putative settlement of

the underlying grievance. In seeking to compel

arbitration, the union filed the alleged settlement

materials with the court and then moved that they

be sealed. The court sealed them. The parties subsequently settled the action pursuant to a settlement agreement, which was not filed.

Simmons v. Small Business Administration (DC 1:00-

cv-02274 filed 09/22/2000).

Employment discrimination action against the

Small Business Administration. The SBA asserted

that it had settled these claims, moved to dismiss,

and attached the settlement agreements under

seal. The court granted the motion that they be

kept under seal and granted the motion to dismiss.

Allen v. Soza and Co. (DC 1:00-cv-02726 filed

11/13/2000).

Employment discrimination action against a private employer and the Coast Guard. One party

moved to enforce a settlement agreement with the

plaintiff. By order of the court, this motion was

filed under seal. Ultimately, the court granted the

plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily dismiss the case

without prejudice, also explicitly preserving the

right of the defendants to claim settlement in any

subsequent action.
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-20

Conanan v. Tanoue (DC 1:00-cv-03091 filed

12/22/2000).

Employment class action against the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation for race discrimination. The parties proposed to resolve the suit via

consent decree, which was submitted to the court.

The settlement called for the payment of $12 million in damages to class members and $2 million

in attorney fees. What the court sealed was the

number of persons who could opt out of the settlement pursuant to the consent decree. The court

ultimately accepted the consent decree and approved final distribution of the settlement proceeds.

Groobert v. President and Directors of Georgetown

College (DC 1:01-cv-00235 filed 01/30/2001).

Medical malpractice action for failure to diagnose

and treat kidney failure. The husband of the deceased sued on behalf of the deceased, himself,

and their minor child. The parties settled. The

court sealed all materials related to the minor’s

settlement and “[a]ny and all other pleadings,

records or correspondence relating to the parties’

agreement to resolve and dismiss this case.”

Engel v. Equifax Inc. (DC 1:01-cv-00882 filed

04/17/2001).

Statutory action. The docket sheet is sealed. The

action was dismissed as settled.

United States v. 3d Systems Corp. (DC 1:01-cv-01237

filed 06/06/2001).

Antitrust action to prevent a leading technology

company from acquiring its most significant competitor. The court approved a proposed final

judgment that required divestment. The court

sealed two appendices to the proposed judgment

that related to pending patent applications.

Cooper v. Devereux Foundation (DC 1:01-cv-02325

filed 11/06/2001).

Assault action against a private residential treatment facility for coerced sexual intercourse with a

minor resident by one of the staff members. The

parties filed their settlement agreement under seal

and sought approval for dismissal with prejudice.

The court approved. While that particular settlement agreement was sealed, other settlement

materials exist in the case file.

Kosen v. American Express Financial Advisors Inc.

(DC 1:02-cv-00082 filed 01/17/2002).

Employment class action for systematic discrimination against women who applied for or obtained financial advisor positions. The suit was

filed as a settlement class; the proposed settlement/consent decree was filed the day after the

complaint was filed. The judge entered an order

certifying the class and approving the consent

decree, which provides for extensive injunctive

relief and a compensation fund of more than $31

million. Subsequently several documents relating

to disbursement of the monetary relief were filed

under seal.

Cerveceria Modelo SA v. Hudnall (DC 1:02-cv-01586

filed 08/09/2002).

Trademark infringement action by the makers of

Corona beer against a pornographic Web site that

was using Corona marks and images, including

images of sexual acts with Corona beer bottles.

The parties settled and sought a stipulated judgment and permanent injunction. When the court

asked to see the settlement agreement as part of

its review of the stipulated judgment, the parties

asked for it to be sealed. The court sealed it, and

subsequently entered the stipulated judgment and

injunction.

Middle District of Florida

No relevant local rule.

Statistics: 13,678 cases in termination cohort; 17

docket sheets are sealed (0.12%)—the disposition

code for 1 of these cases suggests no sealed settlement agreement33 and an examination of the

other 16 docket sheets revealed no sealed settlement agreements;34 513 unsealed docket sheets

(3.8%) have the word “seal” in them; 103 complete

docket sheets (0.75%) were reviewed; actual

documents were examined for 43 cases (0.31%); 36

cases (0.26%) appear to have sealed settlement

agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

Scarborough v. Medical Engineering Corp. (FL-M

8:97-cv-02266 filed 09/18/1997).

Personal injury case involving aluminum poisoning by breast implants. A settlement agreement was reached during mediation. The court

denied the plaintiff’s motion to set aside the me-

 

33. One statistical closing.

34. Two of these cases were settled.
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-21

diation agreement due to mediator bias. A sealed

settlement agreement was filed with the defendants’ motion to enforce a prior order requiring

the plaintiff to sign a release. The case was dismissed with prejudice conditioned on immediate

payment of the settlement and signing of the release by the plaintiff.

United States ex rel. Carroll v. Living Centers of

America Inc. (FL-M 8:97-cv-02600 filed

10/23/1997).

Qui tam action under the False Claims Act for

fraudulent Medicare billing against a provider of

nursing homes. The government’s notice to intervene reported a settlement agreement had been

reached. The court ordered that all contents of the

court’s file remain under seal (except the complaint and the notice to intervene). A sealed settlement agreement apparently was filed.

Burnette v. Cooker Restaurant Corp. (FL-M 8:99-cv00734 filed 03/29/1999).

Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act

by restaurant employees for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime wages. The case was

dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement. Five weeks later the court granted the

plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the settlement

agreement. The final document in the case reports

that the defendant filed for bankruptcy.

United States ex rel. Williams v. NCS Healthcare Inc.

(FL-M 8:99-cv-01556 filed 07/06/1999).

Qui tam action under the False Claims Act against

a provider of pharmaceutical services for fraudulent Medicare billing. A sealed document was

filed the same day that the case was dismissed. In

the final order of dismissal the court ordered that

all documents remain under seal (except the complaint and the notice of election to decline intervention). A sealed settlement agreement apparently was filed.

Lambert Corp. v. Water Bonnet Manufacturing Inc.

(FL-M 6:00-cv-00010 filed 01/04/2000).

Action seeking declaratory judgment under CERCLA for causing pollution on the plaintiff’s property. On the third day of a bench trial, a stipulated

settlement agreement was made between the

plaintiff and one of the defendants. A sealed settlement agreement was filed. The court also issued orders pertaining to final arguments regarding the remaining defendant, and the case

was dismissed in the defendant’s favor nearly

eight months later.

Hemphill v. Helmtech Inc. (FL-M 5:00-cv-00045 filed

01/18/2000).

Product liability action in which the plaintiff suffered severe head injuries in a motorcycle accident

while wearing a helmet manufactured by the defendant. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.

The court denied the plaintiff’s motion to enforce

the settlement agreement and for sanctions, because payment of $2,320,542 had been received.

The court retained jurisdiction for sixty days to

enforce the terms of the settlement agreement.

United States ex rel. Gambrill v. Laboratory Corp. of

America (FL-M 8:00-cv-00397 filed 02/25/2000).

Qui tam action under the False Claims Act against

a provider of laboratory services for fraudulent

Medicare billing. All documents in the case file

(except the complaint) were filed under seal.

Jabs v. Manatee Memorial Hospital (FL-M 8:00-cv00420 filed 03/01/2000).

Medical malpractice case involving the negligent

care of a newborn with hypotension and respiratory problems, which caused permanent brain

damage. The court placed under seal the plaintiff’s motion for approval of the minor’s settlement, the order granting the motion, the guardian

ad litem report, and the release. The supplemental

report of the guardian ad litem reports a settlement amount of $1,736,716.

Wheeler v. First Colony Life Insurance Co. (FL-M

8:00-cv-00695 filed 04/12/2000).

Contract class action alleging fraud and breach of

common law duties in the sale and subsequent

servicing of life insurance policies. The plaintiff

never filed a motion to certify the class. The order

dismissing the case approved a confidential settlement agreement. The same day the case was

dismissed two sealed documents were filed under

seal. A sealed settlement agreement apparently

was filed.

Florida Conference Association of Seventh-Day

Adventists v. Royal Venture Cruise Line Inc. (FL-M

6:00-cv-00895 filed 07/13/2000).

Admiralty action involving a deposit of $120,000

for a cruise, which the cruise company failed to

return after it went out of business. A sealed settlement agreement was filed. The settlement

amount of $300,000 was noted in the stipulated
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-22

final judgment. The court retained jurisdiction to

enforce the terms of the settlement agreement.

Russell v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. (FL-M 6:00-cv01134 filed 08/28/2000).

Product liability action involving a minor who

contracted hepatitis C from the defendant’s intravenous immunoglobulin product. The court

granted the motion to approve the settlement and

ordered the transcript and record of the settlement sealed.

TV/COM International Inc. v. MediaOne of Greater

Florida Inc. (FL-M 3:00-cv-01045 filed 09/19/2000).

Patent infringement action concerning a “multilayer encryption system for broadcast of encrypted information.” Two sealed settlement

agreements were filed. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement

agreements.

Woolbright v. Capris Furniture Industries Inc. (FL-M

5:00-cv-00315 filed 10/02/2000).

Employment action in which a furniture store

employee sued her former employer for sexual

harassment and retaliation. A sealed settlement

agreement was filed by the defendant. The court

retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the

settlement agreement.

Brackett v. United Healthcare Insurance Co. (FL-M

8:00-cv-02112 filed 10/13/2000).

ERISA action for wrongful denial of coverage for

speech therapy for the plaintiff’s brain-injured

child. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Artcraft Electric Ltd. v. Classic Lighting Corp. (FL-M

3:00-cv-01166 filed 10/18/2000).

Copyright action involving the production, distribution, and sale of glassware products that are

direct copies of the plaintiff’s glassware. A sealed

settlement agreement was filed. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement.

Anthony v. Community Hospice of Northeast Florida

Inc. (FL-M 3:00-cv-01239 filed 11/08/2000).

Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act

by kitchen and nursing employees for failure to

pay overtime wages. A sealed settlement agreement was filed. The court retained jurisdiction for

thirty days to enforce the terms of the settlement

agreement.

Morrow v. Town of Oakland (FL-M 6:00-cv-01514

filed 11/13/2000).

Employment action by a chief of police for age

discrimination and wrongful termination. A

sealed document was filed the day of the settlement conference. A sealed settlement agreement

apparently was filed.

Thiruchelvam v. Humana Medical Plan Inc. (FL-M

6:00-cv-01542 filed 11/16/2000).

Employment action by eight doctors against a

health insurance company, alleging that they

were terminated from their primary care agreements because of their race. The plaintiffs filed a

motion to enforce the oral settlement agreement

reached during mediation. One week after the

motion was filed, two sealed documents were

filed. Two days later, a settlement conference was

held. The case was dismissed as settled, and the

court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.

Palermo v. United Parcel Service Inc. (FL-M 8:00-cv02395 filed 11/22/2000).

Action under the Americans with Disabilities Act,

Family Medical Leave Act, and Fair Labor Standards Act by a supervisor against his former employer for failure to pay overtime wages, discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination

because of his stress disorder. A sealed settlement

agreement was filed as an attachment to a joint

motion for a protective order. The case was dismissed as settled.

Wallendy v. Kanji (FL-M 8:01-cv-00323 filed

02/13/2001).

Action under the Americans with Disabilities Act

for an injunction requiring the defendant to remove from its commercial property architectural

barriers to the physically disabled. A portion of

the settlement agreement containing attorney fees

and costs was filed under seal.

Delgado v. Hillsborough Community College (FL-M

8:01-cv-00514 filed 03/09/2001).

Employment action by a Hispanic security officer

for race discrimination and retaliation for filing an

EEOC complaint. A sealed settlement agreement

was filed. Two months after the case was dismissed, the plaintiff filed a notice of the defendant’s noncompliance. One month later, the

plaintiff reported that the defendant had complied with the settlement agreement.
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-23

Hanshaw v. Princess U.S. Holdings Inc. (FL-M 8:01-

cv-01045 filed 06/01/2001).

Personal injury action involving an injury sustained when the plaintiff’s wheelchair was thrown

backwards while entering the gangway of the defendant’s passenger ship. After the court ordered

mediation, the case was dismissed without prejudice and “subject to the right of the parties within

60 days to submit a stipulated form of final order

or judgment.” Six days after the case was dismissed, a sealed document was filed. Two months

later, a final order granted the joint stipulation for

dismissal with prejudice. A sealed settlement

agreement apparently was filed.

Erway v. Mayport Wholesale Seafood Inc. (FL-M 3:01-

cv-00733 filed 06/27/2001).

Employment action by a supervisor for sexual

harassment and retaliation. The case was dismissed as settled. A sealed settlement agreement

was filed as an attachment to the plaintiff’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement. The

court denied the motion.

Mishoe v. City of Bartow (FL-M 8:01-cv-01303 filed

07/10/2001).

Employment action for wrongful termination in

retaliation for supporting a co-worker’s sexual

harassment claim. A sealed document was filed

about a month after the case was dismissed without prejudice, and the parties were given sixty

days to submit a stipulated form of final order or

judgment.

Shuey v. Information and Display Systems Inc. (FL-M

3:01-cv-00797 filed 07/13/2001).

Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act by an

inventory logistics coordinator for failure to pay

overtime wages. A sealed settlement agreement

was filed. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement.

Hunter v. Albertson’s Inc. (FL-M 6:01-cv-00866 filed

07/20/2001).

Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act

by grocery store employees for failure to pay

overtime wages. A sealed settlement agreement

was filed.

Konecranes Inc. v. Leach (FL-M 3:01-cv-00917 filed

08/09/2001).

Contract action involving breach of an employee

noncompetition and confidentiality agreement. A

sealed settlement agreement was filed. The court

granted the plaintiff’s motion for a permanent

injunction against the use of client lists and trade

secrets. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce

the terms of the settlement agreement.

Access for America Inc. v. Hall (FL-M 8:01-cv-01734

filed 09/07/2001).

Action under the Americans with Disabilities Act

for an injunction requiring the defendant to remove from its commercial property architectural

barriers to the physically disabled. A sealed

document was filed ten days after the motion to

approve a consent decree. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the consent decree.

Access for America Inc. v. World Continents Inc. (FLM 8:01-cv-01736 filed 09/07/2001).

Action under the Americans with Disabilities Act

for an injunction requiring the defendant to remove from its commercial property architectural

barriers to the physically disabled. A sealed settlement agreement was filed. In the order of dismissal, the court awarded the plaintiff $2,500 to

cover legal fees, expert fees, costs, and reinspection costs.

Hernandez v. Central Beef Industries LLC (FL-M

5:01-cv-00323 filed 09/27/2001).

Wrongful termination action under the Family

Medical Leave Act seeking reinstatement and repayment of employment benefits. A sealed settlement agreement was filed by the defendant.

The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the

terms of the settlement agreement.

DirecTV Inc. v. Lamothe (FL-M 8:01-cv-01923 filed

10/09/2001).

Action under the Federal Communication Act

seeking injunctive relief and compensation for

unlawful sale of signal theft devices. Eighteen

days before the case was dismissed a sealed

document was filed. The court dismissed the case

without prejudice, and held that the parties could

“re-open the action within sixty (60) days upon

good cause.” The court also ordered a permanent

injunction enjoining the defendant from manufacturing or selling signal theft devices.

Harwell v. Groover (FL-M 3:01-cv-01179 filed

10/12/2001).

Shareholder derivative action involving breach of

fiduciary duty and usurpation of corporate op-
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-24

portunity. A sealed settlement agreement was

filed.

Access for America Inc. v. G&G Properties LLC (FLM 8:02-cv-00212 filed 02/05/2002).

Action under the Americans with Disabilities Act

for an injunction requiring the defendant to remove from its shopping plaza architectural barriers to the physically disabled. In the consent decree the defendant agreed to modify its facilities

to make them readily accessible to the disabled. In

a stipulated agreement the court approved the

fees and costs in camera under seal.

Tremaroli v. Information and Display Systems Inc.

(FL-M 3:02-cv-00315 filed 04/01/2002).

Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act by an

electronics technician for failure to pay overtime

wages. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Violet v. Designers’ Press Inc. (FL-M 6:02-cv-00658

filed 06/06/2002).

Employment action in which a woman sued her

former employer for sexual harassment and retaliation. Settlement was reached during the settlement conference. The portion of the record

containing the terms of the settlement was sealed.

Cummings v. Timberland Security Corp. (FL-M 8:02-

cv-01227 filed 07/10/2002).

Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act

by a security officer for failure to pay overtime

wages. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Northern District of Florida

No relevant local rule.

Statistics: 3,045 cases in termination cohort; 2

docket sheets are sealed (0.07%)—the disposition

code for 1 of these cases suggests no sealed settlement agreement35 and the disposition code for 1

of these cases suggests a sealed settlement agreement;36 160 unsealed docket sheets (5.3%) have the

word “seal” in them; 11 complete docket sheets

(0.36%) were reviewed; actual documents were

examined for 5 cases (0.16%); 5 cases (0.16%) appear to have sealed settlement agreements.

 

35. One “other” dismissal.

36. One case settled.

Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

United States v. Board of Regents (FL-N 4:93-cv40226 filed 06/25/1993).

Statutory action. The docket sheet is sealed. The

case was dismissed as settled.

United States ex rel. Andres v. Florida Clinical

Practice Associates (FL-N 1:96-cv-00116 filed

06/25/1996).

Qui tam action under the False Claims Act for

fraudulent Medicare billing. Many filings in this

case are under seal, including the settlement

agreement, but not the complaint.

Rzepka v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (FL-N 5:00-cv00023 filed 02/01/2000).

Motor vehicle action against the manufacturer

and distributor of the plaintiffs’ Dodge Caravan

and another driver for wrongful death in a rollover accident. Plaintiffs alleged that design defects caused the car’s plastic roof to cave in, windows to burst, and restraint system to fail. A

sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Thomas v. Florida Power Corp. (FL-N 4:00-cv-00231

filed 06/14/2000).

Employment discrimination case alleging a hostile

work environment on the basis of race. The harassment included the hanging of two rope nooses

in the workplace. A sealed settlement agreement

was attached to the consent order of dismissal.

Blankenship v. Turner (FL-N 1:01-cv-00052 filed

05/16/2001).

Employment discrimination case involving sexual

harassment by a former deputy sheriff. The plaintiff alleged that some employees of the Sheriff’s

Department made inappropriate and unwelcome

sexual advances toward her and that after she

reported the harassment she was made a target of

ridicule and retaliation. At the pretrial conference

a settlement agreement was reached, and the announcement and transcript of the settlement

agreement were sealed.

Southern District of Florida

“Unless the Court’s sealing order permits the

matter to remain sealed permanently, the Clerk

will dispose of the sealed matter upon expiration

of the time specified in the Court’s sealing order

by unsealing, destroying, or returning the matter

to the filing party.” S.D. Fla. Gen. L.R. 5.4.D. “Absent extraordinary circumstances, no matter
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-25

sealed pursuant to this rule may remain sealed for

longer than five (5) years from the date of filing.”

Id. R. 5.4.B.2.

Statistics: 15,928 cases in termination cohort; 16

docket sheets are sealed (0.10%)—the disposition

codes for 15 of these cases suggest no sealed settlement agreements37 and the disposition code for

1 of these cases suggests a sealed settlement

agreement;38 669 docket sheets (4.2%) have the

word “seal” in them; 260 complete docket sheets

(1.6%) were reviewed; actual documents were

examined for 128 cases (0.80%); 111 cases (0.70%)

appear to have sealed settlement agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

Brandt v. Deloitte & Touche LLP (FL-S 1:93-cv-01830

filed 09/21/1993).

Personal property damage action by a bankrupt

bank against an accounting firm that allegedly

failed to exercise reasonable care in performing

accounting and auditing services. The final entry

on the docket sheet notes that a sealed document

was filed the same day the court reported that a

settlement conference was canceled.

Arnold Palmer Enterprises v. Gotta Have It Golf

Collectibles (FL-S 1:97-cv-00978 filed 04/14/1997).

Trademark infringement action involving sale of

unlicensed photographs and false reproductions.

A sealed document was filed a week before the

case was dismissed. In the order of dismissal the

court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. A sealed settlement agreement

apparently was filed.

United States ex rel. Ayers v. Tenet Healthcare Corp.

(FL-S 1:97-cv-02507 filed 08/05/1997).

Qui tam action under the False Claims Act for

fraudulent Medicare billing. Many filings in this

case are under seal, including the settlement

agreement, but not the complaint.

Parris v. Miami Herald Publishing Co. (FL-S 1:97-cv02524 filed 08/05/1997).

Wrongful termination action under the Family

Medical Leave Act. Seventeen days after the settlement conference, a sealed document was filed

and the case was dismissed. Four days after the

 

37. One judgment on motion before trial, 4 voluntary dismissals, 4 “other” dismissals, 4 “other” judgments, 2 statistical closings.

38. One consent judgment.

case was dismissed, an amended order of dismissal was filed stating that the court would retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement. A sealed settlement agreement

apparently was filed.

Estate of Sosa v. American Airlines Inc. (FL-S 1:97-

cv-03863 filed 12/03/1997).

Airplane action for wrongful death of a passenger

on a flight that crashed at the Cali, Colombia, airport, allegedly due to lack of ground navigational

aids. The case settled for $1 million, and details of

the settlement were provided in the guardian ad

litem report. A sealed document was filed the

same day the case was dismissed. A sealed settlement agreement apparently was filed.

United States ex rel. Airon v. University of Miami Inc.

(FL-S 1:97-cv-04304 filed 12/19/1997).

Qui tam action under the False Claims Act for

fraudulent Medicare billing. A sealed document

was filed four days prior to an order dismissing

the case. In the order for dismissal “all other presently existing contents of the Court’s file” (except

the complaint) were to remain sealed. A sealed

settlement agreement apparently was filed.

United Parcel Service of America Inc. v. Lynn

Strickland Tires Inc. (FL-S 1:98-cv-00992 filed

05/10/1998).

Contract action involving tire-related services. A

sealed settlement agreement was filed. The court

approved the settlement, retained jurisdiction to

enforce the settlement agreement, and closed the

case. One of the defendants filed a motion to reopen the case and unseal the settlement agreement because the defendant was not a party to the

agreement and never received a copy of it. The

court reopened the case, vacated the order approving the settlement, and unsealed the settlement agreement, but ordered that “the parties

shall maintain the confidentiality of the document

and use it only to promote further settlement.”

The defendant who had settled with the plaintiff

was dismissed. The final judgment against the

remaining defendant was in the amount of

$18,712.

Rando v. Slingsby Aviation Ltd. (FL-S 1:98-cv-02224

filed 09/22/1998).

Wrongful death action alleging that a faulty fuel

system caused the crash of a Firefly Aircraft,

which killed an Air Force Academy cadet. The

case was dismissed as to the distributor of the air-
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-26

plane. A joint stipulation of dismissal was ordered

for the manufacturer of the fuel-injection system.

A sealed document was filed two days prior to

dismissal. A sealed settlement agreement apparently was filed. Two years later a settlement

agreement was reached with the manufacturer of

the airplane, but this agreement was not filed. In

the order of dismissal the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement.

Casey v. Windmere-Durable Holdings Inc. (FL-S 1:98-

cv-02273 filed 09/29/1998).

Securities class action for the fraudulent misrepresentation of financial condition, causing artificial

inflation of the company’s stock price. The settlement agreement provided $10.5 million to the

class. A supplemental agreement was filed under

seal.

United States ex rel. Christensen v. Preferred

Healthcare Consultants Inc. (FL-S 1:98-cv-03021

filed 12/10/1998).

Qui tam action under the False Claims Act for

fraudulent Medicare billing by health care providers. Two days before the case was dismissed a

sealed document was filed. A sealed settlement

agreement apparently was filed.

Martin v. Underwood Karcher & Karcher PA (FL-S

1:99-cv-01440 filed 05/19/1999).

Employment action for sexual harassment and for

wrongful termination after the plaintiff reported

the harassment. A sealed document was filed six

days before the joint stipulation of dismissal. In

the order of dismissal the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement. A sealed settlement agreement apparently

was filed.

First Impressions Design and Management Inc. v. All

That Style Interiors Inc. (FL-S 1:99-cv-02353 filed

08/26/1999).

Patent action alleging that the defendant marketed and sold a theater-style chair and falsely

represented this product as identical to the plaintiff’s “CineLounger.” In the order of dismissal the

court approved the settlement agreement. A

sealed document was filed the same day the case

was dismissed. A sealed settlement agreement

apparently was filed.

Oviedo v. Crystal Art of Florida Inc. (FL-S 1:99-cv02391 filed 08/31/1999).

Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act by a

crystal art assembler for failure to pay overtime

wages. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Martin v. Thermo Electron Corp. (FL-S 1:99-cv-02547

filed 09/22/1999).

Contract action for breach of a master distributor

agreement. A sealed document was filed two

weeks after the settlement conference and two

weeks before the joint stipulation to dismiss. A

sealed settlement agreement apparently was filed.

United States ex rel. Alford v. Bon-Bone Medical

Imaging Inc. (FL-S 9:99-cv-08841 filed 10/08/1999).

Qui tam action under the False Claims Act for

fraudulent Medicare billing. Sealed documents

were filed the same day the case was dismissed.

Island Developers Ltd. v. Martin Lumber and Cedar

Co. (FL-S 1:99-cv-02969 filed 11/03/1999).

Contract action involving breach of implied warranty when defective wood windows were installed. In the order of dismissal the court retained

jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement

agreement. Two months after the case was dismissed, a sealed document was filed the same day

the plaintiff filed a motion to expedite enforcement of the settlement agreement. A sealed settlement agreement apparently was filed. The

court denied the motion for oral argument, and

the plaintiff withdrew the motion to expedite enforcement, because the parties resolved the issue.

In re Hays v. Martinengo (FL-S 1:99-cv-03000 filed

11/08/1999).

Statutory action in admiralty by owners of a motorboat for exoneration from or limitation of liability for an accident that killed three people. A

sealed document was filed four days after the order approving the settlement. A sealed settlement

agreement apparently was filed.

Estate of Regalado v. Airmark Engines Inc. (FL-S

0:99-cv-07579 filed 11/29/1999); Estate of Acevedo

v. Airmark Engines Inc. (FL-S 0:99-cv-07580 filed

11/29/1999).

Two airplane personal injury and product liability

actions for wrongful death against the manufacturer and distributor of an aircraft for installing an

incorrect fuel-pump system that caused the aircraft to crash, killing the pilot. The court ap-
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-27

pointed a guardian ad litem to approve the settlement agreement with the decedent’s minor

child. In the minutes of the motion to approve a

settlement hearing, it was noted that the “parties

will file settlement under seal.” In the order dismissing the case, the court retained jurisdiction

for sixty days to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement. A sealed document was filed

one week after the case was dismissed. A sealed

settlement agreement apparently was filed.

Hofstein v. Coastal Leasing Inc. (FL-S 0:99-cv-07620

filed 12/10/1999).

Employment action by a portfolio manager

against her former employer for wrongful termination based on her pregnancy. The plaintiff’s

motion to enforce the settlement agreement was

filed under seal. The court denied the motion and

entered a final judgment in favor of the defendant.

Gornescu v. United Cable Communications Group

(FL-S 0:99-cv-07637 filed 12/15/1999).

Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act by a

cable company employee for failure to pay overtime wages. A sealed settlement agreement was

filed.

DC Comics v. Burglar Alarm Technicians Inc. (FL-S

0:99-cv-07641 filed 12/16/1999).

Copyright action involving the “Batman” logo

against a burglar alarm company. A sealed settlement agreement was filed as an attachment to

the order of dismissal.

Zurich-American Insurance Co. v. Perez (FL-S 1:00-

cv-00559 filed 02/10/2000).

Action for declaratory judgment regarding disputes over an insurance contract in which the

distributor demanded a refund of the deposit on

undelivered vehicles. A sealed document was

filed three days before the case was dismissed.

The order of dismissal refers to a “Confidential

Settlement Agreement and Release.” A sealed

settlement agreement apparently was filed.

Guillen v. Northwest Airlines Inc. (FL-S 1:00-cv01300 filed 04/06/2000).

Action for damages for personal injuries suffered

by a three-year-old child when a flight attendant

spilled hot coffee on her. In the guardian ad

litem’s report, the settlement amount of $145,000

was disclosed. The sealed settlement agreement

was filed as an attachment to the guardian’s report.

Jacobs v. Pine Crest Preparatory School Inc. (FL-S

0:00-cv-06564 filed 04/21/2000).

Employment action for wrongful termination of a

teacher based on sex and age. A sealed settlement

agreement was filed. In the order of dismissal the

court retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of

the settlement agreement.

Williams v. Office Depot Inc. (FL-S 1:00-cv-01466

filed 04/24/2000).

Employment civil rights action in which a black

plaintiff sued a former employer for race discrimination and wrongful termination. One day

after the stipulation of dismissal was filed, a

sealed document was filed. In the order of dismissal the court retained jurisdiction to enforce

the terms of the settlement agreement. A sealed

settlement agreement apparently was filed.

Johns v. Viking Life-Saving Equipment (America) Inc.

(FL-S 1:00-cv-01998 filed 06/05/2000).

Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act

for failure to pay overtime wages. A sealed

document was filed one week before the case was

dismissed. The order of dismissal approved the

settlement agreement. A sealed settlement agreement apparently was filed.

Mencia v. Crystal Art of Florida Inc. (FL-S 1:00-cv02053 filed 06/08/2000).

Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act

by warehouse employees for failure to pay overtime wages. A sealed settlement agreement was

filed.

Sakr v. University of Miami (FL-S 1:00-cv-02294

filed 06/28/2000).

Action under the Americans with Disabilities Act

alleging that the defendant dismissed the plaintiff

from a doctoral program on account of his disability. The plaintiff’s counsel filed an emergency

motion to enforce the settlement agreement, alleging that the plaintiff had agreed to accept the

settlement reached at the settlement conference

but later refused to sign the agreement. The defendant filed an emergency motion to seal the

settlement agreement and filed a sealed copy of

the agreement. The motion to enforce the settlement agreement was denied. Subsequently, the

court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff filed an appeal one
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-28

month after the case was dismissed, and the appeal currently is pending.

Tessier v. J.C. Penney Inc. (FL-S 0:00-cv-07080 filed

07/31/2000).

Employment discrimination action by an Italian

man alleging a hostile work environment. The

plaintiff alleged that he was harassed after he

complained about hazardous working conditions.

The defendant filed a sealed motion to enforce the

settlement agreement. The court denied the motion to enforce because the plaintiff never signed

the settlement agreement. Four months later the

case was dismissed as settled.

Dolan v. Ancicare PPO Inc. (FL-S 0:00-cv-07099

filed 08/03/2000).

Employment discrimination case based on sexual

harassment and retaliation. The joint stipulation

for dismissal asked the court to retain jurisdiction

to enforce the settlement agreement. One month

after the case was dismissed, a sealed document

was filed. A sealed settlement agreement apparently was filed.

Estate of Runnels v. City of Miami (FL-S 1:00-cv02930 filed 08/10/2000).

Civil rights action for wrongful death that occurred when a police officer killed a man threatening to commit suicide. The decedent was alone

in his house when the police officer shot him

through a window. A sealed document was filed

one week before the notice of settlement. A sealed

settlement agreement apparently was filed.

Association for Disabled Americans v. Beekman

Towers Inc. (FL-S 1:00-cv-02951 filed 08/14/2000).

Civil rights action under the Americans with Disabilities Act for an injunction requiring the defendant to remove from its hotel architectural barriers to the physically disabled. A sealed settlement

agreement was filed. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement.

Rivera v. Lentine Marine Inc. (FL-S 2:00-cv-14266

filed 08/30/2000).

Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act by a

mechanic for failure to pay minimum wage and

overtime wages. A sealed settlement agreement

was filed.

American Disability Association v. Mavis

Development Corp. (FL-S 0:00-cv-07278 filed

09/05/2000).

Civil rights action under the Americans with Disabilities Act for an injunction requiring the defendant to remove from its commercial property architectural barriers to the physically disabled. A

sealed document was filed two days before the

case was dismissed. In the order dismissing the

case the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the

stipulation for settlement. A sealed settlement

agreement apparently was filed.

Genao v. Joe Allen Miami Beach LLC (FL-S 1:00-cv03689 filed 10/02/2000).

Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act

by kitchen workers for failure to pay minimum

wage and overtime wages. A sealed settlement

agreement was filed.

Singh-Chaitan v. Nova Southeastern University Inc.

(FL-S 1:00-cv-04553 filed 11/30/2000).

Employment action by a black office manager

against a former employer for race discrimination.

In the order of dismissal the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. A

sealed settlement agreement was filed as an attachment to the plaintiff’s motion to enforce it.

The parties were unable to agree on a separate

agreement that was to be the final settlement

agreement, so the plaintiff wanted to enforce the

original settlement agreement. The defendant

filed a motion to compel a settlement agreement

with a revised confidentiality provision. The court

granted the plaintiff’s motion to enforce the original settlement agreement and denied the defendant’s motion to compel a revised settlement

agreement. The defendant filed a revised sealed

settlement agreement as an attachment to a renewed motion to compel a settlement agreement.

The defendant objected to the court order enforcing the original settlement agreement, and the

court heard oral argument on this issue. After oral

argument the parties amicably resolved the dispute involving the confidentiality clause. The

court retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of

the settlement agreement.

Ballantini v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (FL-S 1:00-

cv-04755 filed 12/14/2000).

Admiralty action for personal injury that occurred

when the plaintiff fell down some stairs while a

passenger on the defendant’s cruise ship. A settlement for $110,000 was noted in the minutes of
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-29

the settlement conference. The transcript of the

settlement conference was sealed. The court retained jurisdiction for thirty days to enforce the

settlement agreement.

Darch v. Café Iguana Inc. (FL-S 1:00-cv-04813 filed

12/18/2000).

Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act

by restaurant workers for failure to pay minimum

wage and overtime wages. A sealed document

was filed two weeks after the notice of settlement

was filed by the plaintiffs. A sealed settlement

agreement apparently was filed.

United States v. Kantor (FL-S 0:00-cv-07851 filed

12/19/2000).

Action under the False Claims Act for fraudulent

Medicare billing. A sealed document was filed

three days before the case was dismissed. A

sealed settlement agreement apparently was filed.

Barnuevo v. BNP Paribas (FL-S 1:01-cv-00005 filed

01/02/2001).

Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act by a

bank employee for failure to pay overtime wages.

A sealed document was filed the same day the

case was dismissed. In the order of dismissal the

court retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of

the settlement agreement. A sealed settlement

agreement apparently was filed.

Egli v. Martino Tire Co. of Royal Palm Beach (FL-S

9:01-cv-08013 filed 01/04/2001).

Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act by an

automobile repair shop employee for failure to

pay overtime wages. A sealed settlement agreement was filed. The order of dismissal stated that

“the documents filed under seal shall remain under seal until the closing of this case, at which

time they shall be destroyed.”

Weiss v. Russell J. Ferraro Jr. and Associates (FL-S

2:01-cv-14025 filed 01/22/2001).

Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act by a

legal assistant for failure to pay overtime wages.

A sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Rodriguez v. Fresh King Inc. (FL-S 1:01-cv-00304

filed 01/23/2001).

Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act

by warehouse employees for failure to pay overtime wages. A sealed document was filed the

same day the case was dismissed. A sealed settlement agreement apparently was filed.

Artcom Technologies Corp. v. Mastec Inc. (FL-S 1:01-

cv-00351 filed 01/29/2001).

RICO action involving a management buyout

with allegations of conversion, fraud, and breach

of fiduciary duty. A sealed settlement agreement

was filed. In the order of dismissal the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement.

Biosample Inc. v. Biosamplex Inc. (FL-S 9:01-cv08107 filed 02/06/2001).

Trademark action concerning the sale of “biological products.” The court ordered a permanent injunction against the defendant’s use of the trademark Biosamplex. A sealed settlement agreement

was filed. In the order of dismissal the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the injunction and

settlement agreement.

Stortini v. LDC General Contracting Inc. (FL-S 1:01-

cv-00531 filed 02/09/2001).

Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act by a

construction worker for failure to pay overtime

wages. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.

In the order of dismissal the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement

agreement.

Flores v. Albertson’s Inc. (FL-S 1:01-cv-00534 filed

02/09/2001).

Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act

by grocery store employees for failure to pay

overtime wages. A sealed document was filed two

days before the case was dismissed. In the order

of dismissal the court approved the settlement

agreement. A sealed settlement agreement apparently was filed.

Doe v. Metropolitan Dade County Public Health Trust

(FL-S 1:01-cv-00546 filed 02/12/2001).

Civil rights action arising from refusal to disclose

a minor’s AIDS diagnosis to the minor. A sealed

document was filed the same day the case was

dismissed. In the order of dismissal the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement. A sealed settlement agreement apparently was filed.
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-30

Access Now Inc. v. Winn-Dixie Stores Inc. (FL-S

1:01-cv-00764 filed 02/21/2001).

Civil rights action under the Americans with Disabilities Act for an injunction requiring the defendant to remove from its grocery stores architectural barriers to the physically disabled. A sealed

document was filed one day before the case was

dismissed. In the order of dismissal the settlement

was approved and the court ordered that the settlement agreement be returned to the parties

rather than be permanently under seal.

Pierre-Louis v. Archon Residential Management LP

(FL-S 1:01-cv-00794 filed 02/22/2001).

Employment action by a black maintenance

worker against his former employer for race discrimination and wrongful termination. A sealed

document was filed five days before the case was

dismissed. In the order of dismissal the court approved the settlement agreement and retained

jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.

A sealed settlement agreement apparently was

filed.

Jones v. Air Compressor Works Inc. (FL-S 9:01-cv08164 filed 02/23/2001).

Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act by an

office manager for failure to pay overtime wages.

A sealed document was filed on the same day the

case was dismissed. The order dismissing the case

approved the settlement agreement. A sealed settlement agreement apparently was filed.

Taks v. Martinique 2-Owners’ Association (FL-S 9:01-

cv-08199 filed 03/05/2001).

Employment action by a general manager alleging

a hostile work environment as a result of sexual

harassment and alleging wrongful termination on

the basis of age and disability. In the order of

dismissal the court approved the settlement

agreement and granted a motion to file it under

seal.

Thomas v. Johnny Rockets Group (FL-S 1:01-cv-01067

filed 03/19/2001).

Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act

by restaurant employees for failure to pay minimum wage. The case was dismissed as settled,

and the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the

settlement agreement. Six months after the case

was dismissed the plaintiff filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement. A sealed document, presumably the settlement agreement, was

filed the same day.

Planet Solutions v. European Cosmetics and Research

Lab Inc. (FL-S 0:01-cv-06448 filed 03/21/2001).

Trademark action under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act involving trade secrets for cleaning

products. The complaint also included Florida

statutory and common law claims. In August

2002, seventeen days after the order granting a

stay pending arbitration, the court granted the

joint stipulation of dismissal and permanent injunction. In March 2003, the defendant filed a

motion to seal the settlement agreement so that

the court could rule upon the motion to vacate the

permanent injunction on grounds that the plaintiff breached the terms of the confidential settlement agreement. A sealed settlement agreement

was filed along with the motion to vacate. No

other documents were filed in the case.

Vigo v. American Sales and Management

Organization Corp. (FL-S 1:01-cv-01245 filed

03/26/2001).

Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act by a

security guard for failure to pay overtime wages.

A sealed settlement agreement was filed. In the

amended order of dismissal the court retained

jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement

agreement.

Lil’ Joe Records Inc. v. Worldwide Pants Inc. (FL-S

1:01-cv-01377 filed 04/05/2001).

Copyright action involving the use of a sound

recording on “The Late Late Show with Craig Kilborn.” A sealed document was filed five days before the notice of settlement was filed. The court

retained jurisdiction for sixty days to enforce the

settlement agreement. A sealed settlement agreement apparently was filed.

Aguilera v. Quail Investments Inc. (FL-S 1:01-cv01384 filed 04/06/2001).

Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act

by restaurant employees for failure to pay overtime wages. A sealed document was filed the

same day the case was dismissed. A sealed settlement agreement apparently was filed.

Brito v. Shoma Development Corp. (FL-S 1:01-cv01421 filed 04/10/2001).

Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act

for failure to pay overtime wages. A sealed settlement agreement was filed as an attachment to

the notice of stipulation for voluntary dismissal.

In the order approving settlement, the court or-
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-31

dered that the settlement agreement remain under

seal until the case was dismissed.

Carlucci v. Thermo Electron Corp. (FL-S 1:01-cv01680 filed 04/24/2001).

Personal injury action against the manufacturer

and owner of an X-ray unit the plaintiff serviced.

The plaintiff’s wrist was broken when the scissor

arm casting broke, causing the arm and tube head

to fall. A sealed settlement agreement was attached to the defendants’ motion to enforce the

settlement agreement. The case was dismissed as

settled before the court ruled on the motion to

enforce.

Signal Communications LLC v. Motorola Inc. (FL-S

0:01-cv-06676 filed 04/25/2001).

Contract action involving breach of a noncompetition covenant in an agreement to purchase

assets of a two-way radio service division. The

joint stipulation of dismissal notes that the parties

entered into a separate settlement agreement. A

sealed document was filed three days before the

case was dismissed. In the order of dismissal the

court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. A sealed settlement agreement

apparently was filed.

Seiko Kabushiki Kaisha v. Swiss Watch International

Inc. (FL-S 0:01-cv-06732 filed 05/02/2001).

Infringement action for use of the trademarks

“Seiko” and “Pulsar.” A sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant (FL-S 0:01-cv01845 filed 05/04/2001).

Commerce action. The docket sheet is sealed. The

case was resolved by consent judgment.

Taylor v. Arrowpac Inc. (FL-S 1:01-cv-01948 filed

05/11/2001).

Employment civil rights action by a black plaintiff

for race discrimination. A sealed settlement

agreement was filed, and the plaintiff asked for

the enforcement of the settlement agreement

eleven days later. The day after the motion to enforce the settlement agreement was filed, the motion was withdrawn. In the final order of dismissal the court retained jurisdiction for ninety

days to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement.

Harrington v. Twin City Fire Insurance Co. (FL-S

9:01-cv-08442 filed 05/16/2001).

Insurance action for bad faith in not offering policy limits to resolve an automobile negligence

claim. The court approved a settlement and sealed

the settlement agreement. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.

Velazquez v. SoftNetGaming Inc. (FL-S 1:01-cv02011 filed 05/17/2001).

Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act for

failure to pay overtime wages. The case was dismissed as settled, and the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. Two

months after the case was dismissed, the plaintiff

filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement

under seal. Another sealed document, presumably the settlement agreement, was filed the same

day.

Medley Industria Farmaceutica SA v. Da Matta (FL-S

1:01-cv-02132 filed 05/24/2001).

Action for breach of contract involving repayment

for sponsorship and support of the defendant’s

career as a race car driver. A sealed document was

filed one day before the joint stipulation of dismissal was filed. In the order of dismissal the

court retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of

the settlement agreement. A sealed settlement

agreement apparently was filed.

Israel v. Mayrsohn International Trading Co. (FL-S

1:01-cv-02172 filed 05/25/2001).

Employment action under the Americans with

Disabilities Act by a disabled employee alleging

wrongful termination. A sealed document was

filed on the same day the case was dismissed. In

the order of dismissal the court retained jurisdiction only to enforce the terms of the settlement

agreement. A sealed settlement agreement apparently was filed. Three months after the case was

dismissed, the final judgment ordered that the

defendant pay $15,876 to the plaintiff.

Morkos Group v. Amoco Oil Co. (FL-S 0:01-cv-06911

filed 05/29/2001).

Contract action for breach of “Right of First Option to Purchase when Available for Sale” by an

independent contractor for a gasoline station. The

sealed settlement agreement was filed as an exhibit to the notice regarding settlement. In the order dismissing the case, the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement

agreement. On the same day the case was dis-
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-32

missed the court granted the defendant’s motion

to enforce the settlement agreement. The plaintiff

filed an appeal five months after the case was

dismissed, and the appeal currently is pending.

Fort Lauderdale Auto Leasing Corp. v. Sunshine Auto

Rentals Inc. (FL-S 1:01-cv-02682 filed 06/25/2001).

Trademark action concerning the use of the service mark “Sunshine” by a rental car company. The

court granted the parties’ joint motion for a

stipulated permanent injunction. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Dede v. City Furniture Inc. (FL-S 1:01-cv-02696 filed

06/25/2001).

Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act

by furniture store employees for failure to pay

overtime wages. A sealed settlement agreement

was filed.

Vargas v. Shoma Development Corp. (FL-S 1:01-cv02738 filed 06/27/2001).

Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act by a

construction worker for failure to pay minimum

wage and overtime wages. A sealed settlement

agreement was filed.

Fleurimond v. United Enterprises of Southeast Florida

Inc. (FL-S 1:01-cv-02938 filed 07/06/2001).

Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act

by construction workers for failure to pay overtime wages. The confidential settlement agreement was filed under seal with a motion to enforce the settlement agreement. The court denied

the motion to enforce on the grounds that the defendant had satisfied its obligations. The parties’

request that the settlement agreement be returned

was granted. The court ordered that the motion to

file the settlement agreement under seal be unsealed and that the docket entry referring to a

“sealed document” also be unsealed to reflect that

the sealed document was a settlement agreement.

National Installers Inc. v. Harris (FL-S 1:01-cv-02964

filed 07/06/2001).

Action for declaratory judgment under the Fair

Labor Standards Act for failure to pay overtime

wages. A joint stipulation of settlement ordered

that the “Settlement Agreement is to remain permanently under seal.”

Tapia v. Extendicare Homes Inc. (FL-S 1:01-cv-03104

filed 07/17/2001).

Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act

for failure to pay overtime wages. A sealed

document was filed on the same day the case was

dismissed. A sealed settlement agreement apparently was filed.

Eugene v. Pep Boys – Many Moe & Jack Inc. (FL-S

1:01-cv-03171 filed 07/19/2001).

Civil rights employment action by a black assistant store manager against his former employer

for race discrimination. The parties settled the

case during mediation. The plaintiff filed a motion

to enforce the settlement agreement. The defendants filed under seal a response to the plaintiff’s

motion, because it contained information on the

confidential terms of the settlement. The court

dismissed the case pursuant to a joint stipulation

and retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement

agreement.

Tyson v. Martino Tire Co. of Royal Palm Beach (FL-S

9:01-cv-08661 filed 07/19/2001).

Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act

by service managers of an auto repair shop for

failure to pay overtime wages. A sealed settlement agreement was filed. In the order of dismissal the court retained jurisdiction to enforce

the terms of the settlement agreement.

Giraldo v. One World Inc. (FL-S 1:01-cv-03172 filed

07/20/2001).

Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act for

failure to pay overtime wages and for retaliatory

discharge after the plaintiff complained of nonpayment. A sealed settlement agreement was attached to the motion for fees and costs.

Washington v. School Board of Miami-Dade County

(FL-S 1:01-cv-03343 filed 07/30/2001).

Employment action by a substitute teacher against

a school district and a high school principal for

sexual harassment. Two sealed documents were

filed eight days before the parties filed a joint notice of status of settlement documents. The notice

stated that the parties had agreed on the terms of

the settlement and were in the process of executing the agreements. The case was dismissed as

settled, and the court retained jurisdiction for

sixty days to enforce the settlement agreement.
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-33

Palco Labs Inc. v. Vitalcare Group (FL-S 1:01-cv03480 filed 08/10/2001).

Patent infringement case involving an adjustable

tip for a blood lancet device. The court granted

the plaintiff’s motion for permanent injunction. A

sealed settlement agreement was filed, and the

order of dismissal noted that the settlement

agreement will be unsealed on June 4, 2006.

McConnell v. Capri Miami Beach Condo Hotel Inc.

(FL-S 1:01-cv-03572 filed 08/20/2001).

Civil rights action under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act for wrongful termination. The case was

dismissed in April 2002, and the court retained

jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement

agreement. In May 2002, a sealed settlement

agreement was attached to the first motion to enforce an agreement to pay the plaintiff $89,500.

The court placed a lien on a property of the defendant’s sister company as security. In July 2002,

there was a renewed motion to enforce the settlement agreement, claiming $57,000 still due. In

December 2002, a third motion to enforce the settlement agreement sought sanctions for an unpaid

outstanding judgment of $51,000. The last document on the docket sheet, filed in February 2003,

is a plaintiff’s memorandum concerning the effect

on the outstanding judgment of the defendant’s

sister company’s bankruptcy.

Mastercard International Inc. v. T&T Sports

Marketing Ltd. (FL-S 1:01-cv-03632 filed

08/24/2001).

Contract action involving fraudulent misrepresentations and breaches of material provisions in

a written contract for media promotional rights to

a sporting event. A sealed settlement agreement

was filed.

Stubbs v. Art Express 30 Minute Custom Framing

Inc. (FL-S 1:01-cv-03760 filed 09/05/2001).

Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act by an

employee of a custom art framing business for

failure to pay overtime wages. A sealed document

was filed two days before the case was dismissed.

The order of dismissal approved the settlement

agreement. A sealed settlement agreement apparently was filed.

Sanchez v. Drusco Inc. (FL-S 1:01-cv-03796 filed

09/07/2001).

Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act

by employees of an export company for failure to

pay overtime wages. Three weeks after the case

was dismissed, the court granted a motion to extend time to sign settlement papers. A sealed

document was filed one day after the order to extend time. A sealed settlement agreement apparently was filed.

BestNet Communications Corp. v. Infinity Financial

Group (FL-S 0:01-cv-07483 filed 09/17/2001).

Securities case involving false representation in

connection with the purchase of 100,000 shares of

common stock. The plaintiff filed a sealed motion

to enforce the settlement agreement. The court

retained jurisdiction for sixty days to enforce the

terms of settlement.

Rivera v. KB Toy of Florida Inc. (FL-S 0:01-cv-07607

filed 10/17/2001).

Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act

by assistant store managers for failure to pay

overtime wages. A sealed document was filed two

days before the case was dismissed. In the final

order of dismissal, the court stated it considered

the settlement agreement before dismissing the

case. A sealed settlement agreement apparently

was filed.

Yeung v. Far & Wide Travel Corp. (FL-S 1:01-cv04373 filed 10/24/2001).

Contract action for breach of a restrictive covenant

that included a noncompetition clause. The parties filed a joint motion to seal a settlement

agreement. The sealed settlement agreement was

filed. The court denied the motion to seal and returned the settlement agreement to the parties.

The court approved the $2,936,550 settlement.

Alvarez v. Professional Aviation Management Inc.

(FL-S 1:01-cv-04444 filed 10/30/2001).

Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act by a

flight dispatcher for failure to pay overtime

wages. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.

In the order of dismissal, the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement

agreement.

Siegel v. Office Depot Inc. (FL-S 1:01-cv-04566 filed

11/06/2001).

Civil rights employment action by a copy center

manager alleging demotion because of age. A settlement agreement was reached during mediation. The case was dismissed as settled. A sealed

document was filed the same day the case was

dismissed. A sealed settlement agreement apparently was filed.
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-34

Sarabia v. PeopLease Corp. (FL-S 1:01-cv-04870 filed

11/30/2001).

Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act

for failure to pay overtime wages. A sealed settlement agreement was filed. The court retained

jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.

Baumgarten v. Children’s Psychiatric Center Inc. (FLS 1:01-cv-05040 filed 12/17/2001).

Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act by a

psychiatric aide for failure to pay minimum and

overtime wages. A sealed settlement agreement

was filed.

Fishman v. American Media Inc. (FL-S 9:02-cv-80042

filed 01/16/2002).

Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act

by newspaper employees for failure to pay overtime wages. A sealed settlement agreement was

filed. The court ordered that the settlement

agreement remain sealed for five years, at which

time it will be returned to the defendant.

Marinaro v. Miller & Bechert PA (FL-S 0:02-cv60089 filed 1/22/2002).

Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act

for failure to pay overtime wages. A sealed settlement agreement was filed as an attachment to

the motion to seal the settlement agreement. Parties asked the court to destroy the motion to seal,

the motion to approve the sealed settlement

agreement, and the settlement agreement when

the court entered the order to dismiss. In the order

dismissing the case, the court retained jurisdiction

to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement

for sixty days, but did not mention destroying any

documents.

White v. Cowcat Enterprises Inc. (FL-S 9:02-cv-80075

filed 01/31/2002).

Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act

by employees of an addiction treatment program

for failure to pay overtime wages. Two sealed

documents were filed one day before the court

approved the settlement and retained jurisdiction

to enforce the settlement agreement. A sealed settlement agreement apparently was filed.

Nuñez v. Acosta Tractors Inc. (FL-S 1:02-cv-20417

filed 02/06/2002).

Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act by a

dirt digger operator for failure to pay overtime

wages. In the order of dismissal the court retained

jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement

agreement for sixty days. Sealed documents were

filed four and eleven days after the case was dismissed. A sealed settlement agreement apparently

was filed.

Wilson v. Señor Frogs Inc. (FL-S 1:02-cv-20516 filed

02/15/2002).

Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act

by restaurant workers for failure to pay minimum

and overtime wages. A sealed settlement agreement was filed with the motion to approve it. The

court approved the settlement but denied the motion to seal the settlement agreement.

Puig v. Florida Sol Systems Inc. (FL-S 1:02-cv-20663

filed 03/04/2002).

Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act

for failure to pay overtime wages. A sealed settlement agreement was filed. The court approved

the settlement and said it would destroy the settlement agreement.

Webster v. Urbieta (FL-S 1:02-cv-20838 filed

03/18/2002).

Civil rights action against the owner of a gas station for denial of service to the black plaintiff and

his two minor children because of their race.

Three sealed documents were filed within two

weeks of the case’s close. A sealed settlement

agreement apparently was filed.

Navigators Insurance Co. v. Seaboard Marine Ltd.

(FL-S 1:02-cv-20867 filed 03/20/2002).

Contract action in admiralty for loss resulting

from defendant’s failure to properly load and

stow cargo. Five months after the case was dismissed as settled, a sealed document was filed.

VARIG SA v. Nijankin (FL-S 1:02-cv-20960 filed

03/28/2002).

RICO action for breach of fiduciary duty to recover damages for the defendant’s receipt of

commissions, bribes, and kickbacks from the

plaintiff’s contractors. A sealed document was

filed one day before the case was dismissed. The

court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.

Hernandez v. Children’s Psychiatric Center Inc. (FL-S

1:02-cv-20961 filed 03/28/2002).

Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act for

failure to pay minimum and overtime wages. A
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-35

sealed settlement agreement was filed as an attachment to the defendant’s motion to approve

and seal it. Six days later the court denied the

motion to seal. The settlement agreement was returned to the defendant. The defendant filed a

motion for reconsideration of the motion to seal or

in the alternative to review the settlement in camera. The court granted an in camera review. The

court approved the settlement and dismissed the

case.

Reyes Cigars SA v. Adworks of Boca Raton Inc. (FL-S

9:02-cv-80290 filed 04/30/2002).

Contract action against an advertising company

for intentionally shutting down the plaintiff’s ecommerce Web site in breach of an agreement that

the plaintiff would own the rights to the site. The

plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief to reinstate

the Web site was denied. A sealed document was

filed four days before the case was dismissed. A

sealed settlement agreement apparently was filed.

Fernandez v. G.F.B. Enterprises LLC (FL-S 1:02-cv21563 filed 05/24/2002).

Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act

for failure to pay overtime wages. A sealed settlement agreement was filed. The court approved

the settlement and dismissed the case.

Steinberg v. Michaud Buschmann Mittlemark Millian

Blitz & Warren PA (FL-S 9:02-cv-80523 filed

06/06/2002).

Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act

for failure to pay overtime wages. The case settled

during mediation. The case was dismissed without prejudice, and the court retained jurisdiction

for sixty days to enter judgment or final order of

dismissal. One month later a sealed document

was filed. The court has yet to enter an order of

dismissal.

Plasencia v. Hanjin Shipping Co. (FL-S 1:02-cv-21968

filed 07/03/2002).

Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act

for failure to pay overtime wages. A sealed settlement agreement was filed as an attachment to

the defendant’s motion to file it under seal. The

case was dismissed as settled.

Abascal v. Univision Network LP (FL-S 1:02-cv22092 filed 07/17/2002).

Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act

by sales employees for failure to pay overtime

wages. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.

The court approved the settlement and ordered

that the settlement agreement be unsealed December 5, 2007.

Charmant v. L & M Fisheries Inc. (FL-S 0:02-cv61141 filed 08/15/2002).

Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act

for failure to pay overtime wages. A sealed settlement agreement was filed. The parties filed a

joint stipulation of dismissal and asked the court

to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement

agreement. The case was closed, but no order of

dismissal was filed. Five sealed documents were

filed the same day the case was closed. A sealed

settlement agreement apparently was filed.

Wool v. Tokyo Bowl Inc. (FL-S 1:02-cv-22442 filed

08/19/2002).

Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act

by restaurant employees for failure to pay overtime wages. A sealed settlement agreement was

filed as an attachment to a joint motion to seal it.

Eight days later the court denied the motion to

seal and returned the settlement agreement to

counsel. The case has not been closed, and no order of dismissal has been filed.

Shred-it USA Inc. v. Tejo (FL-S 1:02-cv-22494 filed

08/22/2002).

Contract action for breach of a confidentiality and

noncompetition agreement. A sealed settlement

agreement was attached to the defendant’s motion to enforce it. The court granted the motion.

Chong v. D&E Building Maintenance Inc. (FL-S 1:02-

cv-22534 filed 08/27/2002).

Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act by a

maintenance worker for failure to pay overtime

wages. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.

The court approved the settlement and dismissed

the case.

Pizza Hut Inc. v. Grossman (FL-S 1:02-cv-23192

filed 10/29/2002).

Trademark infringement action by Pizza Hut

against the owner of the domain name “pizahut.com.” A sealed settlement agreement was

filed. A consent judgment ordered a permanent

injunction against the defendant’s use of the domain name. The court retained jurisdiction for

sixty days to enforce the settlement agreement.
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-36

District of Guam

No relevant local rule.

Statistics: 130 cases in termination cohort; 7

docket sheets (5.4%) have the word “seal” in

them; 3 complete docket sheets (2.3%) were reviewed; actual documents were examined for 1

case (0.77%); 1 case (0.77%) appears to have a

sealed settlement agreement.

Case with a Sealed Settlement Agreement

Blaz v. van der Pyl (GU 1:00-cv-00014 filed

03/31/2000).

ERISA action by a former dental employee for

failure to provide pension documents, for wrongful termination in retaliation for a request to examine pension documents, and for wrongfully

attempting to withhold pension funds in satisfaction of the plaintiff’s personal debt to her employer. The defendants countersued for conversion of patients’ bill payments to the plaintiff’s

personal use. The case settled at a court-mediated

settlement conference, and a sealed document was

filed that day. Two days later, the court dismissed

the action pursuant to the settlement agreement,

which was incorporated by reference into the notice of dismissal.

District of Hawaii

No relevant local rule.

Statistics: 1,752 cases in termination cohort; 2

docket sheets are sealed (0.11%)—the disposition

code for 1 of these cases suggests no sealed settlement agreement39 and the disposition code for 1

of these cases suggests a sealed settlement agreement;40 458 unsealed docket sheets (26%) have the

word “seal” in them; 42 complete docket sheets

(2.4%) were reviewed; actual documents were

examined for 40 cases (2.3%); 38 cases (2.2%) appear to have sealed settlement agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

Kon v. Goto (HI 1:96-cv-00340 filed 04/09/1996).

ERISA class action by retired employees for

breach of fiduciary duty. A sealed settlement

agreement was filed. Two months after final approval of the settlement, the plaintiff filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement. The

court granted the motion and ordered the defendant to pay $453,802. Subsequently, the defendant

was held in civil contempt and jailed twice for not

 

39. One “other” dismissal.

40. One case settled.

truthfully disclosing his financial records. The

defendant filed for bankruptcy, but the bankruptcy case was dismissed. One year later, the

final judgment was ordered against the defendant. The court retained jurisdiction over this

judgment for one year.

Tanaka v. First Hawaiian Bank (HI 1:96-cv-00734

filed 09/04/1996).

RICO action for breach of fiduciary duty involving the estate of the plaintiff’s deceased father. On

the eleventh day of a jury trial a sealed settlement

agreement was filed. A default judgment was ordered against one of the defendants for

$2,613,906.

R&R of Hawaii Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California (HI

1:97-cv-00248 filed 03/14/1997).

Real property case alleging soil contamination by

storage tanks left by the defendant, who was the

previous owner. The settlement was placed on the

record under seal during a settlement conference.

Arrington v. Wong (HI 1:98-cv-00357 filed

05/04/1998), consolidated with Arrington v. Wong

(HI 1:99-cv-00782 filed 11/09/1999).

The first case is designated a statutory action, and

the second, a medical malpractice case. These

cases were brought by the estate and relatives of a

man (including his minor grandchild) who died

of respiratory failure allegedly because he was

refused care by the defendants at their medical

care facility, which was the closest. The settlement

was placed on the record under seal during a settlement conference.

Cyanotech Corp. v. Aquasearch Inc. (HI 1:98-cv00600 filed 07/13/1998).

Patent noninfringement case concerning a method

to control a microorganism growth process. The

defendant’s motion to enforce the settlement

agreement was sealed and denied by the court.

Lesane v. Hawaiian Airlines (HI 1:98-cv-00735 filed

09/01/1998); Lesane v. Hawaiian Airlines (HI 1:01-

cv-00024 filed 01/03/2001).

Employment action by a black mechanic for race

discrimination. The hearing on the defendant’s

motion to enforce the settlement agreement was

sealed. The court granted the motion to enforce

the settlement agreement.
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-37

Castle & Cooke Properties Inc. v. BHP Hawaii Inc. (HI

1:98-cv-00923 filed 11/17/1998).

Environmental case in which hazardous chemicals and petroleum products allegedly migrated

from the defendant’s property to the plaintiff’s

property, causing contamination of groundwater

and soil. An unexecuted sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Casimiro v. Allstate (HI 1:99-cv-00527 filed

07/22/1999).

Insurance action. The docket sheet is sealed. The

case was dismissed as settled.

EEOC v. Safeway Inc. (HI 1:99-cv-00593 filed

08/25/1999).

Employment action on behalf of a man alleging

sexual harassment and wrongful termination. The

settlement agreement was placed on the record

under seal during a settlement conference. The

case was terminated by a consent decree that was

in effect until February 26, 2003.

Silva v. Scott (HI 1:99-cv-00636 filed 09/16/1999).

Civil rights action by an undergraduate student

against her professor and adviser and his employer for sexual harassment. On the sixth day of

jury deliberation, a settlement was reached. The

settlement was placed on the record under seal

during a settlement conference.

Turner v. GTE Corp. (HI 1:99-cv-00652 filed

09/22/1999).

Civil rights action by a secretary for sexual harassment and wrongful termination. The settlement was placed on the record under seal during

a settlement conference.

City & County of Honolulu v. Estate of Campbell (HI

1:99-cv-00670 filed 09/30/1999).

Environmental case under CERCLA, seeking

compensation for the cleanup of the plaintiff’s

property, which allegedly was contaminated by

hazardous chemicals during the defendant’s ownership of the property. The settlement was placed

on the record under seal during a settlement conference.

King v. Gannett Co. (HI 1:99-cv-00686 filed

10/06/1999), consolidated with Hawaii v. Gannett

Pacific Corp. (HI 1:99-cv-00687 filed 10/06/1999).

Antitrust action by a group of newspaper subscribers and the state of Hawaii to prevent the

defendant from closing down one of the two daily

newspapers in general circulation in Honolulu. A

sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Taylor v. Kaneshiro (HI 1:99-cv-00909 filed

12/13/1999).

Prisoner civil rights action by the mother of a man

who allegedly died because prison officials did

not seek immediate emergency medical treatment

for his self-inflicted wounds. The settlement was

placed on the record under seal during a settlement conference. Eight months after settlement,

the court ordered the defendant to pay the

amount of settlement. The minutes of a status conference regarding dismissal notes a settlement

amount of $200,000.

Giobbi v. Lahaina Divers Inc. (HI 1:00-cv-00005 filed

01/04/2000).

Personal injury action by a woman who was injured by a boat propeller while swimming. The

settlement was placed on the record under seal

during a settlement conference.

Hilo Fish Co. v. Kowalski (HI 1:00-cv-00185 filed

03/06/2000).

Patent case involving a process for freezing seafood. A partial settlement agreement was filed

under seal as an attachment to the minutes of a

settlement conference. Six months later the settlement was placed on the record during another

settlement conference. The court ordered a consent judgment and permanent injunction in favor

of the defendants.

Redmond v. Ackerson (HI 1:00-cv-00444 filed

06/27/2000).

Civil rights action by a disabled black man alleging harassment by his homeowner’s association

after he complained about a revoked parking

permit for his handicap-equipped van. A sealed

settlement agreement was filed.

Hermes International v. High-Class Hawaii LLC (HI

1:00-cv-00518 filed 07/26/2000).

Trademark infringement case involving fraudulent reproductions of the plaintiff’s “Kelly bag”

designs. The case was dismissed, and a permanent injunction was granted in a confidential order filed under seal.
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-38

Quitog v. Piney (HI 1:00-cv-00629 filed

09/26/2000).

Housing case under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act by a disabled

woman against her landlord for threatening to

evict her for having too many caregivers staying

overnight in her apartment. The settlement was

placed on the record under seal during a settlement conference.

Wolken-Vierra v. Allstate Insurance Co. (HI 1:00-cv00721 filed 11/03/2000).

Insurance action for bad faith involving an insured who caused the death of the plaintiff’s husband in a motor vehicle accident. The defendant

failed to secure a release of claims of settlement in

the plaintiff’s earlier case against it. The insured

was forced to continue as a defendant in that case

and later assigned rights to the plaintiff to sue for

the $480,000 judgment (which included $350,000

for the decedent’s minor child). The defendant’s

motion for approval of settlement was filed under

seal and granted by the court.

Arnott v. United Airlines Inc. (HI 1:00-cv-00731

filed 11/09/2000).

Railway Labor Act action by a female flight attendant against her employer for violating the terms

of the collective bargaining agreement by not

processing her workers’ compensation benefits.

The settlement was placed on the record under

seal during a settlement conference.

Noice v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co. (HI 1:01-cv-00036

filed 01/11/2001).

Truth-in-Lending Act case involving a consumer

transaction in which the defendant allegedly misrepresented the financial terms and conditions of

a loan. The settlement was placed on the record

under seal during a settlement conference.

Beach v. See’s Candies Inc. (HI 1:01-cv-00047 filed

01/17/2001).

Employment action by a female store manager for

discrimination and wrongful termination. The

settlement was placed on the record under seal

during a settlement conference.

Bertuccio v. Longs Drug Stores California Inc. (HI

1:01-cv-00052 filed 01/18/2001).

Personal injury case alleging that the plaintiff suffered a knee injury when he slipped and fell in the

defendant’s store. The settlement was placed on

the record under seal during a settlement conference.

Richardson v. Longs Drug Stores California Inc. (HI

1:01-cv-00101 filed 02/08/2001).

Personal injury case alleging that the plaintiff suffered a back injury when hit by a hand truck in

the defendant’s store. The settlement was placed

on the record under seal during a settlement conference.

Fuchs v. Tokyu Corp. (HI 1:01-cv-00165 filed

03/09/2001).

Real property case for breach of a purchase and

sale agreement for a parcel of land. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Pachuta v. UnumProvident Corp. (HI 1:01-cv-00199

filed 03/28/2001).

Insurance action by a physician with Alzheimer’s

disease for breach of a disability insurance policy.

All documents pertaining to the plaintiff’s motion

to enforce the settlement agreement were sealed.

A new settlement agreement was reached, and the

plaintiff withdrew the motion.

Continental Casualty Co. v. CPA Consulting Group

(HI 1:01-cv-00200 filed 03/28/2001).

Insurance interpleader action concerning disputed

funds of an insurance policy. The settlement was

placed on the record under seal during a settlement conference.

Rowe v. Cutter Ford Inc. (HI 1:01-cv-00209 filed

03/30/2001).

Contract case alleging that the defendant failed to

properly deliver all disclosures about a used car.

The settlement was placed on the record under

seal during a settlement conference.

Newinsky v. Maui Radiology Consultants LLP (HI

1:01-cv-00223 filed 04/05/2001).

Labor action under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Family Medical Leave Act, and ERISA,

by an MRI technician who became disabled while

on the job. The defendant allegedly failed to accommodate his disability, failed to notify him of

FMLA applicability, and denied him retirement

benefits. The settlement was placed on the record

under seal during a settlement conference.
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-39

Jaress & Leong v. Continental Casualty Co. (HI 1:01-

cv-00266 filed 04/24/2001).

Contract action claiming that the defendant settled claims of fraud, misrepresentation, and malpractice against the plaintiff without his consent.

The defendant’s motion for approval of settlement

was filed under seal. The defendant’s motion to

oppose the plaintiff’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement was filed under seal. The court

denied the plaintiff’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement.

State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Eilers (HI 1:01-cv00306 filed 05/11/2001).

Insurance action seeking a binding declaration by

the court that the plaintiff is not obligated under

the insurance policies of the defendant’s employer

to defend or indemnify it against a claim of defamation and discrimination. The settlement was

placed on the record under seal during a settlement conference.

Herrmann v. Kaiser Permanente (HI 1:01-cv-00767

filed 11/15/2001), consolidated with Herrmann v.

Kaiser Permanente (HI 1:01-cv-00813 filed

12/07/2001).

Employment and civil rights actions by a doctor

for wrongful termination of hospital privileges.

The settlement was placed on the record under

seal during a settlement conference.

Hogue v. Emmis Television License Corp. of Honolulu

(HI 1:02-cv-00046 filed 01/18/2002).

Employment action by a white sportscaster for

age and race discrimination and wrongful termination. The settlement was placed on the record

under seal during a settlement conference.

District of Idaho

Absent a court order to the contrary, sealed

documents are returned to the submitting party at

the end of the case. D. Idaho L.R. 5.3(f). Court staff

members have observed that after they started

making electronic images of court files available

in 1998, parties have more often requested that

settlement agreements be filed under seal.

Statistics: 1,350 cases in termination cohort; 6

docket sheets are sealed (0.44%)—all of these

cases’ disposition codes suggest no sealed settlement agreements;41 440 unsealed docket sheets

(33%) have the word “seal” in them; 10 complete

docket sheets (0.74%) were reviewed; actual

documents were examined for 5 cases (0.37%); 4

cases (0.30%) appear to have sealed settlement

agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

Bursch v. Residential Funding Corp. (ID 3:99-cv00385 filed 09/03/1999).

Class action under the Truth in Lending Act by

plaintiffs who entered into loan transactions pursuant to a home sales program under which the

defendants allegedly “marked up” the cost of

construction materials. Following mediation the

parties agreed to a confidential settlement agreement, and pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.3, the

court sealed the agreement.

EEOC v. J.R. Simplot Co. (ID 1:99-cv-00439 filed

09/30/1999).

Employment discrimination case challenging an

English language reading skills test as having an

adverse impact on Hispanic and Asian-American

employees and applicants. The court approved a

consent decree, which was not sealed. Provisions

of the consent decree required the EEOC to file

with the court as a separate exhibit the specific

amount of lost wages and interest each claimant

was entitled to and a list of claimants who timely

returned the claim form. One year later the court

agreed to seal the exhibit and incorporate it as

part of the consent decree.

Estate of Shinski v. McDonnell-Douglas Corp. (ID

1:00-cv-00280 filed 05/23/2000).

Product liability action against the manufacturer

of a helicopter for wrongful death in a crash resulting from the engine’s failing suddenly. The

court approved and sealed the settlement agreement.

McKee v. Young (ID 1:00-cv-00713 filed

12/08/2000).

Motor vehicle action against a truck driver and

the truck’s owner for injuries sustained when the

semi-truck and trailer rear-ended the plaintiff’s

vehicle. A stipulation of compromise and settlement was filed and sealed.

 

41. One judgment on motion before trial, 2 judgments on jury verdicts, 1 multidistrict litigation transfer, 2 voluntary dismissals.
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-40

Northern District of Illinois42

The Northern District of Illinois distinguishes “restricted” documents, to which access has been

restricted, from “sealed” documents, which are

actually in sealed enclosures so that access requires the breaking of a seal. N.D. Ill. L.R. 26.2(a).

A document may be restricted upon a showing of

good cause. Id. R. 26.2(b). With good cause the

document’s docket entry may “show only that a

restricted document was filed without any notation indicating its nature.” Id. R. 26.2(c). Absent an

order to the contrary, document restrictions are

lifted sixty-three days after the case is over. Id. R.

26.2(e). Restricted documents may be returned to

the parties or destroyed, but they may not remain

restricted for more than twenty years. Id.

Statistics: 19,378 cases in termination cohort;

649 docket sheets (3.3%) have the word “seal” in

them; 99 complete docket sheets (0.51%) were reviewed; actual documents were examined for 80

cases (0.41%); 72 cases (0.37%) appear to have

sealed settlement agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

Poole v. Alpha Therapeutic Corp. (IL-N 1:86-cv-07623

filed 10/08/1986).

Product liability action by a hemophiliac against

manufacturers of blood products for failure to

screen and test for the AIDS virus, which resulted

in his contracting the virus. He died during the

course of the trial, and his wife and children continued the case. Two defendants settled, and the

settlement agreement was approved by the court

and filed under seal. Three other defendants ultimately settled, but the agreements were not filed

with the court. The remaining defendant also settled. This agreement, including the specific

amounts to be distributed to the children, was not

sealed.

Wilson v. Wilson (IL-N 1:89-cv-09620 filed

12/29/1989).

Personal property damage action concerning

family trusts. One family member was dismissed

pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement approved by the court. The plaintiff reached an apparent settlement agreement with the remaining

defendants in open court for $1.2 million. A dispute over this agreement arose. Both the district

court and the court of appeals ruled for the plain-

 

42. This district is included in the study because of

its good-cause rule.

tiff in his motion to enforce the agreement. The

plaintiff obtained substitute counsel, and his former attorneys moved to enforce a later settlement

agreement. The court granted the motion, releasing $175,000 to the attorneys. The case finally terminated by stipulated dismissal.

Pivot Point International Inc. v. Charlene Products

Inc. (IL-N 1:90-cv-06933 filed 11/29/1990).

Copyright action for the unauthorized marketing

of exact reproductions of the plaintiff’s “Mara

Sculpture,” “an artistically sculpted mannequin

head which is unlike any other to the extent that

this artist’s sculpture is extremely lifelike and

pleasing in appearance.” The plaintiff filed a motion to enforce an oral settlement agreement, with

one exhibit filed under seal. Another document

was filed under seal on the day the defendants’

response was due. The plaintiff’s reply brief was

filed unsealed, and it lays out terms of the alleged

settlement agreement, along with proposed

changes to satisfy the defendants’ objections. The

agreement required that the defendants cease

their copyright infringement, but permitted them

to sell current inventory, and it made no mention

of monetary terms. An exhibit to the plaintiff’s

brief was filed under seal. The court held the

copyright invalid and dismissed the complaint.

The plaintiff appealed, and the matter remains

before the court of appeals.

Geneva Assurance Syndicate v. Medical Emergency

Services Associates (IL-N 1:92-cv-01652 filed

03/06/1992).

Insurance action by six plaintiffs against 120 defendants concerning medical malpractice insurance pooling. During the course of litigation a

sealed document was filed the same day as a motion to dismiss one of the defendants. The motion

was granted that day by minute order. Later in

the litigation the plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce a settlement agreement with other defendants. The memorandum was filed under seal.

The case ultimately was resolved by settlement

with all parties.

DeKalb Genetics Corp. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred

International Inc. (IL-N 3:96-cv-50112 filed

04/30/1996), consolidated with DeKalb Genetics

Corp. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. (IL-N

3:96-cv-50239 filed 07/23/1996), DeKalb Genetics

Corp. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. (IL-N

3:98-cv-50186 filed 06/19/1998), DeKalb Genetics

Corp. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. (IL-N

3:99-cv-50212 filed 07/01/1999), and DeKalb
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-41

Genetics Corp. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc.

(IL-N 3:99-cv-50385 filed 11/23/1999); Pioneer HiBred International Inc. v. DeKalb Genetics Corp. (ILN 3:00-cv-050201 filed 06/07/2000), consolidated

with Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. v. Monsanto

Co. (IL-N 3:01-cv-050219 filed 07/10/2001).

Patent infringement actions between a producer

and seller of corn seed and its competitors. The

cases settled. The court granted the defendants’

sealed motion to enforce the settlement agreement.

Jensen v. Oliver (IL-N 1:97-cv-01018 filed

02/13/1997).

Fraud action by an investor against a corporation’s managing shareholder for using corporate

money to pay for unauthorized personal expenses

and converting all the corporation’s assets and

transferring them to a competing company he

owned. The case settled. The settlement terms

were stated on the record, and the transcript of

the proceedings was filed under seal.

College Inn Partners v. Deby Inc. (IL-N 1:97-cv02989 filed 04/25/1997).

Environmental action concerning the continuing

contamination of the plaintiffs’ land by the defendants’ dry cleaning establishment and their underground petroleum storage tanks. The parties

entered into a confidential settlement agreement.

The defendants filed a motion to enforce it. The

memorandum in support of their motion was restricted.

Santelli v. Electro-Motive (IL-N 1:97-cv-05702 filed

08/12/1997).

Designated a civil rights action, this is a Title VII

employment discrimination action by a female

welder against an automobile manufacturer, alleging that she was repeatedly denied equal opportunity in training, pay, and promotion because

of her sex. The case settled. The defendant’s brief

in support of its motion to enforce the settlement

agreement and the plaintiff’s response were

placed under seal for a period of two years. The

defendant’s motion reveals that the plaintiff rejected a $7,000 check tendered by the defendant.

The court granted the defendant’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement and directed the

plaintiff to accept the check.

Scott v. Steingold (IL-N 1:97-cv-07871 filed

11/12/1997).

RICO action alleging nationwide schemes to sell

unregistered securities in wireless cable and specialized mobile radio systems. Some of the defendants settled, and the court granted them leave to

file the settlement agreement under seal. The remaining defendant also settled. The courtapproved settlement was stricken from the docket

and court record.

Bavaro v. Grand Victoria Casino (IL-N 1:97-cv-07921

filed 11/13/1997).

Marine action against a riverboat casino by an

employee for failure to provide a safe work environment, which caused her to injure herself on a

stairway. She alleged that she was fired in anticipation of a lawsuit. The case settled. The court

order regarding the settlement was restricted.

Nystrom v. Associated Plastic Fabricators Inc. (IL-N

1:98-cv-00134 filed 01/09/1998), consolidated

with Malachowski v. Associated Plastic Fabrications

Inc. (IL-N 1:98-cv-04282 filed 07/13/1998) and

Herman v. Peper (IL-N 1:99-cv-04275 filed

06/28/1999).

ERISA actions concerning a company’s failure to

transfer former employees’ vested benefits into

their designated IRAs. Some of the parties settled,

and the court granted the plaintiffs’ oral motion to

seal the settlement document and agreement;

however, some of the terms of the settlement

agreement, including the agreed amount of

$850,000, are stated in the court order recognizing

the oral settlement. The plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the settlement agreement was withdrawn

after one defendant filed for bankruptcy. The remaining defendants ultimately settled.

Coilcraft Inc. v. Instructor Warehouse (IL-N 1:98-cv00140 filed 01/09/1998).

Trademark infringement action by a manufacturer

of electronic components against an unauthorized

distributor. The case was dismissed as settled. The

court’s consent judgment order was restricted.

EEOC v. Foster Wheeler (IL-N 1:98-cv-01601 filed

03/17/1998).

Employment class action alleging race and sex

discrimination. According to the docket sheet, the

case settled as to the lead individual plaintiff, and

a motion for entry of a protective order covering

confidential settlement terms was filed under seal.

But a minute order states that “payment amounts
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-42

to individuals identified on Exhibits B & C”

would be $11,666.65 per individual. The final

judgment states that the lead individual plaintiff

will receive $25,000, each of seven other named

plaintiffs will receive either $10,000 or $15,000,

and a union defendant will pay punitive damages

of $50,000, with $20,000 going to the lead plaintiff

and $30,000 to be divided among the other class

members. Both the EEOC and the lead plaintiff

were awarded fees.

Soros Associates v. Trafalgar House Construction

India Ltd. (IL-N 1:98-cv-01807 filed 03/24/1998).

Breach of contract action by a construction engineer seeking payment for additional work. The

case was dismissed as settled. The terms of the

settlement agreement were filed under seal.

L.R. Oliver & Co. v. B&J Manufacturing Co. (IL-N

1:98-cv-04268 filed 06/10/1998).

Breach of contract action by a manufacturer of grit

coatings against a rival for failure to pay royalties

pursuant to an oral agreement. The case was dismissed as settled. The transcript of the proceedings containing the terms of the agreement was

filed under seal.

Midwest Community Health Service Inc. v. American

United Life Insurance Co. (IL-N 1:98-cv-06128 filed

09/30/1998).

ERISA action alleging breach of fiduciary duty for

failure to disclose the impact on the plaintiff’s

plans of an asset transfer. The case was dismissed

as settled. The plaintiffs filed the confidential settlement agreement under seal.

Erickson v. Baxter Healthcare Inc. (IL-N 1:99-cv00426 filed 01/26/1999).

Product liability action on behalf of a hemophiliac

against manufacturers of blood products for failure to screen and test for the AIDS virus and

Hepatitis C, which resulted in his contracting the

viruses and dying. The parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement. The court granted

the plaintiff’s motion to submit the statement of

settlement under seal. The court approved the

settlement and the distribution of proceeds to a

minor survivor.

Tracy v. Jewel Food Stores Inc. (IL-N 1:99-cv-02736

filed 04/26/1999).

Patent infringement action concerning disposable

diapers. One of the defendants settled and filed a

restricted memorandum in support of the motion

to enforce the oral settlement agreement. In a

sealed order, the court granted the defendant’s

motion. The order later was unsealed and made

part of the public record. The case ultimately was

dismissed as settled.

Wise v. McNeil Pharmaceutical (IL-N 1:99-cv-03852

filed 06/10/1999).

Product liability action on behalf of a minor with

cystic fibrosis against drug manufacturers for

failing to detect the toxic effects of drugs that resulted in fibrosing colonopathy disease. The case

settled. The court order approving the settlement

and the distribution of proceeds from the minor’s

settlement was restricted. However, documents

reveal that $200,000 from the gross amount of the

settlement proceeds was paid to the minor’s parents for family purposes.

CoolSavings.com Inc. v. Brightstreet.com Inc. (IL-N

1:99-cv-05499 filed 08/23/1999).

Patent infringement action concerning targeted

electronic certificates such as coupons. The case

settled. The terms of the settlement were stated on

the record at a settlement conference and placed

under seal. The court temporarily unsealed the

transcript so that the parties could order copies of

it. The transcript then was resealed. The parties

were unable to reduce the terms of the settlement

to writing. The court examined several competing

documents claimed to accurately reflect the settlement agreement, some of which were unsealed

and contained parts of the settlement transcript.

The court ultimately agreed with the plaintiff’s

version of the settlement agreement. The defendants appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed

the court’s decision.

Fitzpatrick v. Daewoo Motor America Inc. (IL-N 1:99-

cv-05557 filed 08/25/1999).

Employment action against a Korean automobile

company alleging pervasive racial harassment,

including the use of especially vile racial epithets.

The case settled. The court granted the parties’

oral motion to place the settlement terms under

seal.

Pappas v. Hartford Life Insurance Co. (IL-N 1:99-cv05612 filed 08/27/1999).

Insurance action concerning the defendants’ sales

practices in marketing and selling whole life and

universal life policies. The case settled. The settlement transcripts were sealed.
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-43

March v. Greater Rockford Airport Authority (IL-N

3:99-cv-50297 filed 09/10/1999).

Designated a civil rights action, this is an employment action by an African-American female

security officer for race and sex discrimination in

accommodating her pregnancy. The plaintiff filed

a motion to clarify the settlement agreement, and

the defendant filed a motion to enforce it. The

controversy apparently involved the scope of liability release. At the hearing, the parties put the

settlement agreement on the record, and the court

sealed the tape of the hearing.

Motor Coach Industries Ltd. v. SMC Corp. (IL-N

1:99-cv-06578 filed 10/06/1999).

Patent action concerning a “stairway for a motor

coach.” The action was dismissed pursuant to a

settlement agreement filed under seal.

Rucker v. Streetwise Inc. (IL-N 1:99-cv-07195 filed

11/04/1999).

Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act by an

office assistant alleging that the newspaper publisher who employed her failed to pay her overtime wages. The case settled. The settlement was

restricted. The case was appealed and ultimately

dismissed as settled.

Recycling Sciences International Inc. v. Soil

Restoration and Recycling LLC (IL-N 1:00-cv-00311

filed 01/18/2000).

Patent infringement action concerning soil remediation processes. The case was dismissed as settled. The settlement was filed under seal and redacted as to settlement amount.

Hightower v. Commonwealth Edison Co. (IL-N 1:00-

cv-00689 filed 02/03/2000).

Title VII employment action by an AfricanAmerican radiation protection manager alleging

that the electric company intentionally subjected

him to unequal and discriminatory treatment because of his race and color. The case settled. The

settlement agreement was stated on the record.

The settlement agreement and the audiotape of

the settlement proceedings were sealed.

Nelson v. Sotheby’s Inc. (IL-N 1:00-cv-01590 filed

03/16/2000).

Personal property damage action concerning the

conversion of a painting. The case was dismissed

as settled. The court ordered that the cassette tape

of the settlement conference and any transcript

prepared from the cassette tape be placed under

seal.

Heel-O-Matic Inc. v. GP Manufacturing LLC (IL-N

1:00-cv-01818 filed 03/24/2000).

Patent infringement action concerning an apparatus for rope training. The case settled. The defendants filed a motion to reinstate the action for

breach of the settlement agreement. The defendants’ supplemental memorandum and exhibits

in support of their motion are restricted.

Bagnall v. Freeman Decorating (IL-N 1:00-cv-01922

filed 03/30/2000).

Employment action alleging violation of the

Americans with Disabilities Act for terminating

and refusing to rehire the plaintiff based on his

perceived disability. The case settled. The plaintiff

later filed a sealed motion to enforce the settlement agreement.

Godinez v. Eagle Insurance Agency (IL-N 1:00-cv01987 filed 03/31/2000); consolidated on appeal

with Jones v. American Ambassador Casualty Co. (ILN 1:00-cv-05973 filed 09/28/2000).

Section 1981 actions by and on behalf of minority

customers of an insurance company alleging that

they paid money for substandard insurance coverage and were not compensated for automobile

losses ordinarily covered by standard automobile

insurance policies. The court held that the plaintiffs’ civil rights claims were barred by the McCarran–Ferguson Act, which forbids federal courts

from intervening in the regulation of insurance by

states. The plaintiffs appealed. The case settled.

The case was remanded to the district court to

certify approval of the settlement. The settlement

agreement was filed under seal.

Denison Hydraulics Inc. v. Veljan Hydrair Ltd. (IL-N

1:00-cv-02022 filed 04/04/2000).

Trademark infringement action by a manufacturer

of hydraulic pumps. The case settled. The court

ordered that the confidential settlement agreement remain under seal for twenty years and

thereafter be destroyed.

Devlieg Bullard II Inc. v. Ivan Doverspike Co. (IL-N

1:00-cv-05260 filed 08/25/2000).

Patent infringement action by a manufacturer of

multiple spindle machines. The case settled. The

court sealed the transcript of the proceedings that

memorialized the confidential settlement agreement.
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-44

Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open

Communities Inc. v. Buczek (IL-N 1:00-cv-05851

filed 09/22/2000).

Housing discrimination action on behalf of an

African-American family, alleging that the defendant refused to rent to them because of their three

minor children. The case settled. The audiotape of

the settlement proceedings outlining the terms of

the agreement was placed under seal. The consent

decree also was sealed. The court later granted the

plaintiffs’ motion to lift the seal restricting publication of the consent decree.

Royal Source Inc. v. Puri-Clean Enterprises Inc. (IL-N

1:00-cv-06603 filed 10/24/2000).

Trademark infringement action by a manufacturer

of nutritional and dietary supplements against

competitors. The case settled. The court granted

the plaintiff’s motion to file under seal exhibits to

its motion to enforce the settlement agreement.

The defendants requested that the court order be

vacated, because they never agreed to the plaintiff’s version of the settlement terms. The court

denied the defendants’ motion. The case ultimately was dismissed as settled.

Pressner v. Target Corp. (IL-N 1:00-cv-06636 filed

10/25/2000).

Title VII employment action alleging sex discrimination and retaliation for supporting a coworker’s lawsuit against the retail store defendant. The case settled. The tape of the settlement

proceedings was sealed.

Collier v. Greater Rockford Airport Authority (IL-N

3:00-cv-50416 filed 11/21/2000).

Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act concerning an airport’s failure to pay employees

overtime wages. The case was dismissed as settled with respect to all plaintiffs except one. That

plaintiff ultimately settled for $11,000, and the

settlement agreement was filed under seal as an

exhibit.

Viravakin v. Sara Lee Branded Foods (IL-N 1:00-cv07677 filed 12/07/2000).

Title VII employment action by an Asian accounts

payable clerk independent contractor alleging that

over the span of four years she was overlooked

for several employment opportunities because of

her race and national origin. The case settled. The

transcript and tape of the settlement proceedings

were sealed.

188 LLC v. Trinity Industries Inc. (IL-N 1:00-cv07993 filed 12/21/2000).

Breach of contract action concerning the negligent

repair of railroad cars. The case settled. Both parties filed restricted motions to enforce the settlement agreement. The plaintiff filed for bankruptcy

and motions were deemed moot.

Johnstone v. Wabick (IL-N 1:01-cv-00577 filed

01/29/2001).

Civil rights action by shareholders against trust

managers concerning fraudulent transfers that

resulted in a $7 million loss for shareholders. The

case settled. The court granted the plaintiffs’ request to file the stipulated judgment against the

defendants under seal. The judgment later was

unsealed, revealing that the defendant had to pay

plaintiffs $1,050,000.

Poly-Plating Inc. v. Hi-Grade Welding and

Manufacturing Inc. (IL-N 1:00-cv-00772 filed

02/05/2001).

Trademark infringement action by a manufacturer

of surface coating metals. The case settled. The

court placed the transcript and tape of the settlement proceedings under seal.

Anderson Medical Supply Inc. v. Chevron Phillips

Chemical Co. (IL-N 1:01-cv-01388 filed

02/27/2001).

Trademark infringement action concerning a

breathing mask for children requiring asthma

aerosol medication. The case settled. The tape of

the settlement proceedings was placed under seal.

Robert Half International Inc v. Wong (IL-N 1:01-cv01489 filed 03/02/2001).

Breach of contract action alleging misappropriation of trade secrets by former employees of a recruitment company. The case settled. The court

sealed the defendants’ motion to enter judgment

based on the settlement agreement. The case was

dismissed as settled.

Juno Lighting Inc. v. Bartco Lighting (IL-N 1:01-cv01498 filed 03/02/2001).

Patent infringement action by a lighting manufacturer. The case settled. The settlement agreement was filed under seal.
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-45

Leherer Flaherty & Canavan P.C. v. Mesirow

Financial Inc. (IL-N 1:01-cv-01643 filed

03/08/2001).

ERISA action alleging that the defendant failed to

diversify and tend to the corporation’s retirement

and pension plan, which resulted in severe losses.

The case settled. The terms of the settlement

agreement were stated on the record and placed

under seal.

Lawson Products Inc. v. Chromate Industrial Corp.

(IL-N 1:01-cv-01793 filed 03/14/2001).

Contract action by manufacturers of industrial

fasteners seeking to enjoin their competitor from

soliciting their employees and encouraging them

to breach their employment agreements by misappropriating trade secrets. The case settled. The

settlement agreement was filed under seal.

Hegy v. Community Counseling Center of Fox Valley

(IL-N 1:01-cv-02288 filed 04/02/2001).

Civil rights action by the defendant’s former executive director alleging that she was locked out

of her office by the board of directors because of

age discrimination. The case settled. The transcript of the settlement conference was sealed.

Fruit of the Loom Inc. v. Gildan Activewear Inc. (IL-N

1:01-cv-02315 filed 04/04/2001).

Contract action to enjoin the misappropriation of

the plaintiff’s trade secrets. The case settled. The

final settlement agreement was subject to the

bankruptcy court’s approval. The consent order

was filed under seal.

Hibo v. Kehoe Palmer Djordjevic Service Center P.C.

(IL-N 1:01-cv-02475 filed 04/09/2001).

Title VII employment discrimination action by a

Filipino lab technician against an internal medicine and ambulatory patient consulting corporation, alleging wrongful discharge based on national origin. The case settled. The transcript tape

of the settlement conference was sealed.

Hellman v. Econovo Ltd. & Trade Trust Ltd. (IL-N

1:01-cv-02613 filed 04/13/2001).

Breach of contract action by a chief development

officer alleging that he was not properly compensated after being terminated without cause. The

case settled. The terms of the settlement were

stated on the record and placed under seal.

Nu-Wool Co. v. Certainteed Corp. (IL-N 1:01-cv03691 filed 05/18/2001).

Statutory action by a manufacturer of cellulose

insulation products against a manufacturer of fiberglass insulation products, alleging that the defendant, in an attempt to thwart competition,

produced and distributed false advertisements

about the dangers of cellulose insulation. The case

settled. The settlement and release agreement is

restricted.

Johnson v. Board of Trustees of the University of

Illinois (IL-N 1:01-cv-03774 filed 05/22/2001).

Employment action alleging that the defendant

breached the sealed settlement agreement, entered into in a previous action, by changing the

plaintiff’s job description and requiring him to

report to workers he previously supervised. The

court ordered that the settlement agreement remain under seal. The case was ultimately dismissed as settled.

Evanston Materials Consulting Corp. v. Dancor Inc.

(IL-N 1:01-cv-06077 filed 08/08/2001).

Patent action by a material coatings research

company against a consulting corporation, alleging that the defendants had no claim to the work

performed under a grant. The parties entered into

an “interim settlement agreement,” which was

sealed and approved by the court. The case ultimately was dismissed as settled.

Mitchell v. American Express TBS (IL-N 1:01-cv06225 filed 08/14/2001).

Title VII employment action alleging sexual harassment, retaliatory conduct, and constructive

discharge. The case settled. The terms of the settlement were stated on the record, and the tape

was placed under seal.

Tibor v. Connaissance Consulting LLC (IL-N 1:01-cv07207 filed 09/18/2001).

Contract action by an account executive and

salesman against a technology consulting company for failure to provide him with written notice of its intent to terminate him and for refusing

to pay him commissions owed. The case settled.

The settlement agreement was filed under seal.

AOC LLC v. Applied Composites Corp. (IL-N 1:01-

cv-07689 filed 10/04/2001).

Breach of contract action by a polyester and resins

manufacturer against a customer for nonpayment.
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-46

The case settled. The court granted the defendant’s oral motion to seal the settlement agreement.

Fox v. Yellow Freight System Inc. (IL-N 1:01-cv07827 filed 10/10/2001).

Wrongful termination action alleging race and age

discrimination. The case settled. The terms of the

settlement were stated on the record and placed

under seal.

Nolden v. TCI of Illinois Inc. (IL-N 1:01-cv-09335

filed 12/06/2001).

Employment action alleging wrongful discrimination because of the plaintiff’s disability. The

parties reached a settlement and placed the terms

of the settlement on the record and under seal.

V & S Vin & Spirit Aktiebolag v. Cracovia Brands Inc.

(IL-N 1:01-cv-09923 filed 12/27/2001).

Trademark infringement action by a vodka manufacturer against a competitor. The case settled.

Although the confidential settlement agreement

was filed under seal, it can be found attached to

the plaintiff’s notice of filing.

Career Holdings Inc. v. Finnigan (IL-N 1:02-cv-02746

filed 04/16/2002).

Fraud action seeking an injunction preventing a

senior employee from going to work for a competitor until his knowledge of the recruitment

solutions company’s trade secrets is significantly

less current. The case settled. The agreed order

dismissing the case was sealed.

Corporate Express Office Products Inc. v. Schoepke

(IL-N 1:02-cv-05076 filed 07/18/2002).

Contract action seeking to enjoin employees from

working for a competitor of office supplies and

using trade secrets. The case settled. The plaintiff

filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement. The motion contains terms of the settlement

agreement, including an injunction against contacting the plaintiff’s customers for a period of

nine months. Two days later, the court granted

the plaintiff’s oral motion to file exhibits under

seal.

Martinez v. City of Chicago (IL-N 1:02-cv-05093

filed 07/18/2002).

Employment action by a mailroom assistant alleging sexual harassment. The case settled. The

transcript of the settlement conference was filed

under seal.

Shen Wei (USA) Inc. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp. (IL-N

1:02-cv-05196 filed 07/23/2002).

Patent infringement action by manufacturers of

moisturizing therapeutic gloves against a competitor. The case settled. The plaintiffs filed a restricted motion to enforce the settlement agreement.

Northern District of Indiana

No relevant local rule. According to the clerk, the

court considered adopting a rule like the District

of South Carolina’s, proscribing sealed settlement

agreements, but decided such a rule was unnecessary, because the district does not have sealed

settlement agreements.

Statistics: 4,103 cases in termination cohort; 1

docket sheet is sealed (0.02%)—this case’s disposition code suggests no sealed settlement agreement;43 216 docket sheets (5.3%) have the word

“seal” in them; 11 complete docket sheets (0.27%)

were reviewed; actual documents were examined

for 0 cases; no case appears to have a sealed settlement agreement.

Southern District of Indiana

“No document will be maintained under seal in

the absence of an authorizing statute, Court rule,

or Court order.” S.D. Ind. L.R. 5.3(a).

Statistics: 5,831 cases in termination cohort; 200

docket sheets (3.4%) have the word “seal” in

them; 60 complete docket sheets (1.0%) were reviewed; actual documents were examined for 13

cases (0.22%); 9 cases (0.15%) appear to have

sealed settlement agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

United States ex rel. Elrefai v. Charter Medical Corp.

(IN-S 1:96-cv-01759 filed 12/04/1996).

Qui tam action under the False Claims Act for

fraudulent Medicare billing by psychiatric hospitals. The case was dismissed as settled, and the

complaint, notice of intervention, stipulation of

dismissal, and dismissal were unsealed. A sealed

settlement agreement apparently was filed.

 

43. One judgment on motion before trial.
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-47

Stanback v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (IN-S 1:99-cv00043 filed 01/15/1999).

Civil rights employment action for wrongful termination after the plaintiff complained that he

was sexually harassed. A jury awarded the plaintiff $2.8 million. To prevent an appeal, the plaintiff

reached an agreement with the defendant. A

sealed settlement agreement was filed with the

motion to enforce it.

Indianapolis Motor Speedway Corp. v. Transworld

Diversified Services Inc. (IN-S 1:99-cv-01073 filed

07/12/1999).

Contract action involving breach of a sponsorship

agreement. A sealed settlement agreement was

filed as an attachment to the joint notification of

settlement.

Bokelman v. Allied Telecommunications Inc. (IN-S

1:99-cv-01452 filed 09/16/1999).

Contract action for breach of an employment

agreement involving failure to pay the plaintiff a

sales commission. The defendant filed a sealed

settlement agreement. The court dismissed the

case and returned the settlement agreement to the

defendant.

Cook Vascular Inc. v. Reiser (IN-S 1:99-cv-01598

filed 10/15/1999).

Patent infringement action involving a specialized

catheter used to remove problem pacemakers. A

sealed settlement agreement was filed pursuant to

a protective order. The court retained jurisdiction

to enforce the settlement agreement.

Glendale Centre LLC v. Houlihan’s Restaurants Inc.

(IN-S 1:00-cv-00671 filed 04/21/2000).

Real property action involving breach of a lease

agreement. A consent judgment was reached, and

a sealed settlement agreement was filed. The order of dismissal discloses that the amount of

judgment was $800,000.

Locke v. Lawrence Township Fire Department (IN-S

1:00-cv-00942 filed 06/07/2000).

Civil rights employment action by a firefighter

against her employer for sexual discrimination

and retaliation. The plaintiff filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement. The court sealed

the motion because it contained settlement terms.

FFI Corp. v. Powers Fastening Inc. (IN-S 1:00-cv00968 filed 06/13/2000).

Contract product liability action claming that the

plaintiff installed grain dryers using the defendant’s faulty anchoring system, which caused one

grain dryer to collapse and required the plaintiff

to test all of the anchors it installed. The plaintiff

filed a motion to enforce a settlement agreement.

Two months after the motion was filed, the court

ordered the motion sealed because it contained

settlement terms.

Bailey v. United National Bank (IN-S 1:00-cv-01175

filed 07/21/2000).

ERISA action by retired employees for breach of

fiduciary and contractual duty in not properly

monitoring and protecting assets. At the pretrial

conference the record of settlement was sealed.

The case was dismissed and referred to the bankruptcy court because the ERISA claims related to

matters that were contested in the debtor’s bankruptcy case.

Northern District of Iowa

A document may be filed under seal only by court

order. N. & S. D. Iowa L.R. 5.1(e). Thirty days after the case is over (sixty days if the United States

is a party), the clerk may notify parties that

documents will be unsealed unless there is a

timely objection. Id. (Note that the Northern and

Southern Districts of Iowa have the same local

rules.)

Statistics: 1,096 cases in termination cohort; 42

docket sheets (3.8%) have the word “seal” in

them; 15 complete docket sheets (1.4%) were reviewed; actual documents were examined for 6

cases (0.55%); 6 cases (0.55%) appear to have

sealed settlement agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

Mineral Area Osteopathic Hospital Inc. v. Keane Inc.

(IA-N 1:99-cv-00050 filed 03/31/1999).

Contract action by three hospitals against a provider of health care information software for

damages arising from the Y2K bug. The defendant

sought a protective order. Papers and proceedings

pertaining to the plaintiffs’ motion to certify a

class were sealed, and the motion was denied. The

parties settled (as did three additional hospital

plaintiffs in independent actions) at a settlement

conference before a magistrate judge. The parties

asked the court to approve a confidential settlement agreement, which was filed under seal. One

term of the agreement was plaintiffs’ not appeal-
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-48

ing the denial of class certification. The court approved the settlement agreement.

Javeed v. Covenant Medical Center Inc. (IA-N 6:00-

cv-02007 filed 01/13/2000).

Employment sex discrimination action by a surgeon alleging a hostile work environment for

women, more favorable treatment of male surgeons, and termination of her employment contract for complaining about the discrimination.

The court scheduled a settlement conference before the chief magistrate judge, and nearly two

months later the plaintiff filed a sealed motion to

enforce a settlement agreement. The defendants

filed a sealed opposition. Four months later the

case was dismissed as settled.

Weems v. Federated Mutual Insurance Co. (IA-N

6:00-cv-02013 filed 02/08/2000).

Designated a civil rights action, this is really an

employment discrimination action by an AfricanAmerican employee alleging wrongful termination on the basis of race. The complaint included

state-law counts for assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendant filed a

counterclaim for $549.32 in excess salary paid and

the return of property belonging to the defendant.

In advance of a settlement conference, the defendant filed a “confidential settlement statement”

under seal. Subsequently the case was dismissed

as settled.

EEOC v. American Home Products Corp. (IA-N 3:00-

cv-03079 filed 09/29/2000).

Employment discrimination action on behalf of

female employees for a hostile work environment

created by a manager. The complaint alleged that

the manager was promoted rather than disciplined and that employees who investigated the

harassment were fired. A consent decree mandated payment of $478,500 to employees. The list

of employees and their shares was filed under

seal.

Liu v. Life Investors Insurance Co. of America (IA-N

1:01-cv-00141 filed 09/28/2001).

Action alleging employment discrimination on

the basis of race and national origin in failing to

promote the plaintiff. The action was dismissed as

settled, and the plaintiff filed a sealed “motion to

extend time to finalize settlement” three weeks

later. Over a month later the defendant filed a

sealed motion to enforce a settlement agreement.

An unsealed brief in support of this motion stated

that the agreement had not been executed because

(1) the plaintiff sought to amend his agreement

not to seek employment with the defendant or

related companies with a limitation to companies

within the United States, (2) the plaintiff objected

to terms concerning his return of the defendant’s

property and to the defendant’s not admitting

liability, and (3) the plaintiff’s wife had not signed

the agreement. Ruling on the motion, the court

ordered specific terms and that a signed settlement agreement be filed by a specific date. The

agreement was filed under seal.

EEOC v. DeCoster (IA-N 3:02-cv-03077 filed

09/26/2002).

Employment sex discrimination action on behalf

of female employees who complained of sexual

harassment and assault. The case was terminated

by consent decree. The defendant denied the allegations, but agreed to promulgation of an antiharassment policy, training, recordkeeping, and

payment of $1,525,000 in monetary relief. The list

of who received how much was sealed, but each

of approximately a dozen individuals received

approximately $125,000.

Southern District of Iowa

A document may be filed under seal only by court

order. N. & S. D. Iowa L.R. 5.1(e). Thirty days after the case is over (sixty days if the United States

is a party), the clerk may notify parties that

documents will be unsealed unless there is a

timely objection. Id. (Note that the Northern and

Southern Districts of Iowa have the same local

rules.)

Statistics: 1,976 cases in termination cohort; 69

docket sheets (3.5%) have the word “seal” in

them; 9 complete docket sheets (0.46%) were reviewed; actual documents were examined for 0

cases; no case appears to have a sealed settlement

agreement.

District of Maine

No relevant local rule.

Statistics: 1,070 cases in termination cohort; 141

docket sheets (13%) have the word “seal” in them;

10 complete docket sheets (0.93%) were reviewed;

actual documents were examined for 2 cases

(0.19%); 2 cases (0.19%) appear to have sealed settlement agreements.
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-49

Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

Strout v. Paisley (ME 1:00-cv-00107 filed

05/24/2000).

Wrongful death and personal injury action

against a truck driver and his employer for causing a motor vehicle accident that killed the plaintiff’s wife and caused him bodily injury. The

plaintiff’s motion for approval of the couple’s minor son’s settlement was sealed. An unsealed order approving the minor’s settlement reported

that the minor received $125,341 of the $450,000

settlement.

Carrier v. JPB Enterprises (ME 2:01-cv-00187 filed

07/20/2001).

ERISA class action against plaintiffs’ former employer for failure to provide advance notice of

mass layoffs, failure to pay severance and vacation pay, and failure to contribute to a 401(k) plan.

The parties filed a sealed joint motion to approve

the settlement. An unsealed order approving the

settlement reported that the class representatives

each received a total of $10,000. The order approving the plaintiffs’ motion for attorney fees

reported that the attorneys were awarded

$150,000.

District of Maryland44

“Any motion seeking the sealing of pleadings,

motions, exhibits or other papers to be filed in the

Court record shall include (a) proposed reasons

supported by specific factual representations to

justify the sealing and (b) an explanation why alternatives to sealing would not provide sufficient

protection. The Court will not rule upon the motion until at least 14 days after it is entered on the

public docket to permit the filing of objections by

interested parties.” D. Md. L.R. 105.11. At the end

of the case, sealed documents are returned to the

parties or destroyed. Id. R. 113.2.

Statistics: 7,851 cases in termination cohort; 8

docket sheets are sealed (0.10%)—the disposition

codes for 6 of these cases suggest no sealed settlement agreements45 and the disposition codes

for 2 of these cases suggest sealed settlement

agreements;46 232 unsealed docket sheets (3.0%)

have the word “seal” in them; 20 complete docket

sheets (0.25%) were reviewed; actual documents

 

44. This district is included in the study because of

its good-cause rule.

45. Two judgments on motions before trial, 3

“other” dismissals, 1 “other” judgment.

46. Two cases settled.

were examined for 15 cases (0.19%); 15 cases

(0.19%) appear to have sealed settlement agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

Grandison v. Lanham (MD 1:94-cv-00204 filed

01/27/1994).

Prisoner civil rights action by a Muslim prisoner

who alleged he was prevented from practicing his

religion while incarcerated. The parties settled. A

tape recording of the settlement conference was

sealed.

United States ex rel. Ackley v. International Business

Machines Corp. (MD 8:97-cv-03189 filed

09/18/1997).

Qui tam case filed under the False Claims Act for

fraudulent billing by a computer company working on NASA’s space shuttle project. A sealed

settlement agreement was filed.

Quillen v. CSX Transportation Inc. (MD 8:97-cv03219 filed 09/22/1997).

Federal employers’ liability action by the wife and

minor son of an assistant conductor who died

when the passenger train he was riding on

crashed into a commuter train. A petition for approval of the settlement was sealed. The court

denied the request to approve the settlement.

Robinson v. New Line Cinema Corp. (MD 1:97-cv03859 filed 11/14/1997).

Copyright case claiming that the defendant

passed off as its own a screenplay by the plaintiff,

which the plaintiff called “Sister Sara” and the

defendant called “Set It Off.” The court granted

the defendant summary judgment, and the plaintiff appealed. The court of appeals reversed.

Eleven months after the case was reopened, the

plaintiff filed a sealed motion to enforce a settlement agreement. The case was dismissed as settled.

Wilklow v. Johns Hopkins Hospital (MD 1:98-cv02178 filed 07/08/1998).

Medical malpractice action by the parents of a

minor who suffered neurological and permanent

physical damage because her hydrocephalus was

not treated promptly. A sealed order granted the

plaintiffs’ motion to approve the settlement.
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-50

Kessler v. American Postal (MD 8:98-cv-03547 filed

10/21/1998).

Statutory action. The docket sheet is sealed. The

case was dismissed as settled.

Superior Federal Bank FSB v. Tandem National

Mortgage Inc. (MD 1:99-cv-02360 filed

08/04/1999).

Contract case involving breach of a purchase

agreement. Settlement documents were filed under seal. The defendants’ second application to

approve the settlement agreement included a

copy of the settlement agreement that did not

mention the amount being paid. A default judgment was ordered against one of the defendants

for $71,041.

Teague v. O&K Escalators Inc. (MD 8:00-cv-00292

filed 01/31/2000).

Personal injury action by the estate of a man who

was killed when an escalator he was installing in

the Washington Metro system collapsed. The

plaintiff alleged that the fastener system was defective. There were counterclaims, cross-claims,

and third-party claims among Metro, the contractor, the escalator manufacturer, and parts

manufacturers. A sealed settlement agreement

was filed.

Harmon v. Tyson Foods Inc. (MD 1:00-cv-01997 filed

06/29/2000).

Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act

by chicken catchers for failure to pay overtime

wages. A joint memorandum for approval of the

settlement agreement was sealed and approved

by the court.

Charles River Associates v. Hale Trans Inc. (MD 1:00-

cv-02760 filed 09/14/2000).

Contract case involving failure to pay for services

rendered to assist the defendant in an antitrust

lawsuit. The defendant filed a third-party complaint for legal malpractice against its former attorneys. After a settlement conference the court

dismissed the case. The plaintiff filed a motion to

revoke the dismissal and reopen the case, because

the primary defendant did not pay the settlement.

This motion included a letter from the magistrate

judge that revealed the settlement amount of

$162,000. The third-party defendant filed a sealed

settlement agreement as an exhibit to a motion to

enforce it.

Clean Harbors Environmental Services Inc. v. Isom

(MD 1:01-cv-00657 filed 03/05/2001).

Contract case involving breach of a confidentiality

and noncompetition agreement. A sealed consent

order was filed.

Robinson v. Allen Family Foods Inc. (MD 1:01-cv00838 filed 03/20/2001).

Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act

by chicken catchers for failure to pay overtime

wages. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Warehouse Employees Local Union Number 730 v.

Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (MD 1:01-cv-01528

filed 05/25/2001).

Case filed under the Labor and Management Relations Act involving dismissal of a union worker

in violation of a collective bargaining agreement.

A sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Chamberlain v. Fairbanks Capital Corp. (MD 8:01-cv01779 filed 06/19/2001).

Statutory action involving violation of the Fair

Debt Collection Act in connection with the plaintiffs’ home mortgage. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.

United States v. Frederick Memorial (MD 1:01-cv02923 filed 10/02/2001).

Statutory action. The docket sheet is sealed. The

case was dismissed as settled.

Eastern District of Michigan

Sealed settlement agreements should be unsealed

two years after the date of sealing, absent an order

to the contrary. E.D. Mich. L.R. 5.4. Court staff

members say that the rule is difficult to implement, because no rule specifies that sealed settlement agreements be designated as anything other

than a sealed document, so it is difficult to know

what documents are covered by the rule. Sealed

discovery documents are returned or unsealed

sixty days after the case is over. Id. R. 5.3(b).

Statistics: 9,561 cases in termination cohort; 351

docket sheets (3.7%) have the word “seal” in them

(but 155 of these merely have “seal” in a party

name, including 141 cases with Crown Cork and

Seal Company as a party); 52 complete docket

sheets (0.54%) were reviewed; actual documents

were examined for 19 cases (0.20%); 16 cases

(0.17%) appear to have sealed settlement agreements.
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-51

Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

Herman Miller Inc. v. Palazzetti Imports & Exports

Inc. (MI-E 2:96-cv-75833 filed 06/25/1996).

Trademark and trade dress action concerning

high-quality reproductions of Eames chairs and

ottomans. There was a jury trial, a judgment, an

appeal, and a remand. On the eve of the second

trial, the case settled pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement “to remain under seal for a period of ten (10) years” (until January 3, 2013).

Smith v. Chrysler Financial Corp. (MI-E 2:97-cv76338 filed 12/03/1997).

Employment action by a paralegal alleging retaliation against her for complaining of the general counsel’s pursuing a sexual relationship with

another paralegal through unwelcome sexual advances. The action was partially dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement, and an

award of attorney fees was to be determined. In

addition, the plaintiff was ordered to keep confidential the terms of the defendants’ settlement

agreement with the other paralegal in her separate action. Attorney fees of $184,371.25 and costs

of $13,240.98 were awarded by sealed order,

which both the plaintiff and the defendants appealed. The case settled on appeal.

Relume Corp. v. Dialight Corp. (MI-E 2:98-cv-72360

filed 06/09/1998).

Patent infringement case concerning LED displays

in traffic signals. The court granted summary

judgment to the defendants. Documents filed in

the case indicate that the plaintiff tried to negotiate a settlement with the defendants that would

relieve it of the preclusive effect of the summary

judgment in future actions against other manufacturers of LED traffic signals. Apparently some

defendants were amenable to this and some were

not. The amenable defendants agreed to a settlement agreement filed under seal. The plaintiff

thereafter lost an appeal of the summary judgment. The case was finally dismissed as settled

pursuant to an apparently unfiled settlement

agreement.

Solomon v. City of Sterling Heights (MI-E 2:98-cv73900 filed 09/04/1998).

Civil rights case against a newspaper, a city, and

its police department for injuries resulting from

the police’s use of tear gas, pepper spray, and

physical violence to disrupt a picket line. The

plaintiff further alleged denial of medical treatment while in confinement and permanent disability. Judgment on a jury verdict awarded the

plaintiff $500,000 in compensatory damages

against all defendants and $1 million in punitive

damages against the newspaper. Litigation over

prejudgment interest and attorney fees continued,

and a sealed settlement agreement with the city

defendants was filed. The newspaper appealed

the judgment against it, and the matter is still on

appeal.

Pasque v. Frederick (MI-E 2:99-cv-75113 filed

10/20/1999).

Motor vehicle action for wrongful killing of a bicyclist by a truck driver. A sealed document was

filed the same day as a “settlement on the record,”

and the case was dismissed on an approved settlement the following month. Five days before the

settlement on the record, the plaintiff filed a petition to determine settlement specifying a $2 million settlement.

Wagner v. Ford Motor Co. (MI-E 2:99-cv-75567 filed

11/17/1999).

Employment discrimination case, which was dismissed without prejudice in November. The court

retained jurisdiction for two months in the event

that the settlement was not consummated. Two

months later the court agreed to retain jurisdiction

for an additional month. One month later—in

early March—the court dismissed the case with

prejudice. A sealed document was filed by the

judge nearly two months later; this may be a

sealed settlement agreement.

Fitch v. Sensormatic Electronics Corp. (MI-E 2:00-cv71603 filed 04/03/2000).

Complaint under the Fair Labor Standards Act for

wrongfully requiring field technicians to deduct

one hour from each workday. A stipulated order

for dismissal states that the court facilitated a settlement conference, which resulted in a confidential settlement agreement that the court will hold

under seal. The docket sheet, however, does not

show the filing of such an agreement.

Intra Corp. v. Air Gage Co. (MI-E 5:00-cv-60234

filed 04/19/2000).

Patent case concerning an “apparatus for inspecting an engine valve seat.” The case was dismissed, and the court retained jurisdiction to enforce a sealed settlement agreement.
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-52

Parkhill v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide Inc.

(MI-E 2:00-cv-71877 filed 04/24/2000).

Personal injury action for quadriplegic spinal cord

injuries sustained by the plaintiff while swimming

in the ocean at the defendant’s hotel. The case settled, and approximately three months after the

filing of the stipulated order of dismissal—on the

statistical date of termination—a sealed document

was filed; this may be a settlement agreement.

Hoy v. Pet Greetings (MI-E 2:00-cv-72308 filed

05/19/2000).

Patent case concerning edible pet greeting cards.

A sealed document was filed on the day of termination. The unsealed judgment contains several

terms of a settlement agreement, but states that

some terms are sealed.

Madison/OHI Liquidity Investors LLC v. Omega

Healthcare Investors Inc. (MI-E 2:00-cv-72793 filed

06/21/2000).

Contract case for failure to provide a security investment firm with an agreed-upon line of credit.

A settlement agreement was reached during a

bench trial, and a transcript of the agreement was

filed under seal.

Baker v. Bollinger (MI-E 4:00-cv-40239 filed

06/26/2000).

Employment case against the University of

Michigan and some of its employees. The case file

includes a protective order concerning confidential health information. The court granted the

parties’ joint motion for a stipulated permanent

injunction and sealing of the record.

Smith v. City of Detroit (MI-E 4:00-cv-40273 filed

07/21/2000).

Civil rights action against the city of Detroit for a

wrongful killing by a police officer. A sealed

document was filed by the judge six days before

the case was dismissed as settled. The case was

dismissed without prejudice to give plaintiffs

sixty days to move to enforce the settlement

agreement if it was not consummated.

Allegiance Telecom Inc. v. Hopkins (MI-E 2:01-cv74310 filed 11/09/2001).

Designated a trademark case, this is an unfair

competition case against former employees for

siphoning business, with the seventh of eleven

claims arising under the Lanham Act. A sealed

document was filed nine days before the case was

closed. The stipulated order of dismissal specifies

the terms of settlement, but also refers to an “accompanying Confidential Settlement and Mutual

General Release Agreement” and represents that

an attached exhibit contains true information and

is filed under seal.

Saleh v. U.S. Health & Life Insurance Co. (MI-E 2:01-

cv-74981 filed 12/21/2001).

Designated an insurance action, the complaint

alleges ERISA violations in wrongfully denying

an employee’s wife $21,256.80 in health insurance

benefits because the employer wrongfully ceased

paying the premium. The record of a settlement

conference was sealed, the case was referred to

mediation, and the case was dismissed as settled.

Moses v. MSP Industries Corp. (MI-E 5:02-cv-60076

filed 04/12/2002).

Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act by a

student engineer for failure to pay for overtime

work. The case was dismissed pursuant to a

sealed settlement agreement.

Western District of Michigan47

Documents may be filed under seal only with

prior permission from the court, W.D. Mich. L.

Civ. R. 10.6(a)-(b), and will be unsealed thirty

days after termination of the case, absent an order

to the contrary, id. R. 10.6(c).

Statistics: 2,775 cases in termination cohort; 2

docket sheets are sealed (0.07%)—the disposition

code for 1 of these cases suggests no sealed settlement agreement48 and the disposition code for 1

of these cases suggests a sealed settlement agreement;49 181 unsealed docket sheets (6.5%) have the

word “seal” in them (but 79 of these include only

docket entries made under the identification

“seal” because the docket clerk had been accessing sealed documents in other cases, or only notation of whether a sealed mediation award was

accepted or rejected); 13 complete docket sheets

(0.47%) were reviewed; actual documents were

examined for 7 cases (0.25%); 8 cases (0.29%) appear to have sealed settlement agreements.

 

47. This district was selected for the study as part of

a modified random sample, and it has a good-cause

rule.

48. One voluntary dismissal.

49. One case settled.
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-53

Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

Tompkins v. Anderson (MI-W 4:99-cv-00124 filed

09/10/1999).

Fraud action concerning ownership and operation

of a radio station. The case settled at a settlement

conference, and the proceedings were sealed.

Eight months after the case was dismissed, the

plaintiffs moved to enforce the confidential settlement agreement. The plaintiffs attached the

settlement agreement, which called for twentythree monthly payments of $500 from each defendant. The plaintiffs’ motion was denied on the

ground that the court had not retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.

C.S. Engineered Castings Inc. v. deMco Technologies

Inc. (MI-W 4:01-cv-00024 filed 02/20/2001).

Negotiable instrument action for nonpayment of

loans, with counterclaims for fraud and related

injuries. The amount in controversy allegedly was

$75,000 in principal and $2,445.45 in interest. The

case settled. The plaintiff moved to enforce the

confidential settlement agreement, claiming

$72,800 still owed. The motion stated that a copy

of the confidential agreement would not be attached, but would “be delivered to the court for

consideration with this motion.” The motion was

unopposed and granted. It appears that the court

subsequently filed the confidential settlement

agreement under seal.

Stryker Corp. v. NeoDyme Technologies Corp. (MI-W

4:01-cv-00031 filed 02/26/2001).

Contract action for failure to pay $91,500 in invoices for hospital goods and services. The court

agreed to file a confidential settlement agreement

under seal so that the court could retain jurisdiction to enforce it. The order to seal stated “that

within 30 days after termination of the case, the

Court will return the Settlement Agreement to

either of the attorneys.” The motion to seal the

settlement agreement was filed two days after the

case was dismissed, and the order was granted

the following month. The docket sheet shows that

the sealed settlement agreement was filed the

same day as the order to seal and does not show a

return of the sealed document. Less than two

months later, the defendant filed a notice for

bankruptcy protection.

Fewless v. Board of Education (MI-W 1:01-cv-00271

filed 05/01/2001).

Civil rights action for a warrantless strip search of

a disabled 14-year-old student on a false tip from

another student that the boy was concealing contraband drugs in his buttocks. The parties filed a

“confidentiality agreement and stipulated protective order” to keep confidential “the name or

other personally identifying information about a

minor witness or minor party.” A magistrate

judge presided over a settlement conference,

which was sealed “in furtherance of justice and

the protection of a minor child.” Subsequent to a

stipulated dismissal, the plaintiff filed a motion to

recover $53,034.10 in fees and costs. The defendants argued against this figure by noting that the

settlement amount was “significantly lower than

[the] initial demand” of $750,000 stated in the

plaintiffs’ Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures. The court’s

resolution of this motion was sealed.

Hale-DeLaGarza v. Spartan Travel Inc. (MI-W 1:01-

cv-00557 filed 08/28/2001).

Employment action alleging persistent unwanted

physical sexual advances. A minute docket entry

states that a settlement was placed on the record

under seal. A stipulated order dismissing the case

gives no additional information.

Mikulak v. ChoiceOne Financial Services Inc. (MI-W

1:01-cv-00721 filed 11/07/2001).

Pro se employment action by an insurance agent

who was a recovering alcoholic for wrongful termination and disability discrimination. The court

sealed a tape recording of a settlement conference

at which the case settled.

Compaq Computer Corp. v. SGII Inc. (MI-W 1:02-cv00028 filed 01/16/2002).

Trademark action. The docket sheet is sealed. The

case was dismissed as settled.

Rapid Design Service Inc. v. Cambridge Integrated

Service Group (MI-W 1:02-cv-00179 filed

03/18/2002).

Contract action by a self-insured employer against

a company hired by the employer to provide administrative services on insurance claims. An employee was severely burned when mixing explosives in his home, and the defendant authorized

an insurance payment of $236,983.32 to the employee. But the employer’s “excess insurance”

provider refused to cover the payment because

the injury arose from criminal activity, so the employer sued the defendant for wrongful authorization. The case settled pursuant to a confidential

settlement agreement, which was inadvertently

filed with the court and subsequently sealed.
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-54

District of Minnesota

Absent an order to the contrary, sealed documents should be reclaimed by the parties four

months after the case is over if there is no appeal

and thirty days after the case is over if there is an

appeal. D. Minn. L.R. 79.1(d). The court will destroy documents not retrieved within thirty days

of notice to retrieve them. Id. R. 79.1(e).

Statistics: 4,792 cases in termination cohort; 13

docket sheets are sealed (0.27%)—the disposition

codes for 9 of these cases suggest no sealed settlement agreements50 and the disposition codes

for 4 of these cases suggest sealed settlement

agreements;51 300 unsealed docket sheets (6.3%)

have the word “seal” in them; 31 complete docket

sheets (0.65%) were reviewed; actual documents

were examined for 27 cases (0.56%); 27 cases

(0.56%) appear to have sealed settlement agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant (MN 0:98-cv02428 filed 11/10/1998).

Fraud action. The docket sheet is sealed. The case

was dismissed as settled.

M.K. v. Pinnacle Programs Inc. (MN 0:98-cv-02440

filed 11/13/1998).

Section 1983 civil rights action by a minor plaintiff

against an individual, a corporation, and a county

and its board of supervisors. The case was dismissed as settled. The entire case file is sealed.

Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant (MN 0:99-cv00292 filed 02/18/1999).

Fraud action. The docket sheet is sealed. The case

was dismissed as settled.

W.E v. Hennepin County (MN 0:99-cv-00585 filed

04/13/1999).

Section 1983 civil rights action by minor plaintiffs

against the Hennepin County Children and Family Services Department and two of its representatives for repeatedly ignoring signs of neglect

and both physical and sexual abuse while the

children were in their mother’s care. In a sealed

 

50. One dismissal for want of prosecution; 3 judgments on motions before trial, 1 voluntary dismissal, 3

“other” dismissals, 1 case affirmed by the appeal division.

51. Four cases settled.

order, the court approved the settlement agreement and dismissed the case.

Stockberger v. Physicians Mutual Insurance Co. (MN

0:99-cv-00805 filed 05/24/1999).

Contract action by a division manager for wrongful termination. The employer filed a counterclaim alleging misappropriation of trade secrets,

intentional interference with contractual relations,

and unfair competition. The case was settled and

dismissed. The settlement transcript was sealed.

Dimensional Arts Inc. v. Holographic Label

Converting Inc. (MN 0:99-cv-00958 filed

06/23/1999).

Patent infringement action concerning a holographic product. A sealed settlement agreement

was filed. The court enjoined the defendants from

infringing on the plaintiff’s patent and using its

trade secrets.

Heidi Ott A.G v. Target Stores Inc. (MN 0:99-cv01170 filed 07/29/1999).

Trademark action concerning Swiss dolls. The

case was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement. Two months later the plaintiff

filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement. The court granted the motion and provided

the parties with a settlement payment schedule.

Von Ruden v. Arvig Enterprises Inc. (MN 0:99-cv01260 filed 08/11/1999).

Employment action for wrongful termination just

days before the birth of the plaintiff’s second

child. The parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement that was sealed by the court.

Schlicht v. Dakota Minnesota & Eastern Railroad

Corp. (MN 0:99-cv-02059 filed 12/28/1999).

Wrongful death federal employers’ liability action

on behalf of the widow and children of the deceased plaintiff against a city and a railroad corporation. The case was dismissed as settled. The

entire case file is sealed.

Keystone Retaining Wall Systems Inc. v. Rockwood

Retaining Walls Inc. (MN 0:00-cv-00496 filed

03/03/2000).

Patent infringement action concerning retaining

wall blocks. The case was dismissed pursuant to a

sealed settlement agreement.
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-55

Binkerd v. Mayo Foundation (MN 0:00-cv-00985

filed 04/17/2000).

Medical malpractice action for the wrongful death

of a child. The case settled. All documents relating

to the settlement are marked confidential under a

protective order and may only be viewed upon

written order issued by the court.

Hutchinson v. Nutro Products Inc. (MN 0:00-cv01929 filed 08/14/2000).

Trademark infringement action concerning pet

food. This case and a related case, Hutchinson v.

Petsmart (MN 0:00-cv-02119 filed 9/13/2000),

were settled. The defendants filed a motion to

enforce the settlement agreement. The court’s order on the defendant’s motion is sealed. The case

ultimately was dismissed.

Kaufman v. University Travel Services Inc. (MN 0:00-

cv-02226 filed 09/29/2000).

Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act for

failure to pay an employee overtime wages pursuant to an agreement the defendant entered into

with the Department of Labor. The case was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement.

Robinson v. Preferred Management Services Inc. (MN

0:00-cv-02419 filed 10/30/2000).

Action under the Fair Housing Act alleging race

discrimination and refusal to accommodate the

plaintiffs’ asthma disability. The court approved

and sealed a minor’s settlement.

Young v. Conroy (MN 0:01-cv-00354 filed

02/27/2001).

Marine action on behalf of a minor child for injuries from the defendant’s motorboat. The parties

entered into a confidential settlement agreement,

which the court placed under seal.

Jones v. Messerli & Kramer PA (MN 0:01-cv-00748

filed 04/30/2001).

Fraud action under the Fair Debt Collection Act

for trying to collect a debt with notice of the

plaintiff’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy case. The case

was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement

agreement.

Vertical Real Estate Inc. v. AirBand Communications

Inc. (MN 0:01-cv-00804 filed 05/09/2001).

Fraud action by a real estate corporation against a

seller of broadband wireless communication

services for breach of contract. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant used proprietary information to circumvent the plaintiff and enter into

contracts with the plaintiff’s subcontractors directly. The case settled, and the court ordered the

transcript of the settlement sealed.

Alexander v. Minnesota Viking Food Services LLC

(MN 0:01-cv-01514 filed 08/20/2001).

Employment discrimination action by an Egyptian employee against a food service corporation.

The case settled, and the court sealed the transcript of the settlement agreement.

Percarina v. Tokai Corp. (MN 0:01-cv-01655 filed

09/07/2001).

Product liability action arising from the negligent

manufacture of a butane lighter that was not

child-resistant and caused catastrophic burns to

two minor children. The defendants filed a counterclaim of contributory negligence and indemnity. The case was dismissed as settled. The court

order approving the minors’ settlement and distribution of the proceeds was sealed.

Work Connection Inc. v. SAFECO Insurance Cos.

(MN 0:01-cv-01670 filed 09/11/2001).

Insurance action alleging failure to return the

plaintiff’s premium overpayments. The defendants filed a counterclaim alleging that the plaintiff failed to pay for the coverage afforded. The

case was dismissed as settled. The confidential

transcript of the settlement conference was sealed.

Winmark Corp. v. MNO Inc. (MN 0:01-cv-01805

filed 10/02/2001).

Originally filed as a trademark infringement action, the complaint was amended to allege breach

of an anticompetition covenant instead. The case

settled, and the court ordered the defendants to

keep the terms of the settlement agreement confidential. The transcript of the settlement agreement was sealed. However, a subsequent stipulation order reveals that the defendants agreed to

rename three of their stores and, with respect to

each store, enter into new franchise agreements

with the plaintiffs.

Independent School District No. 112 v. A.S. (MN

0:01-cv-01859 filed 10/10/2001).

Civil rights action against a seven-year-old special

education student by a school district appealing

the decision by a district hearing officer that the

school district needs to provide one-to-one nurs-
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-56

ing care pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The case settled, and the

transcript of the settlement conference was sealed.

Universal Hospital Services Inc. v. Hennessy (MN

0:01-cv-02072 filed 11/13/2001).

Breach of contract action by a supplier of moveable medical equipment alleging that its former

district manager used confidential trade information to solicit the plaintiff’s customers on behalf of

a competitor and in violation of a noncompetition

agreement. The defendant filed a counterclaim

alleging that he signed the agreement after he had

already begun employment and received no consideration for signing it. The case settled. The settlement agreement was sealed.

Rowe v. Boys and Girls Club of America (MN 0:01-

cv-02269 filed 12/10/2001).

Civil rights action by several parents on behalf of

their minor children for race discrimination. The

case was dismissed as settled. The court approved

and sealed the minors’ settlement agreements.

The entire case file is under seal.

Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant (MN 0:02-cv00369 filed 02/12/2002).

Fraud action. The docket sheet is sealed. The case

was dismissed as settled.

Wright Medical Technology Inc. v. Strand (MN 0:02-

cv-01769 filed 07/17/2002).

Breach of contract action by a seller of medical

implant devices against a former distributor, alleging violation of the covenants not to compete.

The defendant filed a counterclaim alleging that

the plaintiff failed to pay a commission for services rendered. The case settled. The settlement

agreement was sealed. Some of the settlement

terms appear to be detailed in the consent order.

Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant (MN 0:02-cv04270 filed 11/07/2002).

Contract action. The docket sheet is sealed. The

case was dismissed as settled.

Northern District of Mississippi52

Court records may be sealed only upon a showing

of good cause. N. & S. D. Miss. L.R. 83.6(B). Ab-

 

52. This district was selected at random for the

study, and it has a good-cause rule.

sent an order to the contrary, sealed documents

are unsealed thirty days after the case is over. Id.

R. 83.6(D). If a court orders a document sealed

beyond that time period, the order “shall set a

date for unsealing.” Id. (Note that the Northern

and Southern Districts of Mississippi have the

same local rules.)

Statistics: 2,603 cases in termination cohort; 54

docket sheets (2.1%) have the word “seal” in

them; 22 complete docket sheets (0.85%) were reviewed; actual documents were examined for 5

cases (0.19%); 5 cases (0.19%) appear to have

sealed settlement agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

Smith v. Salvation Army (MS-N 1:99-cv-00148 filed

04/03/1999).

Contract action by a bookkeeper for wrongful

termination. The case was dismissed as settled,

and the parties agreed to keep terms of the settlement confidential. Two months later the plaintiff filed a sealed motion to enforce the settlement

agreement. The court denied the motion.

Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Capital LLC v.

Doris (MS-N 4:99-cv-00283 filed 11/22/1999),

consolidated with Credit Suisse First Boston

Mortgage Capital Inc. v. Bayou Caddy’s Jubilee Casino

(MS-N 4:99-cv-00284 filed 11/22/1999).

Foreclosure actions concerning preferred ship

mortgages pertaining to riverboat gambling. The

parties filed a stipulation of dismissal. Over three

months later the court granted a joint motion to

seal the record.

Banks v. CCA of Tennessee Inc. (MS-N 4:01-cv-00150

filed 06/20/2001); Hale v. CCA of Tennessee Inc.

(MS-N 2:01-cv-00145 filed 06/21/2001).

Actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act for

failure to pay employees overtime for meetings

the plaintiffs attended as part of their employment but beyond their scheduled shift. The plaintiffs filed under seal a motion to enforce a settlement agreement. The court ordered the defendants to pay approximately $2,075,000 to 346

plaintiffs, with notice to a handful of named

plaintiffs whose claims were determined not to be

valid.
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-57

Southern District of Mississippi53

Court records may be sealed only upon a showing

of good cause. N. & S. D. Miss. L.R. 83.6(B). Absent an order to the contrary, sealed documents

are unsealed thirty days after the case is over. Id.

R. 83.6(D). If a court orders a document sealed

beyond that time period, the order “shall set a

date for unsealing.” Id. (Note that the Northern

and Southern Districts of Mississippi have the

same local rules.)

Statistics: 5,775 cases in termination cohort; 11

docket sheets are sealed (0.19%)—the disposition

codes for 9 of these cases suggest no sealed settlement agreements54 and the disposition codes

for 2 of these cases suggest sealed settlement

agreements;55 211 unsealed docket sheets (3.7%)

have the word “seal” in them; 38 complete docket

sheets (0.66%) were reviewed; actual documents

were examined for 18 cases (0.31%); 14 cases

(0.24%) appear to have sealed settlement agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant (MS-S 1:95-cv00161 filed 03/23/1995).

Statutory action. The docket sheet is sealed. The

case was dismissed as settled.

Sistrunk v. Forest Oil Corp. (MS-S 2:97-cv-00070

filed 02/18/1997).

Product liability action by the mother of three minors for a fatal drilling rig accident that resulted

in the wrongful death of their father. The court

granted one defendant summary judgment. The

plaintiffs settled with another defendant for

$49,000. The case against the remaining defendants was then dismissed as settled. The court

ordered the transcript of the settlement conference

sealed.

Compass Marine v. Lambert Fenchurch (MS-S 1:99-

cv-00252 filed 04/05/1999).

Fraud action. The docket sheet is sealed. The case

was dismissed as settled.

 

53. This district was selected at random for the

study, and it has a good-cause rule.

54. Two judgments on motions before trial, 6 voluntary dismissals, 1 “other” dismissal.

55. Two cases settled.

Donnell v. BellSouth Telecommunications Inc. (MS-S

3:00-cv-00202 filed 03/14/2000).

Employment discrimination action by an AfricanAmerican technician. The case settled. The defendants filed a motion to enforce the settlement

agreement. The plaintiff opposed the motion and

moved to seal the settlement agreement that was

attached as an exhibit. The court granted the

plaintiff’s motion to enforce. The case is on appeal.

Calvert Co. v. Conte Glancz Industries Inc. (MS-S

3:00-cv-00704 filed 09/20/2000).

Breach of contract action by a manufacturer of

high voltage electrical bus systems for nonpayment. The case was dismissed pursuant to a

sealed settlement agreement.

Boyd v. G & K Services Inc. (MS-S 2:00-cv-00327

filed 12/29/2000).

Employment action by a sales representative for

unjust discipline, suspension, and demotion after

he reported sexual harassment of himself and

others by management. The case settled. The

court ordered the transcript of the settlement conference sealed.

Forestry Suppliers Inc. v. General Supply Corp. (MS-S

3:01-cv-00014 filed 01/09/2001).

Copyright infringement action concerning forestry catalogues. The case was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement.

Hufstetler v. Hudson Salvage Inc. (MS-S 1:01-cv00156 filed 04/18/2001).

Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act for

failure to pay overtime wages. The case was settled and dismissed. According to the joint stipulation of dismissal, “the settlement agreement

contains payment for all claims for back pay,

overtime, liquidated damages, attorneys fees,

costs, interest, breach of contract damages, and

back benefits which have been or could have been

raised by plaintiff.” The court later granted the

defendant’s oral motion to seal the agreement.

Shepherd v. Corrections Corp. of America (MS-S 5:01-

cv-00179 filed 06/07/2001).

Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act for

failure to pay employees overtime wages for

meetings held outside employees’ scheduled

shifts. The case was dismissed as settled. The file
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-58

contains a sealed document that appears to be the

settlement agreement.

Pasha Hawaii Transport Lines LLC v. Travelers

Casualty and Surety Co. (MS-S 1:01-cv-00279 filed

07/10/2001).

Breach of contract action against a surety company concerning performance and payment in the

construction of a car-and-truck carrier vessel. The

case settled, and the court sealed the record of the

settlement hearing.

Mabry v. Cooper Tire and Rubber Co. (MS-S 3:01-cv00810 filed 10/18/2001).

Product liability action concerning automobile

tires. The case was dismissed as settled. The court

sealed all documents related to the settlement

agreement on behalf of the minor plaintiff. However, a subsequent court order releasing the minor’s claims against Ford Motor Company for the

sum of $5,000 is unsealed.

Huffmaster v. Harlin (MS-S 2:02-cv-00001 filed

01/03/2002).

Section 1983 civil rights action concerning the

warrantless illegal search of the plaintiff’s bedroom. The plaintiff was jailed and refused bond.

The case settled. The defendants subsequently

filed a motion to compel settlement and for an

award of attorney fees and costs. The court

granted the plaintiff’s request to seal the defendants’ motion, because it contained terms of the

confidential settlement agreement. The settlement

was renegotiated, and some documents were ordered sealed by the court.

Barlow v. Equifax Information Services Inc. (MS-S

2:02-cv-00088 filed 04/05/2002).

Personal injury action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act for inaccurate information posted to

the plaintiff’s credit file. The case settled. The

transcript of the settlement conference was sealed.

Tillery Dental Clinic PLLC v. BellSouth Credit and

Collections Management Inc. (MS-S 2:02-cv-00796

filed 10/01/2002).

Breach of contract action by dental clinics for negligence in managing the plaintiffs’ advertising.

The defendants filed a counterclaim seeking complete payment for the advertisements. The parties

settled, and the court sealed the transcript of the

settlement conference.

Eastern District of Missouri56

A document may be filed under seal only by court

order upon a showing of good cause. E.D. Mo.

L.R. 83-13.05(A)(1). Absent an order to the contrary, sealed documents may be unsealed and

placed in the public file thirty days after the case

is over. Id. R. 83-13.05(A)(2).

Statistics: 4,798 cases in termination cohort; 342

docket sheets (7.1%) have the word “seal” in them

(but 98 of these merely have the word “seal” in

place of docket entry clerk initials); 53 complete

docket sheets (1.1%) were reviewed; actual documents were examined for 22 cases (0.46%); 20

cases (0.42%) appear to have sealed settlement

agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

McCrary v. Delo (MO-E 4:93-cv-00384 filed

02/12/1993).

Civil rights prisoner petition in which the plaintiff

alleged that prison guards permitted a race-based

attack on him, nearly resulting in the severing of

his ear. The plaintiff further alleged inadequate

medical treatment and retaliation for seeking legal

redress. After a trial, the jury found in favor of the

plaintiff on some claims and in favor of some defendants on others, awarding the plaintiff $50,000

in compensatory damages and $80,000 in punitive

damages. Other claims previously dismissed on

summary judgment were reopened when it was

discovered that the defendants withheld courtordered discovery. The case subsequently was

referred to mediation, where it was settled. According to a later-filed unsealed court opinion, the

terms of settlement included payment to the

plaintiff of $200,000 and confidentiality.

The plaintiff subsequently filed under seal a

“motion for order vacating order re dismissal,

vacating trial setting, reopening discovery and

assessing sanctions.” This motion most likely was

filed under seal because it disclosed terms of the

confidential settlement agreement. Apparently,

after the defense counsel agreed to the settlement,

the Missouri Attorney General’s Office determined it had to notify victims of the plaintiff’s

crimes of the settlement, contrary to the settlement agreement, and the plaintiff was concerned

that the victims would seek to block payment. The

defense counsel was sanctioned, and the case ultimately was dismissed as resolved.

 

56. This district was selected at random for the

study, and it has a good-cause rule.
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-59

Perez v. Ford Motor Co. (MO-E 4:98-cv-01973 filed

11/25/1998).

Motor vehicle product liability action by a wife

and two children for their injuries and for the

husband’s wrongful death in an automobile accident. The plaintiffs and decedent were passengers

in an Aerostar minivan, which was driven by the

defendant driver, rented from the defendant

rental agency, and manufactured by the defendant auto maker. Apparently, the van hit a patch

of ice, rolled down an embankment, and lost its

side door, causing the decedent to be thrown from

the van and killed when his seatbelt, manufactured by the defendant seatbelt manufacturer,

failed. The court approved a settlement with the

defendant driver in which the wife received

$51,000 for her injuries, each child received $2,500

for the child’s own injuries and $7,000 for the

wrongful death of the child’s father, and the

plaintiffs’ attorneys received $30,000.

Over one year later, the court approved a settlement with the defendant seatbelt manufacturer

in which each child received $12,000, the decedent’s mother received $6,000, and the plaintiffs’

attorneys received $20,000. Approximately one

year after that, the case against the remaining defendants was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement. An unsealed order approving

the structure of the minors’ settlement discloses

that the auto maker agreed to future payments to

the children equivalent to approximately $100,000

total in present value.

Meier v. Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics Inc. (MO-E 4:99-

cv-01172 filed 07/22/1999).

Product liability action for a defective blood

product. During the plaintiff wife’s first pregnancy, she was given RhoGAM to protect subsequent pregnancies from Rh incompatibility. The

plaintiffs husband, wife, and baby sued for injuries sustained during delivery following the second pregnancy, allegedly arising from insufficient

RhoGAM dosage during the first delivery. (Filed

papers suggest the defective dosage subsequently

was recalled.) At court-ordered ADR, the case

settled. The plaintiffs filed a motion to approve

the settlement on behalf of the minor, stating that

Rh incompatibility did not appear to result in

permanent injury to the minor, and attaching a

sealed copy of the confidential settlement agreement. The court approved the settlement and

dismissed the case.

Rademeyer v. Farris (MO-E 4:99-cv-01770 filed

11/12/1999).

Personal property fraud action alleging that the

defendant wrongfully netted $602,000 by simultaneously negotiating the sale of a medical technology corporation in which he was 51% owner and

the purchase of the remaining 49% for substantially less than the sale price. The district court

granted the defendant summary judgment, but

the court of appeals reversed. On remand, the

case settled and the court accepted a copy of the

settlement agreement under seal.

Ray v. de Castro (MO-E 4:00-cv-00118 filed

01/25/2000).

Medical malpractice action by the husband and

children of a woman who died from breast cancer

for failure to diagnose and treat the cancer early

enough to save her. After a settlement hearing

before the court, a settlement agreement was approved by sealed court order. Upon satisfaction of

judgment, the case was dismissed.

United States ex rel. Padda v. Jefferson Memorial

Hospital P.H.O. (MO-E 4:00-cv-00177 filed

02/03/2000).

Qui tam action under the False Claims Act. The

docket sheet shows only documents 1, 17, 18, and

19. The last document is a “sealed stipulation for

dismissal of case,” and all four documents, including the complaint, are sealed.

Black v. AutoZone Inc. (MO-E 4:00-cv-00488 filed

03/23/2000).

Motor vehicle personal injury action against a

truck driver and a truck company by parents of a

boy killed in a traffic accident with the truck. The

court approved a settlement agreement by an order the court ordered sealed for fifteen years.

Cummings v. Mallinckrodt Inc. (MO-E 4:00-cv-00660

filed 04/20/2000).

Designated a civil rights action, this is an employment action for wrongful termination in retaliation for previously pursuing an employment

discrimination lawsuit against the defendant that

ultimately was settled. The defendant filed a

sealed “motion to enforce settlement agreement

reached during the Court ordered mediation,”

and the plaintiff opposed the motion by sealed

brief. The case was resolved without a hearing on

the motion.
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-60

Orthodontic Centers of Missouri Inc. v. Bhatia (MO-E

4:00-cv-00765 filed 05/09/2000).

Contract action by a provider of business and office management to orthodontic practices against

an orthodontist for failure to make monthly payments. The plaintiff filed a motion to enforce a

settlement agreement, and a copy of the agreement was filed under seal. The matter ultimately

was resolved without a hearing on the motion to

enforce.

Berliner v. LoBue Associates (MO-E 4:00-cv-00824

filed 05/17/2000).

Contract action by a departing corporate CEO

against the corporation for three years’ salary as

severance pay. After the court twice denied the

defendants’ motions for summary judgment, the

parties settled and the court sealed the transcript

of the settlement hearing. The case was dismissed,

and the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the

agreement.

Schuppert v. Orthodontic Centers of America (MO-E

4:00-cv-01034 filed 06/23/2000).

Contract action by a dentist against his business

and office management provider. The defendants

filed a sealed motion to enforce a confidential settlement agreement. Before the motion was heard,

the disagreement apparently was resolved and

the case dismissed pursuant to a consent judgment disclosing no settlement terms beyond the

validity of the contract.

Newman v. Sikeston Department of Public Safety

(MO-E 1:00-cv-00074 filed 07/07/2000).

Civil rights action for wrongful death of a fetus

and injuries to the mother and her child when the

mother and child were arrested after the child

accidentally hit a police officer’s private car with a

tar-paper shingle he was throwing into the air to

see fly. The plaintiffs, who are African-American,

also alleged race discrimination. The court

granted the plaintiffs’ motion to approve a

$400,000 settlement agreement calling for payment of $70,360 to the mother now and $10,000

per year thereafter, $25,000 to the child on his

eighteenth birthday, and $173,455 to the plaintiffs’

attorneys. Subsequent to the court’s granting this

motion by “ruled document,” the court filed an

“order approving settlement” under seal. Two

days later a newspaper article reported the city’s

settlement payment, prompting the defendants to

request a gag order on the plaintiffs, which the

court denied.

Estate of Dobbins v. City of Pagedale (MO-E 4:00-cv01104 filed 07/07/2000).

Civil rights action for wrongful killing by a police

officer. The case was dismissed pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement, which the court

approved by sealed order. Filed correspondence

suggests that the decedent’s minor son would

obtain his interest in the settlement upon reaching

the age of eighteen.

McDermott v. 7-Eleven Inc. (MO-E 4:00-cv-01495

filed 09/15/2000).

Designated an employment action, the complaint

alleges sexual harassment, including unwanted

sexual touching, of a female employee and her

minor daughter. The case was consolidated with

two other cases for discovery purposes (McCroy v.

7-Eleven Inc., MO-E 4:00-cv-01495, and Castrogiovanni v. 7-Eleven Inc., MO-E 4:00-cv-01974). The

case settled, and the plaintiffs filed a sealed motion to approve the minor’s settlement, which the

court granted. Two months after the case’s conclusion, the clerk notified counsel that sealed

documents would be unsealed absent an order to

the contrary. The court granted the defendant’s

motion to return the sealed documents to the defendant.

Tipler v. Delta Area Economic Opportunity Corp.

(MO-E 1:00-cv-00152 filed 12/13/2000).

Employment action in which thirteen AfricanAmerican plaintiffs alleged forty-one causes of

action pertaining to a racially discriminatory hostile work environment and wrongful termination.

After some claims were dismissed on summary

judgment, the case went to trial. During a break,

the case settled. The settlement agreement was

put on the record, settlement proceedings were

sealed, and the case was dismissed.

Nottingham v. Women’s Health Specialists PC (MO-E

1:01-cv-00005 filed 01/10/2001).

Medical malpractice action for brain injury to a

baby resulting from negligent pregnancy care and

delivery. The case was dismissed pursuant to a

sealed judgment of settlement. An unsealed satisfaction of judgment showed that the plaintiffs received $100,000 in settlement.

Bowler v. Southwestern Bell Telephone LP (MO-E

4:01-cv-00131 filed 01/26/2001).

Employment action by a plaintiff with psoriasis

for wrongful termination and disability discrimination. The case settled at court-ordered ADR, but
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-61

two weeks later the plaintiff’s counsel requested

to withdraw as counsel on the ground that his

client dismissed him; the plaintiff apparently developed second thoughts. Approximately one

month later the defendant filed a sealed motion to

enforce the settlement agreement. Approximately

one week later, the plaintiff’s attorney filed a

sealed motion to enforce the settlement agreement. The plaintiff’s attorney’s motion to recover

his fees from the plaintiff discloses that the case

was settled for $7,500. The attorney recovered

from the plaintiff $5,700 in fees and $2,210.85 in

costs.

Earth City Technologies Inc. v. Dentsply International

Inc. (MO-E 4:01-cv-00173 filed 02/02/2001).

Trademark infringement action concerning ultrasonic endodontic tips. The parties filed a partial

settlement agreement under seal. The case continues. (It is not clear why the statistical database

shows the case to have been terminated in 2001.)

Stelbrink v. Manyx (MO-E 4:01-cv-00411 filed

03/20/2001).

Motor vehicle action in which a fourteen-year-old

Illinois resident sued the Missouri-resident driver

of the car in which he was a passenger (a woman

with the same last name as the plaintiff—possibly

the mother or an aunt), a Missouri deputy sheriff,

and the sheriff for injuries resulting from the deputy sheriff’s car colliding with the car in which the

plaintiff rode while the deputy sheriff was ignoring traffic signals in response to an emergency.

After hearings to approve settlement with the minor plaintiff were initiated, the complaint was

amended to name the second minor passenger of

the car as a plaintiff—the defendant driver’s

daughter, who also was a Missouri resident. The

court approved and sealed the settlement agreement.

Brown v. SSI Global Security Agency (MO-E 4:01-cv00917 filed 06/08/2001).

Employment action by a pro se plaintiff for sexual

harassment. The case was dismissed pursuant to a

sealed settlement agreement.

Western District of Missouri

No relevant local rule.

Statistics: 4,857 cases in termination cohort; 167

docket sheets (3.4%) have the word “seal” in

them; 35 complete docket sheets (0.72%) were reviewed; actual documents were examined for 27

cases (0.56%); 24 cases (0.49%) appear to have

sealed settlement agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

Jedrzejewski v. Reckitt & Colman Inc. (MO-W 6:97-

cv-03637 filed 12/23/1997).

Employment action for wrongful termination of a

Polish employee in retaliation for EEO and OSHA

complaints. The case settled, and the parties asked

the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement, which the court ordered the

parties to file under seal for court review. The

court dismissed the action with prejudice, retaining jurisdiction over the settlement.

Clune v. Industrivarden Service AB (MO-W 4:98-cv00179 filed 02/11/1998).

Product liability action by a woman and her minor children against an elevator manufacturer for

the wrongful death of her husband on a construction site when he fell off an elevator platform, allegedly because of an inadequate guardrail. The

case was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement approved by the court.

Morris v. William Woods University (MO-W 2:99-cv04062 filed 03/18/1999).

Contract action for wrongful termination of the

equestrian division chair in retaliation for her reporting illegal horse trading by the university.

The plaintiff’s attorney apparently agreed to a

settlement, which the plaintiff claimed was beyond the attorney’s authority, so the defendant

filed a sealed motion to enforce the settlement

agreement, and the plaintiff’s attorney filed a motion to withdraw. In an unsealed order, the court

held that the parties had agreed to a settlement in

which the plaintiff would receive $42,000 and her

attorney would receive $32,851. The court also

held that the plaintiff would be liable for the defendants’ fees and costs in enforcing the agreement. The defendants sought $121,170.62, but the

court granted the plaintiff’s motion to amend the

judgment, finding that the plaintiff did not act in

bad faith in resisting the settlement agreement.

Moore v. Russell (MO-W 2:99-cv-04082 filed

04/15/1999).

Designated a prison-condition action, this is really

a civil rights action by a now-incarcerated woman

against a sheriff’s department and its officers for

coercing her to engage in repeated acts of sexual

intercourse in exchange for their unlawfully not

serving an arrest warrant on her. According to a
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-62

minute entry, the parties settled, and “proceedings [were] to remain under seal.” That day the

court received a check for $250,000 “to be deposited in court registry for settlement.” A sealed order concerning the settlement was filed the following day, and the case was dismissed.

Thomas v. Kansas City Power and Light Co. (MO-W

4:99-cv-00464 filed 05/11/1999).

Employment action by an African-American employee claiming racial discrimination in compensation, promotion, working conditions, and supervision. The parties filed a joint stipulation of

dismissal one week after the defendant filed a

sealed motion to enforce settlement.

Zuno-Cajayon v. Ashton Court Partners (MO-W

4:99-cv-00560 filed 06/08/1999).

Employment discrimination and breach of contract action by a Filipino nurse. Apparently several other plaintiffs filed similar lawsuits, which

were consolidated for discovery. After mediation,

as part of the court’s Early Assessment Program,

one defendant moved to enforce an alleged settlement agreement whereby $40,000 would be

paid to twenty-six plaintiffs. The court held that

such an agreement had been reached and granted

the motion. But the court rescinded its order upon

later determination that although there was

agreement on the amount of settlement, there was

not agreement on which entities not parties to the

case would be released from liability. The defendant subsequently renewed its motion to enforce,

but while the motion was pending the consolidated cases settled at a settlement conference. The

court ordered that the tape recording of the conference and the draft agreement presented as an

exhibit to the conference be sealed.

Cowan v. St. Francis Hospital & Health Services

(MO-W 5:99-cv-06085 filed 07/16/1999).

Medical malpractice action for the wrongful death

of the plaintiffs’ newborn baby as a result of negligent delivery. A settlement was reached and approved by the court at a settlement conference,

and two conference exhibits were sealed. The

plaintiffs’ recovery is sealed, but the agreement

called for their attorneys to receive $76,587.34 in

fees and $30,407.19 in expenses.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Pratt (MO-W 4:99-

cv-00811 filed 08/18/1999).

Contract action by a provider of workers’ compensation insurance against a trucking company

for employing more workers than it acknowledged to the insurer. The parties announced a

settlement at a telephonic settlement conference,

the record of which the court ordered sealed. The

case was dismissed by stipulation.

Banks v. Peak (MO-W 6:00-cv-03004 filed

01/06/2000).

Designated an employment discrimination action,

the complaint alleges a variety of malicious actions by an employer against a 78-year-old employee. The alleged actions include gluing his

toolbox shut, setting his toolbox on fire, and

turning a fan on him in winter. The case settled at

a settlement conference, the record of which was

sealed.

James v. Tri-Lakes Newspapers Inc. (MO-W 6:00-cv03019 filed 01/20/2000).

Action under the Family Medical Leave Act by a

newspaper advertising manager for failure to reinstate her after she took leave for a hysterectomy.

The case settled at a settlement conference, the

record of which was sealed.

United States ex rel. Ken Babcock Sales Inc. v.

Courtney Day Inc. (MO-W 5:00-cv-06018 filed

02/11/2000).

Action under the Miller Act for failure to pay five

subcontractors amounts due totaling $388,648.65

in a federal construction project for the Missouri

Air National Guard. The defendants filed a counterclaim alleging that one of the plaintiffs provided defective concrete. Three plaintiffs settled at

a settlement conference, the record of which was

sealed. The remaining plaintiffs settled at another

conference, the proceedings of which also were

sealed. The unsealed judgment shows a payment

of $292,131.48 to the plaintiffs.

Dobbs v. Youngelman (MO-W 4:00-cv-00374 filed

04/21/2000).

Medical malpractice action for brain damage resulting from the defendant’s failure to properly

diagnose and treat the plaintiff’s intraparenchymal hepatic hemorrhage. The case was dismissed

pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement approved by the court.

Brown v. Neosho R-V School District (MO-W 4:00-

cv-00457 filed 05/15/2000).

Civil rights action by a schoolteacher against the

school district for wrongfully seeking her dismissal and revocation of her teaching license after
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-63

her estranged husband delivered to the school

district nude pictures of her that she had sent by

e-mail to private correspondents. The court sealed

the record of a settlement conference, although it

is not clear whether the case settled then. The following week the parties filed a joint motion under

seal, and the court granted the motion by sealed

order. A week later the parties filed a joint motion

to dismiss the case, which the court granted.

Youngs v. ITT Industries Inc. (MO-W 4:00-cv-00463

filed 05/15/2000).

Product liability action for severe head and body

injuries, resulting in permanent disabilities, including brain damage, caused by an explosion of

the defendants’ air tank when the plaintiff was

trying to fill it. The case settled at a settlement

conference, and the court sealed the conference

transcript. The sealed transcript was forwarded to

the county probate court for settlement approval.

After the probate court approved the settlement

agreement, the district court sealed an “application for approval of settlement involving an incapacitated person” and approved the agreement by

sealed order. A subsequently filed unsealed order

discloses a settlement amount of $725,000, including attorney fees of $363,500 and attorney

expenses of $112,282.13.

Sedalia Lab Inc. v. Novacare Orthotics & Prosthetics

East Inc. (MO-W 4:00-cv-00540 filed 06/01/2000).

Contract action concerning a $7 million business

sale. The court sealed a transcript of an “in camera

hearing on settlement agreement.” An unsealed

confession of judgment called for the defendants

to pay $2 million unless the defendants paid $1.7

million by a certain date. Subsequently the court

filed a sealed consent judgment. Other unsealed

documents, however, confirm the $2 million contingent judgment.

Primus Corp. v. Bio-Rad Laboratories Inc. (MO-W

4:00-cv-00634 filed 06/23/2000).

Patent case concerning a diabetes test using highperformance liquid chromatography glycol hemoglobin blood assays. The case was dismissed

pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement.

Gillihan v. D & M Masonry Inc. (MO-W 4:00-cv00698 filed 07/11/2000).

ERISA action by benefits trustees for wrongfully

paid benefit claims totaling approximately

$200,000. The court denied the parties’ request to

seal the entire record, but granted their request to

seal the settlement agreement, pursuant to which

the case was dismissed.

7th Street United Super Inc. v. Duffield (MO-W 4:00-

cv-01351 filed 08/11/2000).

Multidistrict consolidated contract action by retail

grocers against a grocery wholesaler for fraudulent overbilling. One of the consolidated cases, a

class action originally filed in the District of Utah,

settled for $16 million. Plaintiffs’ attorneys received $6 million in fees and approximately

$300,000 in expenses, and two lead plaintiffs each

received an incentive of $100,000. The defendant

filed a sealed motion to enforce settlement agreements in three cases originally filed in the Western District of Missouri (Don’s United Super Inc. v.

Werries, MO-W 98-06042 filed 03/18/1998; Coddington Enterprises v. Werries, MO-W 98-01100

filed 10/19/1998; J&A Foods Inc. v. Fleming Cos.,

MO-W 00-00285 filed 03/24/2000). The parties

resolved the cases before the motion was heard,

and it was withdrawn.

McMurry v. American Telephone and Telegraph Co.

(MO-W 4:00-cv-01293 filed 12/21/2000).

Employment action by an African-American

woman with epilepsy for race and disability discrimination and retaliation. The case settled at a

settlement conference, the record of which was

sealed.

C.S. v. Heartland Chicken Inc. (MO-W 4:01-cv-00058

filed 01/16/2001).

Designated an employment discrimination action,

this is an action for rape of a minor female Popeye’s employee by a male co-worker. The case

was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement

agreement approved by the court.

Fitzgerald v. New Holland North America Inc. (MOW 2:01-cv-04032 filed 02/13/2001).

Product liability action for wrongful death when a

1949 tractor manufactured by the defendant rolled

over. The parties filed a sealed motion for settlement approval. Unsealed documents show the

amount of settlement to be $160,000; the plaintiffs’

attorneys received $68,293.46 in fees.

Doe v. Otterville R-VI School District (MO-W 2:01-

cv-04224 filed 10/30/2001).

Civil rights action for sexual abuse of a disabled

11-year-old boy by a schoolmate and for the defendant school district’s failure to accommodate

the resulting trauma in the boy’s education. The
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-64

defendant denied that sexual abuse occurred. The

case was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement approved by the court.

Wilson v. Goody Products Inc. (MO-W 2:01-cv-06152

filed 12/21/2001).

Product liability action on behalf of a six-year-old

girl for blindness to one eye caused by a springy

metal headband manufactured by the defendant.

The case was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement approved by the court.

Kelly v. Ex-L-Tube Inc. (MO-W 4:02-cv-00543 filed

06/06/2002).

Employment disability discrimination action by a

shipper whose right arm was amputated at the

elbow as a result of an on-the-job injury. The case

settled at a settlement conference, the record of

which was sealed.

District of New Hampshire

The District of New Hampshire recognizes two

levels of sealing. Documents sealed at Level I may

be reviewed without court order by any attorney

appearing in the action. D.N.H. L.R. 83.11(b)(1).

Documents sealed at Level II may be reviewed

without court order only by the filer (or the person to whom an order is directed if the sealed

document is an order). Id. R. 83.11(b)(2). Documents may be sealed only by court order, and

motions to seal must explain the basis for sealing

and specify which level of sealing is desired. Id. R.

83.11(c).

Statistics: 1,157 cases in termination cohort; 2

docket sheets are sealed (0.17%)—both of these

cases’ disposition codes suggest no sealed settlement agreements;57 82 unsealed docket sheets

(7.1%) have the word “seal” in them; 10 complete

docket sheets (0.86%) were reviewed; actual

documents were examined for 4 cases (0.35%); 4

cases (0.35%) appear to have sealed settlement

agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

A.S.I. Worldwide Communications Corp. v.

WorldCom Inc. (NH 1:98-cv-00154 filed

03/17/1998).

Contract action between providers of telephone

service. The plaintiff filed under seal a motion to

enforce a settlement agreement, but before the

 

57. Two “other” dismissals.

case closed, the defendant filed for bankruptcy

protection and the action was stayed.

Polyclad Laminates Inc. v. MacDermid Inc. (NH 1:99-

cv-00162 filed 04/19/1999).

Patent action alleging that the defendant’s product MultiBond, a chemical solution used in the

manufacture of printed circuit boards, infringed

the plaintiffs’ patent. The defendant alleged that

its product did not infringe, because it did not use

a cationic surfactant, and filed a counterclaim for

tortious business interference. The court granted

the defendant summary judgment on the patent

claim, and the plaintiffs appealed. With the plaintiffs’ appeal and the defendant’s counterclaim still

pending, the parties settled and filed a sealed settlement agreement.

Griffin v. Odyssey House Inc. (NH 1:99-cv-00561

filed 12/03/1999).

Personal injury action against a residential facility

for emotionally troubled adolescents for negligently permitting a 15-year-old resident to attempt suicide by hanging herself with her belt,

which left her in a persistent vegetative state. The

case settled pursuant to a confidential settlement

agreement. The settlement agreement was filed

under seal and then returned to the parties. The

amount of settlement was kept confidential, but

unsealed documents disclose that settlement

funds were used to satisfy Medicaid liens and establish a special needs irrevocable trust.

Armstrong v. Correctional Medical Services Inc. (NH

1:00-cv-00532 filed 11/14/2000).

Civil rights action for wrongful death resulting

from inadequate medical treatment for a head

injury inflicted by a correctional officer while the

decedent was held at the Hillsborough County

House of Corrections under arrest for failure to

pay child support. The plaintiff filed a sealed motion to approve a settlement agreement on behalf

of the decedent’s minor heir. The court approved

the agreement, but denied the motion to seal the

approval motion, and ordered the confidential

agreement returned to the parties.

District of New Mexico

No relevant local rule.

Statistics: 3,084 cases in termination cohort; 3

docket sheets are sealed (0.10%)—the disposition

codes for 2 of these cases suggest no sealed set-
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-65

tlement agreements,58 and the disposition code for

1 of these cases suggests a sealed settlement

agreement;59 86 unsealed docket sheets (2.8%)

have the word “seal” in them; 23 complete docket

sheets (0.75%) were reviewed; actual documents

were examined for 19 cases (0.62%); 19 cases

(0.62%) appear to have sealed settlement agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

Doss v. Major League Baseball Properties Inc. (NM

1:98-cv-00927 filed 08/03/1998).

Personal property damage action concerning the

surreptitious appropriation of a commercial trade

name. The case settled, and the stipulated order of

dismissal was sealed.

Loeffler v. Transportation Manufacturing Corp. (NM

6:98-cv-01424 filed 11/19/1998).

Product liability action for wrongful death arising

from the defective design and manufacture of a

safety platform. The case settled. The court appointed a guardian ad litem for the decedent’s

minor children. There appears to be a sealed settlement agreement filed with the court.

Trout Trading Management Co. v. Trout (NM 1:99-

cv-01330 filed 11/17/1999).

Statutory action by the managers of a mutual

fund alleging that a former employee was engaging in an ongoing criminal conspiracy including

extortion and threats to publicize false information. The defendants filed a counterclaim alleging

breach of an oral partnership agreement. Two of

the parties resolved their dispute by way of a confidential settlement agreement. The court entered

a stipulated permanent injunction under seal as

part of the settlement agreement.

Velasco v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (NM 1:99-cv-01369

filed 11/23/1999).

Motor vehicle product liability action for the negligent design and manufacture of an automobile,

which caused the vehicle to roll over several times

on the highway. The plaintiff sustained permanent and disabling spinal cord injuries. The parties settled, agreeing to keep the amount and

terms of the settlement confidential. The court

sealed documents that disclosed the terms of the

settlement agreement. The court retained juris-

 

58. Two “other” dismissals.

59. One case settled.

diction over the settlement fund. The case was

dismissed as settled.

Ramirez v. Isuzu Motors Ltd. (NM 1:00-cv-00331

filed 03/06/2000).

Product liability action for wrongful death in a

vehicle rollover accident as a result of the negligent design and manufacture of an SUV. The case

settled. The court approved the settlement on behalf of the surviving minor and placed the agreement under seal.

Dillon v. Jackson (NM 6:00-cv-00751 filed

05/24/2000).

Civil rights action by a female prisoner for rape

and assault by six corrections officers. The case

settled. The plaintiff filed a motion for a court order approving the settlement, appointing a

guardian ad litem, and sealing court records of

the settlement proceedings. The defendants opposed the motion. The transcript of the proceeding was sealed.

John v. United States (NM 1:00-cv-00850 filed

06/13/2000).

Medical malpractice action for a baby’s brain injury resulting from lack of oxygen during delivery. The case was consolidated with John v. United

States (NM 1:01-cv-00285 filed 03/13/2001). A

guardian ad litem was appointed for the child.

The case was dismissed as settled. The court order

approving the minor’s settlement agreement was

sealed.

Hymes-Odorizzi v. Royal Maccabees Mutual Life

Insurance Co. (NM 1:00-cv-00940 filed

06/29/2000).

Insurance action for recovery of benefits under a

disability insurance policy. The defendants filed a

counterclaim alleging that the plaintiff was not

disabled while her policy was in force. The case

was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement

agreement.

Wallace v. Greer Enterprises Inc. (NM 1:00-cv-00952

filed 07/03/2000).

Stockholders’ suit against a property management

corporation for corporate oppression of minority

shareholders. The case settled, and the taperecorded settlement agreement, transcribed by the

clerk, was sealed. A subsequent dispute arose

with respect to the nondisclosure provision of the

confidential settlement agreement. Each of the

parties, pursuant to court order, submitted alter-
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-66

native language under seal, and the court issued a

confidentiality order. The court subsequently

granted the parties’ requests to remove the taperecorded settlement agreement from the court’s

file and docket. The case ultimately was dismissed

as settled.

Unzueta v. Pope (NM 6:00-cv-01015 filed

07/13/2000).

Motor vehicle action for serious bodily injuries. A

guardian ad litem was appointed to represent the

minor plaintiff. The case settled. The transcript of

the evidentiary hearing on settlement was sealed.

Whitley v. New Mexico Department of Human

Services (NM 2:00-cv-01101 filed 07/28/2000).

Section 1983 civil rights action by a guardian ad

litem on behalf of a child alleging rape by another

minor while they both were under the care and

supervision of New Mexico’s Children, Youth,

and Families Department. The case was dismissed

as settled, and the transcript of the proceedings

was sealed.

Espinosa v. Flores (NM 1:00-cv-01641 filed

11/20/2000).

Section 1983 civil rights action on behalf of a minor against her elementary school teacher, alleging sexual harassment and sexually offensive

touching. A guardian ad litem was appointed.

The case settled. The proceedings approving the

minor’s settlement agreement were sealed.

United States v. New Mexico Department of Public

Safety (NM 1:00-cv-01656 filed 11/22/2000).

Employment action alleging sexual harassment of

a public safety employee. The parties entered into

a written confidential settlement agreement. The

employee filed a sealed motion to enforce the settlement agreement. The dispute alleged in the

motion was resolved, and the motion was withdrawn.

Thrasher v. Albuquerque Public School Board (NM

1:01-cv-00113 filed 01/30/2001).

Employment action alleging discrimination based

on race and sex, which resulted in harassment and

a demotion. The case was dismissed pursuant to a

sealed settlement agreement.

Miller v. Napoli (NM 1:01-cv-00145 filed

02/05/2001).

Personal injury action against a law firm, alleging

breach of fiduciary duty and negligent representation in a class action suit. The law firm filed a

third-party complaint against the plaintiff’s

brother, an attorney who advised her during the

class action suit. The case settled. The court sealed

the plaintiff’s motion to enforce the settlement

agreement.

Maguire v. Albuquerque Public School District (NM

1:02-cv-00325 filed 03/22/2002).

Personal injury action concerning the battery of a

minor student with attention deficit disorder by

another student, resulting in physical disfigurement. The case settled. The clerk’s minutes regarding the approval of the settlement were

sealed.

L.W. v. Gallup McKinley County School Board (NM

1:02-cv-00485 filed 04/29/2002).

Section 1983 civil rights action alleging the sexual

abuse of a minor student by a school counselor.

The case settled. A guardian ad litem was appointed for the minor. The transcript of the proceedings approving the settlement was sealed.

J.A.D. v. City of Albuquerque (NM 1:02-cv-00664

filed 06/07/2002).

Section 1983 civil rights action concerning the

sexual molestation of a minor by a school bus

driver. The case settled. A guardian ad litem was

appointed for approval of the settlement. The

clerk’s minutes regarding the approval hearing

were sealed.

Arviso v. Mission Manor Health (NM 6:02-cv-01072

filed 08/27/2002).

Statutory action. The docket sheet is sealed. The

case was dismissed as settled.

Eastern District of New York

To clear out its vault, the district court ordered

that sealed documents be archived at the records

center and disposed of after twenty years there.

E.D.N.Y. Admin. Order 2001-02 (Feb. 21, 2001).

Statistics: 16,001 cases in termination cohort;

495 docket sheets (3.1%) have the word “seal” in

them; 88 complete docket sheets (0.55%) were reviewed; actual documents were examined for 59

cases (0.37%); 53 cases (0.33%) appear to have

sealed settlement agreements.
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-67

Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. v. Berson (NY-E 1:95-

cv-01712 filed 05/01/1995).

RICO action by four insurance companies against

public adjusters, company adjusters, salvors, brokers, accountants, appraisers, attorneys, contractors, investigators, and insureds. The plaintiffs

alleged that the defendants inflated insurance

losses. Over 100 people were criminally charged

in this fraudulent scheme, and most have pled

guilty. Separate settlement agreements were

reached with each defendant, who then was dismissed. One settlement agreement was filed under seal at the court’s request. The case was closed

when one of the plaintiffs informed the court that

it did not intend to pursue the case any further.

Rodolico v. Unisys Corp. (NY-E 9:95-cv-03653 filed

09/06/1995).

Employment discrimination class action on behalf

of all engineers over age 40 employed by the defendant and selected for layoff effective November 23, 1993. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant’s policies and practices in the layoff discriminated against its older employees by disproportionately selecting them for discharge and by

using evaluation practices which disfavored older

workers. The court permitted the case to proceed

as a class action for the purpose of determining

liability only. The case settled during mediation.

The settlement agreement was approved on the

record and placed in the court vault under seal.

The court dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

Coltec Industries Inc. v. Yarom (NY-E 9:96-cv-02962

filed 06/13/1996).

Copyright infringement action alleging copying of

technical drawings to obtain approval from the

Federal Aviation Administration to manufacture

and distribute replacement parts for a fuel control

system designed and manufactured by the plaintiff. Prior to the commencement of a jury trial, the

case settled and the settlement agreement was

sealed. The case was administratively closed until

five months later, when the court received the

parties’ stipulation of dismissal, which was sealed

and placed in the vault.

United States Small Business Administration v. Yang

(NY-E 1:97-cv-01185 filed 03/11/1997).

Statutory action to liquidate assets to satisfy a

judgment for violations of the Small Business Investment Act. This action was brought when the

Small Business Administration, acting as receiver,

discovered fraud. The case settled, and the settlement terms were placed under seal. A sealed

document was placed in the vault. The court ordered the action discontinued, and the case was

closed.

Chadeayne v. Don Thuber Enterprises Inc. (NY-E

9:97-cv-06043 filed 10/20/1997).

Airplane action for severe and permanent injuries

sustained when the charter aircraft the plaintiff

was taking to return from the defendant’s gambling establishment in New Jersey crashed into

the Atlantic Ocean six miles from Kennedy Airport. The plaintiff settled with all defendants, including the owner, operator, and manufacturer of

the aircraft as well as providers of the air charter

service. The parties stipulated to a dismissal with

prejudice, and the court placed a sealed document

in the vault.

Williams v. Brookwood Childcare Services (NY-E

1:98-cv-00230 filed 01/13/1998).

Civil rights action by a minor’s guardian against

the city of New York and various departments

concerning child welfare. The court approved a

settlement at an infant compromise hearing. The

tape and transcript of the hearing were ordered

sealed. The parties were asked to submit orders

reflecting hearing rulings. A sealed document was

placed in the vault a week later. Another sealed

document was placed in the vault one day before

the court filed the parties’ stipulation and order of

dismissal with prejudice.

Wang v. Liang (NY-E 1:98-cv-02786 filed

04/13/1998).

Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act by

seven garment workers for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages. The parties agreed to

settle in principle for $285,000. During a telephone

settlement conference, two outstanding settlement

issues were resolved, and a confidential stipulation was placed on the record. The transcript of

this stipulation was sealed. All claims against all

but three defendants were dismissed with prejudice. A default judgment was entered against the

remaining defendants, and the plaintiffs were

awarded $101,360.82 in compensatory and liquidated damages.

Jackson v. J.C. Penney Co. (NY-E 0:98-cv-02956 filed

04/17/1998).

Personal injury case for serious and permanent

injuries from a slip and fall, which occurred while
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-68

the plaintiff was on the defendant’s premises. A

jury trial commenced, but the parties settled after

the plaintiff presented her case. A sealed settlement agreement was placed on the record, and

the case was dismissed with prejudice. The docket

sheet indicates that a sealed document was placed

in the vault shortly thereafter.

United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. Abcon

Associates (NY-E 0:98-cv-03826 filed 05/28/1998).

Designated a contract product liability action, this

is a contract action by the plaintiff surety company against indemnitors for breach of an indemnity agreement under which the plaintiff issued

performance and payment bonds guaranteeing

payment to subcontractors and performance of

construction work. The parties settled, and the

settlement stipulation was placed on the record

and accepted by the court. On the same day, the

court dismissed the case without prejudice to renew should settlement not be consummated and

placed a sealed document in the vault. The case

was closed the next day.

Nu-Chem Laboratories Inc. v. Mastrorocco (NY-E

9:98-cv-03867 filed 05/29/1998).

Statutory action alleging RICO violations, including mail and wire fraud, trade libel, business

disparagement, and defamation. The parties settled, and the court approved their stipulation of

settlement and gave the parties permission to file

it with the court. A sealed document was placed

in the vault, and the case was closed.

Reid v. City of New York (NY-E 1:98-cv-05929 filed

09/23/1998).

Civil rights action against the city of New York,

the city’s administration for children’s services,

and two private foster care agencies by a mother

on behalf of her deceased daughter and her two

sons. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants

placed the children in foster care with adults who

had a prior record of child abuse and neglect and

who physically and psychologically abused the

children, culminating in the torture and murder of

her daughter in the presence of her sons. During a

settlement conference, the parties agreed to settle

the case in principle and submit infant compromise orders for court approval. The court approved the settlement agreement and the plaintiff’s proposed allocation and ordered the parties

to immediately execute the settlement agreement,

which was filed under seal with the court. The

parties agreed to dismiss the action with prejudice.

Goldsmith v. J.C. Penney Co. (NY-E 9:99-cv-00068

filed 01/05/1999).

Personal injury action for serious permanent injuries resulting from an escalator’s sudden stopping. After the plaintiff was sworn in at the jury

trial, the case settled on the record, and the record

was ordered sealed. The case closed with prejudice. One month later the defendant submitted

the settlement agreement and release, after which

the parties promised to file a stipulation of dismissal. The defendants agreed to pay the plaintiff

$4,000. The court approved the settlement agreement and release.

Doolittle v. Board of Fire Commissioners (NY-E 0:99-

cv-00495 filed 01/26/1999).

Employment discrimination suit by a hearingimpaired volunteer firefighter for violation of the

Americans with Disabilities Act in excluding him

from the fire department. The parties settled, and

a tentative settlement was placed on the record.

The court ordered the case discontinued without

prejudice. The case was closed, and a little over a

week later a sealed document was placed in the

vault. Five months later the parties filed a stipulation of settlement outlining the terms of the settlement and agreeing to discontinue the case with

prejudice.

Piscitelli v. RJM Contracting Inc. (NY-E 9:99-cv01318 filed 03/09/1999).

ERISA action by the fiduciary of seven employee

benefit plans to enforce the defendants’ obligations to make contributions to the plans. In addition, as the chief executive officer of a labor organization, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants

breached their collective bargaining agreement

with the labor organization. The defendants informed the court that the parties had settled. The

court ordered the case closed, and a sealed document was placed in the vault the same day. Several months later the parties filed a stipulation of

discontinuance with prejudice stating that full

settlement had been achieved.

Hutzler v. General Motors Corp. (NY-E 9:99-cv01780 filed 03/26/1999).

Motor vehicle product liability action against the

manufacturer of a vehicle and the manufacturer of

its seatbelt restraint system for severe and permanent injuries sustained by a passenger in a colli-
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-69

sion. A jury was impaneled, but the case against

the seatbelt manufacturer settled. The trial of the

case against the vehicle manufacturer ended in a

mistrial. The second jury trial commenced, and

the parties settled. The settlement agreement was

put on the record. The court ordered the record

sealed, and the transcript was placed in the vault.

The court ordered the parties to file the settlement

agreement under seal within thirty days. The action was dismissed with prejudice.

Gorman v. Polar Electro Inc. (NY-E 9:99-cv-02575

filed 05/05/1999).

Patent infringement action concerning inventions

for monitoring biomedical response. During a

settlement conference, the case settled and the

stipulation of settlement was entered on the record. Portions of the settlement were placed under seal. The case was dismissed with prejudice

and ordered closed.

Siebert v. Iowa Precision Industries Inc. (NY-E 1:99-

cv-03159 filed 06/04/1999).

Product liability action alleging that faulty installation of the shear and uncoiler devices at the

plaintiff’s work site caused a metal sheet to fall on

the plaintiff, which resulted in a herniated disk,

back pain, double vision, and sexual dysfunction.

The parties settled on the record during a settlement conference, and the tape was sealed. The

transcript of the settlement conference was filed,

disclosing that the defendant agreed to pay

$6,000. The court accepted the parties’ stipulation

of dismissal with prejudice.

Olivieri v. Del-Con Tile Inc. (NY-E 9:99-cv-03622

filed 06/25/1999).

ERISA action by trustees and fiduciaries of several

employee labor–management trust funds alleging

that the defendant failed to comply with its

statutory and contractual obligations to the trust

funds arising under the defendant’s collective

bargaining agreement with non-party unions. The

parties agreed to settle the case, but the court rescheduled a pretrial conference after the parties

failed to file a fully executed stipulation of discontinuance. Several days after the defendant informed the court of its willingness to discuss settlement terms with the plaintiffs, a sealed document was placed in the vault. After almost one

year in which no activity occurred, a pretrial conference was scheduled, but the case was closed

after the parties finally filed a stipulation of dismissal.

Lulo v. K-Mart Corp. (NY-E 9:99-cv-04227 filed

07/27/1999).

Personal injury action for injuries from a fall

caused by the collapse of a chair in a department

store’s customer service area. The docket sheet

shows that shortly after a settlement conference

was held, a sealed document was placed in the

vault. Two months later the defendants informed

the court that the case had settled and submitted a

stipulation discontinuing the case with prejudice.

Fasten v. Kubista (NY-E 1:99-cv-04596 filed

08/06/1999).

Action under the Fair Debt Collection Act alleging

that a letter falsely represented that an attorney

was participating in the collection of the plaintiff’s

alleged debt. During a status conference, the parties settled and entered the terms of settlement on

the record and discontinued the action. The court

ordered the transcript of the proceedings sealed.

The action was discontinued with prejudice with

leave to reopen it to enforce the settlement terms.

Manenti v. Stratem Facilities Management Inc. (NY-E

9:99-cv-05625 filed 09/14/1999).

Designated a civil rights action, this is an employment sex discrimination action alleging that

the plaintiff was terminated after a maternity

leave under the pretext of downsizing, despite the

defendants’ hiring a replacement for the plaintiff.

The parties settled and submitted the original settlement agreement to the court with their stipulation of discontinuance. The court dismissed the

case with prejudice and placed a sealed document

in the vault.

Murphy v. Caracciolo (NY-E 9:99-cv-06797 filed

10/21/1999).

Civil rights action by a Catholic priest alleging

wrongful criminal prosecution in retaliation for

his lawful exercise of First Amendment rights by

praying near the defendant’s abortion clinic. The

complaint alleges that the plaintiff was exonerated in two prosecutions. During jury selection,

the plaintiff informed the court that the case had

settled. A stipulation of settlement was entered on

the record, and the court ordered the transcript

and the two court exhibits on the record sealed.

The court ordered the case dismissed with prejudice and placed a sealed document in the vault.
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-70

Automotive Management Group v. Coach Sales of

Neoplan Inc. (NY-E 9:99-cv-06837 filed

10/22/1999).

Contract action concerning bus leases. The parties

settled and informed the court that the stipulation

of settlement resolved all matters, and the case

was closed. Shortly thereafter, the court placed

two sealed documents in the vault.

Abramson v. Middle Country Central School District

(NY-E 9:99-cv-07150 filed 11/03/1999).

Civil rights action by twenty-six current and retired teachers concerning transfer credits for prior

years of service outside the district. Prior to commencement of a jury trial, the courtroom was

sealed, and the parties reached a confidential

agreement with all except six plaintiffs not present in the courtroom. The stipulation of settlement

was filed by the court along with the affidavit of

one of the plaintiffs, who was unable to be in the

courtroom to enter a settlement on the record. The

school district agreed to pay each plaintiff $3,000.

The case was closed upon receiving the parties’

stipulation of discontinuance with prejudice.

Waskiewicz v. American Ref-Fuel Co. (NY-E 9:00-cv00831 filed 02/09/2000).

Personal injury action against three corporate

owners and operators of a garbage-burning facility at which a plaintiff suffered serious injuries

from a fall while making a delivery. The injured

plaintiff and his wife discontinued the action

against two defendants. A jury trial was held, but

before the jury returned its verdict, the plaintiffs

settled with the remaining defendant. A sealed

document was placed in the vault the same day,

and the case was closed.

Kim v. United States Postal Service (NY-E 1:00-cv01282 filed 03/03/2000).

Motor vehicle action for severe internal and external injuries (some alleged to be permanent)

resulting from a vehicle collision. One of the

driver defendants was a postal worker. The

plaintiff informed the court that the case had settled. It appears that the defendants made payment

according to the terms of the settlement, but the

plaintiff was awaiting signed stipulations of settlement and discontinuance prior to disbursement

of the funds. Two weeks after the plaintiff asked

the court to issue a date by which the defendants

must sign the stipulations of settlement and discontinuance, the court filed a document under

seal. Two weeks later, the parties submitted a

stipulation dismissing the case with prejudice.

Papaieck v. Aeroflex Inc. (NY-E 0:00-cv-01472 filed

03/15/2000).

Designated a contract action, this is an ERISA case

against a former employer for misrepresenting

that its retirement plan did not exist and refusing

to allow the plaintiff to participate in the plan. The

parties settled, and the terms of settlement were

placed on the record. The docket sheet indicates

that a sealed document was placed in the vault

one day following settlement. This document is

likely to be what the parties referred to as the consulting agreement, an essential component of the

settlement, which the plaintiff needed to sign before the parties would file a stipulation of dismissal. Several months later the parties filed their

stipulation to dismiss the case with prejudice, and

the case was closed.

Stitt v. Nassau County Correctional Center (NY-E

0:00-cv-01544 filed 03/17/2000).

Prisoner civil rights case for failure to mail timesensitive legal documents. Almost one year after

the case was filed, the court granted the parties’

request that their stipulation of discontinuance

and settlement be filed under seal. The case was

closed.

Carrillo v. Delgado Travel (NY-E 1:00-cv-01843 filed

03/29/2000).

Employment discrimination action by a female

travel agency employee alleging sex discrimination following disclosure of her pregnancy status

and retaliatory discharge after she filed charges

with the New York City Human Rights Division.

Following a settlement conference, the parties reported that the case had settled, and the court discontinued the case without prejudice. The parties

resolved a dispute over the terms of the settlement agreement and met in court to execute a revised settlement agreement. The court ordered the

minutes of the two settlement conferences placed

under seal. The parties agreed to dismiss the case

with prejudice.

Seide v. Seaman Furniture Co. (NY-E 9:00-cv-01934

filed 04/03/2000).

Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act for

failure to pay overtime wages. The parties settled

and agreed to a consent judgment in favor of the

plaintiff. The case was dismissed with prejudice,
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-71

and the settlement agreement was filed under

seal.

Sadd v. Brookhaven Memorial Hospital Medical

Center (NY-E 9:00-cv-02548 filed 05/04/2000).

Employment discrimination action by a nurse,

alleging her employer violated the Americans

with Disabilities Act by terminating her because

of her breast cancer and an assumption that she

would miss a great deal of work because of treatment. The parties settled, and a stipulation of settlement was entered on the record. The settlement

was subject to a confidentiality agreement. The

transcript of the proceeding was ordered sealed,

and the case was dismissed with prejudice.

Lanfranchi v. Freight Brokers International Inc. (NY-E

1:00-cv-03027 filed 05/26/2000).

Contract action alleging that a freight brokerage

owed the plaintiff unpaid incentive compensation

according to the terms of two sales and agency

consultation agreements. Following a full-day

settlement conference, the parties settled and

placed the settlement terms on the record, which

was sealed. The parties agreed to dismiss the case

with prejudice.

Ryder v. East Meadow Union Free School District

(NY-E 9:00-cv-03209 filed 06/05/2000).

Employment discrimination action by a female

elementary school teacher against the school district and principal, alleging sex discrimination,

including sexual harassment and retaliatory demotion. The parties settled, and the stipulation of

settlement was entered on the record. The settlement was subject to a confidentiality agreement.

The court sealed the transcript, and the case was

dismissed with prejudice. Five months later the

parties filed a stipulation and order of settlement

and discontinuance.

Barrau v. Vital Care Infusion (NY-E 9:00-cv-03364

filed 06/09/2000).

Employment discrimination action by a black female plaintiff alleging disparate treatment based

on race and retaliatory discharge for filing a

charge with the EEOC. The parties settled and

were ordered to submit to the court an executed

stipulation of settlement and dismissal. A sealed

document was placed in the vault, and the case

was closed.

Koujan v. EgyptAir Inc. (NY-E 1:00-cv-03661 filed

06/20/2000); Smith v. EgyptAir (NY-E 1:01-cv00180 filed 01/11/2001).

Airplane actions transferred from the Southern

District of New York for consolidation into

multidistrict litigation concerning the October 31,

1999, crash of EgyptAir Flight 990 into the sea off

the coast of Nantucket Island (MDL 1344). In

Koujan, the parties settled, and because the decedent was survived by three children under age 18,

the allocation of the settlement funds with respect

to the children required a court-ordered infant

compromise order. The court approved an

amended infant compromise order submitted by

the plaintiff, and it was filed under seal. In Smith,

the parties settled with respect to the deaths of the

plaintiff’s parents and submitted the confidential

settlement to the court for approval. The court

filed the proposed order of final settlement and

distribution under seal. The case was dismissed

with prejudice.

Demarco v. Jo Mi Equities Corp. (NY-E 0:00-cv04065 filed 07/13/2000).

Employment discrimination suit by a former

waitress, alleging sex discrimination, a hostile

work environment as a result of sexual harassment, and retaliatory discharge. The plaintiff informed the court that the parties settled, and a

stipulation of settlement was signed by the plaintiff, awaiting the defendant’s signature. The court

ordered the case closed, and two weeks later a

sealed document was placed in the vault.

Globecomm Systems Inc. v. Gilat Satellite Networks

Ltd. (NY-E 9:00-cv-04350 filed 07/26/2000).

Patent infringement action alleging that the defendants were using or selling satellite data networks embodying the plaintiff’s patented invention. The parties agreed on a confidential settlement and agreed to dismiss the case with prejudice. A sealed document was placed in the vault

four days later, and the case was closed.

Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant (NY-E 9:00-cv04693 filed 08/11/2000).

RICO case. All documents in the case are sealed. It

involves one unnamed plaintiff and three unnamed defendants. On August 8, 2002, the date of

termination, a sealed document “containing settlement and general release agreement” was

placed in the vault. According to the docket sheet,

this document was signed by the judge on November 2, 2000. On the same day another sealed
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-72

document “containing stipulation of dismissal

with prejudice dated June 7, 2001” was placed in

the vault. All docket entries before a May 28, 2002,

reassignment of the case to another judge state

only “sealed document placed in vault,” but a

docket entry for June 26, 2002, states that a sealed

document placed in the vault contains briefs on a

motion to preclude or compel, a motion for contempt and sanctions, and a motion for summary

judgment, among others. It is not clear, therefore,

whether the sealed settlement agreement applied

to only a subset of the defendants or the settlement agreement was scuttled in some way.

Wilkinson v. Audiovox Communication Corp. (NY-E

9:00-cv-04749 filed 08/14/2000).

Designated a civil rights action, this is an employment discrimination case alleging age discrimination in an unexplained and sudden termination. The parties settled, and the settlement

terms were placed on the record under seal. A

sealed document was placed in the vault. The

parties agreed to dismiss the case with prejudice.

Role v. Eureka Lodge No. 434 (NY-E 0:00-cv-04781

filed 08/15/2000).

Contract action alleging that an employer conspired with a union to permit the plaintiff’s

wrongful discharge in breach of a collective bargaining agreement. It appears that during a

scheduled settlement conference, the parties

reached a settlement agreement in open court.

The court placed a sealed document in the vault

the next day. The case was discontinued without

prejudice. The plaintiff subsequently moved to

vacate the settlement and reinstate the case, and

to recuse the assigned judge with sanctions. The

court denied the motion, and the plaintiff sought

a writ of mandamus from the court of appeals.

The appellate court denied the writ. The case was

remanded to the district court in January 2004.

McDow-Drain v. County of Nassau (NY-E 2:00-cv05339 filed 09/06/2000).

Employment discrimination action by a female

African-American employee against the county,

the county medical center, and three supervisors

employed by the medical center for race discrimination and retaliation. The parties settled, and the

plaintiff signed the settlement agreement and

submitted it to the court. The defendants requested that references to the settlement payment

be detached and kept under seal. The court

agreed and filed the agreement under seal and

omitted any reference to the settlement payment

on the docket sheet. The court dismissed the case

without prejudice in case the settlement agreement was not consummated.

Chilelli v. Schultz Metal Service Inc. (NY-E 2:00-cv05893 filed 10/02/2000).

Motor vehicle action against the owner and the

operator of a motor vehicle that collided with the

plaintiff’s vehicle, causing severe and permanent

injuries. The parties settled on the record, the

court ordered the case closed, and a sealed document was placed in the vault the next day. One

day later the parties agreed to discontinue the

case without prejudice.

Santangelo v. First Fortis Life Insurance Co. (NY-E

1:00-cv-06090 filed 10/11/2000).

ERISA action alleging that the defendant wrongfully terminated the plaintiff’s long-term disability benefits under her employer-sponsored policy

issued by the defendant. The parties settled. The

defendant moved to enforce the release and settlement agreement and enjoin the plaintiff from

violating a confidentiality clause contained in the

agreement. At a show-cause hearing, the plaintiff

agreed to the settlement and signed the settlement

agreement and stipulation of discontinuance with

prejudice. The court sealed the tape of the hearing

and closed the case.

Kwasnik v. Kingsbrook Jewish Medical Center (NY-E

1:00-cv-06686 filed 11/08/2000).

Designated a civil rights action, this is a case for

age discrimination in employment by a 63-yearold physiatrist, alleging that the defendant hospital interfered with his participation in the rotating patient assignment system. The parties settled, and the settlement was placed on the record.

The court ordered the transcript sealed, pursuant

to the nondisclosure order in the settlement. The

parties agreed to dismiss the case with prejudice.

Golden v. Swift-Eckrich Inc. (NY-E 2:00-cv-06777

filed 11/13/2000).

Contract action alleging breach of an agreement to

establish a “Frank-in-a-Blanket” operation. The

parties settled, and a sealed document was placed

in the vault the same day. The parties agreed to

dismiss the case with prejudice.
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-73

Stermer v. Board of Fire Commissioners (NY-E 2:00-

cv-07677 filed 12/29/2000).

Employment discrimination action by a female

volunteer firefighter, alleging that she suffered

repeated sexual harassment by members of the

fire department and retaliation for her complaints.

The parties settled, and the settlement was placed

on the record under seal. The court indicated that

the settlement was subject to approval by the

Board of Fire Commissioners. Following the

board’s approval, the parties agreed to dismiss

the case with prejudice.

Neillands v. Global Computer Co. (NY-E 2:01-cv01312 filed 03/05/2001).

Employment discrimination suit by a female employee, alleging sexual harassment and retaliatory

termination. The parties settled, and a sealed

document was placed in the vault the next day.

The parties filed a stipulation withdrawing the

complaint with prejudice.

Fenelon v. Murachonian Export Co. (NY-E 2:01-cv06288 filed 09/13/2001).

Employment discrimination suit by a female employee, alleging sex discrimination by her employer in refusing to rehire her after she was laid

off. The parties settled and agreed to discontinue

the action. A week after the court closed the case,

a sealed document referred to as the confidentiality agreement was placed in the vault.

Bibbs v. Department of Housing and Urban

Development (NY-E 2:01-cv-06778 filed

10/12/2001).

Statutory action for breach of contract against the

Department of Housing and Urban Development

and a local housing authority concerning a 1970

housing program lease. Before a jury trial began,

the parties settled and the stipulation of settlement was placed on the record. The transcript was

sealed as to the settlement terms. The case was

dismissed with prejudice.

Blume v. Target Stores Inc. (NY-E 2:01-cv-07749

filed 11/20/2001).

Labor litigation alleging violation of the Family

Medical Leave Act by terminating the plaintiff for

job abandonment when she took leave to care for

her son after he was in a serious car accident. The

case settled, and the stipulation of settlement and

confidentiality agreement were entered on the

record. The transcript was sealed. The parties

agreed to dismiss the case with prejudice, and the

case was closed.

Nikon Inc. v. Mizco International Inc. (NY-E 2:01-cv08559 filed 12/27/2001).

Trademark infringement action concerning photographic accessory products. The parties settled

and agreed to dismiss the action with prejudice.

The settlement agreement was filed under seal.

Ranpak Corp. v. Saluppo (NY-E 1:02-cv-01889 filed

03/26/2002).

Contract action against a former sales representative and his current employer for solicitation of

customers and dissemination of trade secrets. The

parties settled during a settlement conference. A

sealed document containing a stipulation and order was filed. The court entered a default judgment against the individual defendant and permanently enjoined the defendant from disclosing

the plaintiff’s trade secrets for two years. The case

was closed pursuant to the sealed document and

injunction order.

Northern District of New York

Court documents are sealed upon motion, which

itself is filed under seal. N.D.N.Y. L.R. 83.13.

Sealed documents remain sealed until ordered

unsealed. Id.

Statistics: 3,928 cases in termination cohort; 192

docket sheets (4.9%) have the word “seal” in

them; 27 complete docket sheets (0.69%) were reviewed; actual documents were examined for 22

cases (0.56%); 21 cases (0.53%) appear to have

sealed settlement agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

Van Limburg Stirum v. Whalen (NY-N 5:90-cv01279 filed 11/27/1990).

Securities action by individuals and limited partnerships, alleging that the defendants sold nearly

worthless limited partnership units by means of

misrepresentations and omissions. A confidential

settlement agreement was reached between the

defendants and the partnership plaintiffs. The

settlement agreement, the release, the notice of

proposed settlement, and all documents filed with

the court concerning the settlement were sealed.

The court issued a final judgment approving the

settlement and requested that the plaintiffs file

discontinuance papers dismissing all pending

causes of action. The case was closed.
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-74

ITT Commercial Finance Corp. v. Harsco Corp. (NYN 5:91-cv-00793 filed 07/12/1991).

Environmental action under CERCLA to recover

the costs incurred in cleaning up property contaminated by the previous owners’ use of the

property for die cast manufacturing. Two defendants settled with the plaintiff. The court approved their settlements and granted their requests to file the agreements under seal and dismiss the contribution cross-claims. The nonsettling defendants were ordered to maintain the

terms of the agreements in confidence and could

only refer to them in the context of the pending

motions to approve the settlement. The plaintiff

reached settlements with the remaining defendants on all outstanding claims and issues. Judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff, and the

case was closed.

Saratoga Harness Racing Inc. v. Veneglia (NY-N

1:94-cv-01400 filed 10/28/1994).

Antitrust action by the owner of Saratoga Raceway against several horseman’s associations and

their officers, alleging boycotts. The plaintiff

agreed to dismiss one of the defendants. The

plaintiff and two of the remaining defendants

reached a settlement agreement and order, which

were filed with the court and contained settlement terms. Less than two months later, the

plaintiff settled with the remaining defendants

and agreed to dismiss the action with prejudice.

Subsequently, the court ordered the settlement

agreement, stipulation, and order to be sealed.

Activity continued in the case over the plaintiff’s

counsel’s claim for attorney fees, which eventually was settled, and the case was closed.

Soriano v. New York (NY-N 1:98-cv-00076 filed

01/14/1998).

Civil rights action by a husband and wife, who

were formerly employed as corrections officers,

against the state of New York, the New York Department of Correctional Services, and individual

corrections officers with supervisory authority

over the plaintiffs, alleging that they were subjected to various forms of race-based and sexual

discrimination and harassment. A jury trial commenced, but the parties reached a settlement in

chambers, and the agreement was placed on the

record. The dollar amount was to remain confidential. The transcript as to the settlement terms

was sealed and placed in the court vault. The individual defendants were dismissed, and judgment was entered for the plaintiffs against the

remaining defendants. The parties agreed to discontinue the action with prejudice as to these defendants.

Galusha v. New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation (NY-N 1:98-cv-01117

filed 07/13/1998).

Civil rights claim against the state of New York,

the New York State Department of Environmental

Conservation, and the Adirondack Park Agency,

among others, for allegedly violating the Americans with Disabilities Act by denying the plaintiffs and other qualified disabled citizens access to

New York parks in general and the Adirondack

Park in particular, including areas to which access

previously had been available through the aid of a

motorized vehicle. A settlement was reached by

all parties and was placed under seal along with a

proposed consent decree. In addition, the court

ordered all past and ongoing settlement negotiations to remain under seal until the parties

reached agreement on the terms of the proposed

consent decree. After the parties resolved all outstanding issues, the consent decree and judgment

was submitted to the court. The case was closed.

Granger v. Pierce (NY-N 9:98-cv-01495 filed

09/22/1998).

Civil rights action by six pretrial and post-trial

detainees against a county jail for housing in the

general population an inmate known to be infected with HIV. Two years after one plaintiff

withdrew from the case, the remaining parties

settled and submitted their settlement agreement

and general release to the court for approval and

sealing. The settlement agreement and general

release was placed under seal, and the case was

discontinued with prejudice.

Perruccio v. Wilder (NY-N 9:98-cv-01524 filed

09/24/1998).

Prisoner civil rights action by a former inmate

against the county jail and two jail officers, alleging civil rights violations, including ignoring the

plaintiff’s medical needs, improperly disciplining

the plaintiff, and denying the plaintiff access to

religious services, bible study, and the law library.

The parties settled and submitted to the court the

settlement agreement and general release as well

as a stipulation asking the court to seal it. The

court agreed. The parties agreed to discontinue

the case with prejudice.
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-75

Forden v. Bristol Myers Squibb (NY-N 1:99-cv-00907

filed 06/10/1999).

Employment discrimination action by a female

former employee alleging sex discrimination and

disparate treatment, including retaliatory conduct

following her resignation because of a sexually

hostile work environment. The parties agreed to

settle the case, the settlement terms were placed

on the record, and the transcript was filed under

seal. The parties apparently could not reach a final

agreement, and several letters were submitted to

the court under seal. The judge denied the plaintiff’s oral application to enforce the settlement

reached on the record. A jury trial was held, and

the jury rendered a verdict for the defendant.

Brown v. County of Oneida (NY-N 5:99-cv-01064

filed 07/08/1999).

Employment discrimination action by an AfricanAmerican employee of the sheriff’s department,

alleging race discrimination, including the filing

of false criminal charges, aggravated disciplinary

action, and disparate denial of promotional opportunities. The parties settled prior to a jury verdict. The settlement terms were placed on the record during a settlement conference in chambers,

and the court ordered the settlement terms to be

sealed. The court dismissed the case.

Cipolla v. County of Rensselaer (NY-N 1:99-cv-01813

filed 10/27/1999).

Civil rights action by two former county employees after a jury acquitted them of official misconduct charges. The plaintiffs alleged witness tampering, making false statements to law enforcement officials, public defamation, and presentation of knowingly perjured testimony to the grand

jury and at trial. Four months after the court

granted the defendants’ motion for summary

judgment, the court vacated the judgment and

reopened the case. The case settled, and the court

ordered sealed the partial stipulation discontinuing the action between the plaintiffs and the individual defendants, the settlement agreement and

release, and the stipulation discontinuing the action. Three months later the court unsealed these

documents, noting that there was no reason to

keep them sealed because the parallel criminal

proceedings in state court were completed. The

court closed the case in light of the stipulations of

discontinuance signed by all parties.

LaGrange v. Ryan (NY-N 1:99-cv-02133 filed

12/09/1999).

Civil rights action against police officers and a

city, alleging deprivation of personal property,

use of unreasonable force upon arrest, violations

of due process during detention in the city jail,

including denial of medication and medical care,

and denial of communication with the plaintiff’s

family and attorney. The plaintiff accepted the

defendants’ offer of judgment, which was made

on the record, and the transcript was sealed. The

defendants moved to vacate the judgment on

grounds that the plaintiff violated an implied essential condition. The court stated, “It must be

noted that the condition may violate or restrict the

public’s right to important information.” The

judgment was vacated. Prior to trial, the plaintiff

rejected the defendants’ settlement offer made

without any express or implied conditions. Because of the plaintiff’s age, the fair amount of the

original judgment, and the plaintiff’s risk of losing

at trial, and because the condition asserted by the

defendants in the initial offer of judgment was not

essential to the defendants and the plaintiff’s violation of the condition did not cause any harm to

the defendants, the court reinstated the original

judgment disclosing the settlement terms and

closed the case.

Gajjar v. Union College (NY-N 1:00-cv-00718 filed

05/08/2000).

Employment discrimination action by an engineering professor who is a native of India against

a college and former dean of engineering, alleging

race and national origin discrimination and retaliation, including denial of merit raises and

promotional appointments, ridicule and humiliation at faculty meetings, and false accusations of

abusing the machine shop. The court dismissed all

claims against the dean. The remaining parties

reached a confidential settlement agreement during a settlement conference, and the terms were

placed on the record. The record was sealed. The

parties agreed to discontinue the case according to

terms set forth in the stipulation and order of discontinuance.

White v. Clear Channel Communication Inc. (NY-N

1:00-cv-00750 filed 05/16/2000).

Employment discrimination action by a female

freelance reporter, alleging sex discrimination in

failing to hire her as a full-time reporter. The case

settled during a settlement conference, and the

court ordered the parties to redraft the settlement

agreement and forward it to the court. The case
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-76

was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice according to the terms of an executed voluntary

dismissal, which was filed under seal by the court.

Maines Paper & Food Service Inc. v. McGuire (NY-N

3:00-cv-00870 filed 06/05/2000).

Contract action alleging that a former employee

solicited the plaintiff’s customers for a new employer. The case settled during a settlement conference, and the court granted the parties’ motion

to seal the transcript. The court dismissed the case

as settled and sealed the order.

Kremer v. Gero Vita Laboratories (NY-N 1:00-cv01329 filed 08/30/2000).

Trademark infringement action by a doctor specializing in rheumatoid arthritis, alleging that the

defendants published an advertisement for a dietary supplement that made false representations

of the plaintiff’s endorsement of the supplement

as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis and related

symptoms. The case settled during a settlement

conference, and the terms of settlement were

sealed. The court dismissed the action as settled.

Yezzo v. Hartford Life Insurance Co. (NY-N 1:00-cv01649 filed 10/27/2000).

ERISA action against an employer and its insurance company or wrongful denial of long-term

disability benefits on the grounds that the plaintiff’s stroke was a preexisting condition. The

plaintiff dismissed his claim against the employer

and settled with the insurance company. The insurance company moved to seal the stipulation of

settlement, and the court agreed.

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. DePaulo (NY-N

1:01-cv-00042 filed 01/08/2001).

Contract action alleging that the defendant agent

procured the cancellation and replacement of the

plaintiff’s insurance policies. The parties agreed to

a confidential settlement that was to be submitted

to the court. The case was dismissed with prejudice. A sealed document was filed a week later.

Baker v. Maura (NY-N 1:01-cv-00525 filed

04/11/2001).

Motor vehicle action alleging that a child was seriously injured crossing a highway when she was

struck by an automobile driven by the defendant

driver, who was driving the wrong way in order

to go around a garbage disposal truck operated by

the defendant town. The case settled, and the

court granted the parties’ sealed motion for settlement. The parties agreed to dismiss the case

with prejudice.

Palmateer v. Golub Corp. (NY-N 1:01-cv-01210 filed

07/30/2001).

Employment discrimination action against the

plaintiff’s employer and supervisors, alleging

sexual harassment, age discrimination, and perpetuation of a hostile work environment. The

parties settled and agreed to dismiss the case with

prejudice thirty-one days later unless the settlement was not consummated. Two weeks later a

document was filed under seal. There was no

further activity in the case.

Matias v. Nevele Grande LLC (NY-N 1:01-cv-01247

filed 08/06/2001).

Pro se employment discrimination action alleging

discrimination and termination on the basis of the

plaintiff’s Brazilian national origin. The parties

apparently settled, because the docket sheet

shows that pursuant to a sealed document the

court ordered the confidential settlement agreement filed under seal. The confidential settlement

agreement was filed under seal, and the case was

closed the same day.

U.S. Foodservice Inc. v. Zehner (NY-N 3:02-cv-00821

filed 06/21/2002).

Contract action alleging that the plaintiff’s former

sales representatives violated their contractual

nonsolicitation and confidentiality obligations

after they voluntarily resigned to go to work for a

direct competitor of the plaintiff. The parties settled, and the settlement was placed on the record.

The court granted the parties’ request to seal the

transcript. The court ordered the parties to work

out settlement agreements and file a stipulation of

discontinuance. The court entered judgment dismissing the action by reason of settlement.

Southern District of New York

No relevant local rule.

Statistics: 20,976 cases in termination cohort;

948 docket sheets (4.5%) have the word “seal” in

them; 130 complete docket sheets (0.62%) were

reviewed; actual documents were examined for 95

cases (0.45%); 89 cases (0.42%) appear to have

sealed settlement agreements.
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-77

Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

Maryland Casualty Co. v. W.R. Grace & Co. (NY-S

1:88-cv-04337 filed 06/21/1988).

Insurance case concerning insurance liability for

environmental cleanup costs. The plaintiff and the

defendant agreed to dismiss the action between

themselves with prejudice. The case continued as

to claims between the defendant and its insurers.

The defendant agreed to dismiss with prejudice

all but one insurer through confidential settlement

agreements and releases that allowed the court to

retain jurisdiction to enforce all terms and provisions of the settlement agreements. Several docket

entries indicate that a sealed document was

placed in the court vault. The defendant and the

remaining insurer agreed to dismiss all remaining

claims with prejudice, and the defendant forever

waived coverage for these claims. The case was

closed.

Knisley v. Kidder Peabody & Co. (NY-S 1:94-cv03954 filed 05/26/1994).

Consolidated securities class action alleging

fraudulent public filings. The class was certified.

A proposed stipulation of settlement was submitted to the court along with a supplemental

agreement, to be filed under seal, setting forth

conditions under which the defendant could

withdraw or terminate the settlement. A sealed

document was placed in the vault the next day.

The court issued a final judgment approving the

settlement and plan of distribution. The case was

dismissed with prejudice and closed.

Schonfeld v. Hilliard (NY-S 1:95-cv-03052 filed

04/28/1995).

Designated a contract action, this is a derivative

suit for failure to fund a supply agreement between the defendant and the BBC after having

induced the plaintiff and the BBC to enter into the

interim agreement to bring the BBC to the United

States as a twenty-four-hour international news

and information network. The court granted the

defendant summary judgment and dismissed all

of the plaintiff’s claims except a fraud claim. The

court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in

part. Several months later the parties signed, and

the court approved, a settlement agreement. A

sealed document had been placed in the vault five

days earlier. The parties agreed to dismiss all

claims with prejudice, and the case was closed.

In re Air Crash TWA (lead case filed 10/24/1996).60

Consolidated airplane actions for wrongful death

(with one case designated an airplane product

liability action) arising from the July 17, 1996,

crash of TWA flight 800 from Kennedy Airport to

Paris, France, which was allegedly caused by a

fuel cell explosion. In each of these cases, the

plaintiffs settled with the defendants and dismissed their actions with prejudice. The docket

 

60. This consolidation includes thirty-three cases in

our termination cohort: Dadi v. Trans World Airlines

Inc. (NY-S 1:96-cv-07986 filed 10/24/1996) (lead case),

consolidated with Delange v. Trans World Airlines Inc.

(NY-S 1:96-cv-08701 filed 11/19/1996), Rio v. Trans

World Airlines Inc. (NY-S 1:96-cv-08850 filed

11/21/1996), Ostachiewicz v. Trans World Airlines Inc.

(NY-S 1:96-cv-09489 filed 12/17/1996), Rades v. Trans

World Airlines Inc. (NY-S 1:97-cv-03652 filed

05/20/1997), Brown v. Trans World Airlines Inc. (NY-S

1:97-cv-03654 filed 05/20/1997), Rencus v. Trans World

Airlines Inc. (NY-S 1:97-cv-04627 filed 06/23/1997),

Ingenhuett-Quinn v. Trans World Airlines Inc. (NY-S

1:97-cv-05195 filed 07/16/1997), Steward v. Trans

World Airlines Inc. (NY-S 1:97-cv-06271 filed

08/22/1997), Johns v. Trans World Airlines Inc. (NY-S

1:97-cv-06813 filed 09/15/1997), Schmitz v. Trans

World Airlines Inc. (NY-S 1:97-cv-06814 filed

09/15/1997), Story v. Trans World Airlines Inc. (NY-S

1:97-cv-07120 filed 09/24/1997), Pares v. Trans World

Airlines Inc. (NY-S 1:97-cv-08048 filed 10/30/1997),

Furlano v. Trans World Airlines Inc. (NY-S 1:97-cv08049 filed 10/30/1997), Puhlmann v. Trans World

Airlines Inc. (NY-S 1:97-cv-08732 filed 11/24/1997),

Taylor v. Trans World Airlines Inc. (NY-S 1:98-cv-00239

filed 01/14/1998), Chanson v. Trans World Airlines Inc.

(NY-S 1:98-cv-01668 filed 03/06/1998), Feeney v. Trans

World Airlines Inc. (NY-S 1:98-cv-01670 filed

03/06/1998), Richter v. Trans World Airlines Inc. (NY-S

1:98-cv-01671 filed 03/06/1998), Alex v. Trans World

Airlines Inc. (NY-S 1:98-cv-02986 filed 04/28/1998),

Straus v. Trans World Airlines Inc. (NY-S 1:98-cv-02988

filed 04/28/1998), Windmiller v. Trans World Airlines

Inc. (NY-S 1:98-cv-03604 filed 05/20/1998), Lacaille

d’Esse v. Trans World Airlines Inc. (NY-S 1:98-cv-04304

filed 06/18/1998), Von Hedrich v. Trans World Airlines

Inc. (NY-S 1:98-cv-04863 filed 07/09/1998), Licari v.

Trans World Airlines Inc. (NY-S 1:98-cv-04877 filed

07/10/1998), Beaumont v. Trans World Airlines Inc.

(NY-S 1:98-cv-04950 filed 07/13/1998), Ferrat v. Trans

World Airlines Inc. (NY-S 1:98-cv-04995 filed

07/14/1998), Cayrol v. Trans World Airlines Inc. (NY-S

1:98-cv-04997 filed 07/14/1998), Roger v. Trans World

Airlines Inc. (NY-S 1:98-cv-05103 filed 07/17/1998),

Karschner v. Trans World Airlines Inc. (NY-S 1:98-cv05427 filed 07/30/1998), Baszczewski v. Trans World

Airlines Inc. (NY-S 1:98-cv-06335 filed 09/09/1998),

Bohlin v. Boeing Co. (NY-S 1:98-cv-06336 filed

09/09/1998), and Loudenslager v. Trans World Airlines

Inc. (NY-S 1:98-cv-06341 filed 09/09/1998).
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-78

sheet for each of these cases indicates “sealed

document placed in vault” either the same day as

settlement or several days before or after settlement.

Holtz v. Rockefeller & Co. (NY-S 1:96-cv-09484 filed

12/17/1996).

Employment discrimination action by a female

employee alleging age and sex discrimination,

including retaliatory discharge. The district court

granted the defendants’ motion for summary

judgment, and the court of appeals affirmed in

part and vacated in part. A little over a year later,

the parties settled and agreed to dismiss the case

with prejudice. The docket sheet indicates a

sealed document was placed in the vault a month

later.

Martinez-Torrejon v. Trustees of Columbia University

(NY-S 1:97-cv-00503 filed 01/23/1997).

Employment discrimination action by a former

assistant professor of Spanish national origin alleging that the university discriminated against

him based upon his sex, national origin, race, ethnicity, and ancestry by denying him a promotion

to the position of associate professor and not renewing his appointment. The parties settled, and

the court ordered sealed the confidential settlement agreement and all documents filed in connection with the plaintiff’s application for attorney fees. The fee application was resolved, and

the court ordered the case closed.

Powell v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (NY-S

1:97-cv-02439 filed 04/04/1997).

Employment discrimination action by a black

man with AIDS against his employer, two supervisors, and two co-workers, alleging race and disability discrimination, including denial of promotions, creating a hostile and oppressive work environment, and threatening termination or demotion in retaliation for objecting to the defendant’s

racist policies and practices. The court granted the

defendants summary judgment on some of the

plaintiff’s claims. The case was dismissed with

prejudice pursuant to a sealed stipulation of settlement.

Casper v. Lew Lieberbaum & Co. (NY-S 1:97-cv03016 filed 04/28/1997).

Employment discrimination action by three female former employees, alleging sexual harassment, including demands for sexual favors. The

parties agreed to dismiss the action against one

defendant—the employer’s chief executive officer.

The remaining parties agreed to settle their claims

and discontinue the case with prejudice. The court

dismissed the action with prejudice pursuant to a

sealed settlement agreement.

A.I.A. Holding SA v. Lehman Brothers Inc. (NY-S

1:97-cv-04978 filed 07/08/1997).

Fraud action by 276 plaintiffs against an investment adviser. Twenty-two plaintiffs agreed to

dismiss their claims with prejudice. Five years

after the original complaint was filed and various

motions were ruled upon by the court, the remaining parties settled and agreed to dismiss the

case with prejudice. A sealed document was

placed in the vault five days prior to the order

dismissing and closing the case.

Shepheard v. Pentagon Federal Credit Union (NY-S

1:97-cv-07464 filed 10/08/1997).

Action pursuant to the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices

Act for wrongfully designating several of the

plaintiff’s loan accounts as delinquent. The parties

settled, and the terms of the settlement agreement

were placed on the record. The transcript was

sealed, and the action was dismissed with prejudice. The case was closed.

Orce v. Wackenhut Corp. (NY-S 7:97-cv-09246 filed

12/16/1997).

Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act by

thirty-nine nuclear power plant security officers

for unpaid overtime compensation. A confidential

settlement agreement was reached and placed

under seal. The court entered judgment dismissing each action with prejudice.

Sonex International Corp. v. Tactica International Inc.

(NY-S 1:98-cv-02931 filed 04/24/1998).

Patent infringement action concerning an automatic flosser and plaque remover. The parties

settled, and the court ordered the settlement

agreement filed under seal. The action was dismissed with prejudice.

Koh v. Premier Equity Funds Inc. (NY-S 1:98-cv04318 filed 06/19/1998).

Securities class action alleging that class members

suffered millions of dollars in damages by purchasing overpriced shares. The court certified the

class. A settlement was reached. The settlement

agreement included a supplemental stipulation

defining the circumstances under which the de-
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-79

fendants could withdraw from the settlement

agreement. One version of this supplemental

stipulation was publicly available. A second version defining with greater specificity the circumstances under which the defendants could withdraw from the settlement agreement was filed

under seal.

Fanelli v. Town of Harrison (NY-S 7:98-cv-07683

filed 10/28/1998).

Civil rights action alleging false arrest for First

Amendment activities. The parties agreed to a

confidential settlement on the record, and the

court ordered the transcript of the settlement proceeding sealed. The parties agreed to discontinue

the action.

Joel A. v. Giuliani (NY-S 1:99-cv-00326 filed

01/15/1999).

Civil rights class action by young people in the

defendants’ custody and care who identify themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered

or are experiencing feelings or confusion about

their sexual orientation or gender. The defendants

operate the New York City child welfare and foster care system. The plaintiffs alleged discrimination based on actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender atypicality; failure to protect the

class from bias-related violence, harassment, and

abuse; and failure to provide the class members

with supportive environments in which they can

safely disclose and express feelings of same-sex

attraction, discuss issues relating to sexual identity, and develop healthy sexual identities. The

action was not certified as a class action. The defendants agreed to pay $15,000 in full satisfaction

of all claims of one of the six named plaintiffs. The

remaining five named plaintiffs settled with the

city defendants, and the court ordered the settlement agreement to be filed under seal “solely in

order to protect the confidentiality of the identity

of settling plaintiffs.” The case was closed.

Jacob v. Porcari (NY-S 7:99-cv-01216 filed

02/18/1999).

Contract action alleging legal malpractice in failing to advise the plaintiff of statutes of limitation

on his civil rights claims of false arrest, malicious

prosecution, and use of excessive force against the

police department. The parties settled on the record, and the court ordered the proceedings sealed.

The parties agreed to dismiss the case with prejudice.

Jack Schwartz Shoes Inc. v. Buffalino USA Inc. (NY-S

7:00-cv-01007 filed 02/10/2000).

Trademark infringement action with patent

claims, alleging that the defendant represented its

footwear as looking “just like” the plaintiff’s

shoes. The parties settled, and the settlement

agreement was sealed and placed in the vault. The

case was closed the same day.

Cassina SPA v. Strada Design Associates Inc. (NY-S

1:00-cv-02852 filed 04/13/2000).

Contract action for refusal to pay for furniture and

installation services. A bench trial was held, and

the case settled. The parties entered on the record

a stipulation placing their confidential settlement

agreement under seal. The court ordered the transcript sealed, and the docket sheet indicates that

two sealed documents were placed in the vault.

Watcher Technologies LLC v. Tradescape.com Inc.

(NY-S 1:00-cv-03050 filed 04/20/2000).

Copyright action against day-trading firms for

offering customers access to the plaintiff’s software. The parties settled, and the court dismissed

the case without prejudice to restore it if settlement was not effectuated within thirty days. The

case was closed. A month later a sealed document

was placed in the vault. A month after that another sealed document was placed in the vault.

Franco v. Saks & Co. (NY-S 1:00-cv-05522 filed

07/26/2000).

Labor litigation under the Family Medical Leave

Act for wrongful replacement after the plaintiff

returned from an approved unpaid FMLA leave

to care for his dying father. The parties settled,

and the court dismissed the case without prejudice to restore it if settlement was not effectuated

within sixty days. A little over a year and a half

later, a sealed document was placed in the vault.

Millinnium LP v. Captiva Software Corp. (NY-S 1:00-

cv-05908 filed 08/09/2000).

Patent infringement action concerning computer

software technology used for scanning hard-copy

documents. The parties settled and agreed to a

consent decree that incorporated a confidential

settlement and license agreement, which was filed

under seal. The action was dismissed with prejudice.
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-80

United States v. American Cyanamid Co. (NY-S 1:00-

cv-06015 filed 08/14/2000).

Environmental action by the EPA under CERCLA

against the owner and operator of a landfill where

hazardous substances had been dumped and

against the substance owners. The EPA settled its

claims with the owners of the hazardous substances, and the court entered a consent decree.

The owners brought cross-claims against one another for contribution. The EPA settled with the

owner of the landfill, and the terms of the settlement were embodied in a separate consent decree.

Two years later the owners settled their crossclaims and agreed to dismiss them with prejudice.

The court retained jurisdiction to decide whether

to enter a contribution bar order and to resolve

any disputes in connection with the settlement

agreement. A motion for entry of a contribution

bar was brought, attaching the settlement agreement as an exhibit. A sealed document was placed

in the vault a few days later. The motion for a

contribution bar was denied, and no further activity occurred in the case.

Isler v. Mount Vernon Hospital (NY-S 7:00-cv-06048

filed 08/15/2000).

Medical malpractice and wrongful death action.

The defendant hospital brought a third-party

complaint against the plaintiff’s two private physicians and the medical group sponsoring an

HIV/AIDS clinical trial in which the plaintiff participated. The case settled. The order settling the

case with two of the plaintiff’s treating physicians

was filed under seal and placed in the vault. The

parties agreed to discontinue the case against all

defendants with prejudice.

Uptown Nails LLC v. Lemax World Inc. (NY-S 1:00-

cv-06195 filed 08/18/2000).

Trademark infringement action concerning artificial nails and related products. The parties settled,

and the court dismissed the case with prejudice.

The court informed the parties that if they wished

the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement, they must submit it to the

court. A month later, in an attempt to settle unresolved issues in court-ordered mediation, the

plaintiff asked the court to file under seal the confidential settlement agreement. The court sealed a

copy of the settlement agreement and exhibits.

The parties settled their issues through mediation.

Jeremy M. v. Giuliani (NY-S 1:00-cv-06498 filed

08/30/2000).

Civil rights action by a minor and his mother for

retaining the child in foster care without a legal

basis. The parties settled, and the court issued an

infant compromise order approving the settlement. A sealed document was placed in the vault.

Two months later the parties agreed to discontinue the action with prejudice, stating that the

parties settled pursuant to a separate settlement

agreement.

Messina v. Local 1199 SEIU (NY-S 1:00-cv-07375

filed 09/28/2000).

Case under the Labor–Management Reporting

and Disclosure Act alleging that the plaintiff was

removed as an elected delegate in reprisal for her

zealous representation of union membership, assertion of free speech rights, and bringing of

charges against an elected vice-president. The

court granted in part the defendants’ motion to

dismiss and motion for summary judgment. The

parties settled, and the court dismissed the case

without prejudice to restore it if requested within

forty-five days. A sealed document was placed in

the vault a month later.

Jack Schwartz Shoes Inc. v. Skechers USA Inc. (NY-S

1:00-cv-07721 filed 10/12/2000).

Trademark infringement action with patent

claims concerning footwear that embodied the

design claimed in the plaintiff’s patent. The court

granted the plaintiff partial summary judgment as

to infringement, awarded the plaintiff damages,

and issued an injunction against the defendant.

The defendant’s motion for summary judgment

was denied as to patent infringement and granted

as to trade dress infringement. Several weeks later

the parties settled all remaining claims, and the

court discontinued the action. Although the defendant requested that the court file under seal a

stipulation and order of dismissal with prejudice,

the court refused to take further action, stating

that the parties’ agreement of settlement need not

be filed. Despite this statement, one week later a

sealed document was placed in the vault.

Murphy v. Transitional Services Inc. (NY-S 1:00-cv08169 filed 10/25/2000).

Employment discrimination action by a male

counselor alleging that he was terminated for not

having sex with his female director. The parties

settled, and the confidential settlement agreement
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-81

was sealed and placed in the vault. The case was

dismissed with prejudice.

Crooks v. Metro-North Railroad Co. (NY-S 1:00-cv08420 filed 11/03/2000).

Federal employers’ liability action by a signalman

for on-the-job injuries. The parties settled, and a

sealed document was placed in the vault three

days later. The case was dismissed with prejudice.

McEachin v. Kerik (NY-S 7:00-cv-08998 filed

11/27/2000).

Prison condition action for multiple physical injuries resulting from an assault by prison staff and

retaliatory segregation. The parties settled during

a settlement conference, and the court sealed the

tape of the conference and placed it in the court

vault. The parties agreed to dismiss the action

with prejudice according to the terms of the

stipulation and order of settlement and discontinuance.

Reese v. Consolidated Edison Co. (NY-S 1:00-cv09390 filed 12/11/2000).

Employment discrimination action by a black

man for race discrimination, including denials of

promotion. The parties settled, and the settlement

conference transcript of the parties’ agreement

was sealed. The action was dismissed with prejudice.

Gold v. Unumprovident Corp. (NY-S 7:00-cv-09854

filed 12/29/2000).

Insurance action for refusal to pay the plaintiff

disability benefits. The parties settled, and the

terms of settlement were placed on the record.

Because the settlement agreement ultimately

signed by the parties contained a confidentiality

provision, the parties asked the court to seal the

tape and transcript of the settlement conference.

The court agreed to seal the tape. The case was

discontinued with prejudice and with leave to

reopen it solely for the purpose of enforcing the

settlement.

Weisman v. Doremus Advertising Inc. (NY-S 1:01-cv00080 filed 01/04/2001).

ERISA action alleging failure to provide the

plaintiff with the same benefits offered to other

employees. A settlement agreement was reached

on the record, and the case was dismissed with

prejudice. A sealed document was placed in the

vault a little over a month after the case closed.

Archer v. City of New York (NY-S 1:01-cv-00402

filed 01/18/2001).

Designated a civil rights action, this is an employment discrimination action by a female employee against the sheriff’s office for sexual harassment and retaliation. The parties settled during

a settlement conference, and the settlement terms

were placed on the record. One month later a

sealed document was placed in the vault the same

day as the parties filed their stipulation and order

of discontinuance dismissing the action with

prejudice.

SBAM Inc. v. U.S. Roads Inc. (NY-S 1:01-cv-01848

filed 03/02/2001).

Negotiable instrument action. The parties settled

and discontinued the action. A sealed document

was placed in the vault three days later. A little

over two months later, judgment was entered

against the defendant subject to the terms of the

stipulation of settlement.

Cook v. Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP (NY-S 1:01-

cv-02065 filed 03/12/2001).

Employment discrimination action by an AfricanAmerican woman against a law firm and partner

for sexual harassment and retaliation. The parties

settled on the record during a settlement conference and agreed to dismiss the case with prejudice. A sealed document was placed in the vault

six days after the case closed.

ON2 Inc. v. ECOIN Co. (NY-S 1:01-cv-03618 filed

04/30/2001).

Contract action concerning the exclusive right to

market the plaintiff’s encoding and server technologies to third parties in South Korea. The parties settled on the record during a settlement conference. The court dismissed the case with prejudice and retained jurisdiction over the settlement

pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement. A sealed document was placed in the vault.

Pacific Sunwear of California v. Crest Inc. (NY-S

1:01-cv-04072 filed 05/14/2001).

Trademark infringement action concerning a line

of men’s, women’s, and children’s clothing. The

parties settled, and their stipulation of dismissal

was sealed. A sealed document was placed in the

vault, and the court dismissed the case with

prejudice.
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-82

Avon Products Inc. v. Kim (NY-S 1:01-cv-04163 filed

05/16/2001).

Trademark infringement action concerning cosmetic products and services similar to those sold

by Avon. The parties settled and filed their settlement agreement and order under seal. The case

was discontinued with prejudice.

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Bermuda

Cablevision Ltd. (NY-S 1:01-cv-04748 filed

06/01/2001).

Action under the Communications Act of 1934 by

several large motion picture studios and their affiliates, alleging that a cable television provider in

Bermuda pirated encrypted satellite signals at an

enormous profit. The parties settled and agreed to

discontinue the case with prejudice. Five months

later the plaintiffs informed the court of their intention to file a motion to enforce the settlement

agreement reached with the defendants. Shortly

thereafter two sealed documents were placed in

the court vault. The parties met and finalized their

settlement. They agreed to dismiss the case with

prejudice.

CBC Holdings Inc. v. Medina (NY-S 7:01-cv-05168

filed 06/11/2001).

Action alleging violations of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 for use of an unauthorized converter-decoder. The parties settled during

a settlement conference, and the court sealed the

tape of the conference. The parties agreed to the

issuance of a consent injunction against the defendant and to discontinue the case with prejudice

according to the terms of the stipulation of discontinuance.

Freeman v. City of New York (NY-S 1:01-cv-05360

filed 06/14/2001).

Civil rights action by an incarcerated prisoner

against the city of New York and several correctional officers for verbal abuse, physical attack,

and failure to provide medical attention. The case

settled on the record during a settlement conference. The court ordered the tape of the conference

sealed, and the tape was placed in the vault. The

parties dismissed the action with prejudice.

Shieldkret v. Park Place Entertainment Corp. (NY-S

1:01-cv-05471 filed 06/18/2001).

Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act by a

female marketing employee of a gaming industry

company, alleging violations of the Equal Pay Act

for deliberately paying her substantially less than

male employees. A jury trial was held, but the

parties settled before the jury returned a verdict.

The court ordered the order of discontinuance, a

letter from the plaintiff, and an additional order to

be filed under seal. Two sealed documents were

placed in the vault, and the case was closed.

Kattini v. Republic of South Africa (NY-S 1:01-cv05648 filed 06/21/2001).

Employment age discrimination action by a 64-

year-old employee of the South African consulate

in New York, alleging an attempt to force the

plaintiff into involuntary retirement, demotion of

the plaintiff from a permanent position to a temporary one, and termination. The parties settled

and agreed to discontinue the action with prejudice. The court placed a sealed document in the

vault the same day. The parties were given 120

days to restore the action if settlement was not

effected. Five months later another sealed document was placed in the vault. No further activity

occurred in the case.

Roach v. Young’s Equipment (NY-S 7:01-cv-05979

filed 07/02/2001).

Product liability action for a hand injury caused

by a frame machine. The case settled, and the

court ordered the tape of the settlement conference to be sealed. The case was discontinued with

prejudice.

Menaker v. Westchester Jewish Community Services

Inc. (NY-S 7:01-cv-06127 filed 07/06/2001).

Employment discrimination case for sex and age

discrimination and harassment. The parties settled, and a stipulation of settlement was placed on

the record. The transcript was sealed, and the case

was discontinued with prejudice with leave to

reopen it solely for the purpose of enforcing the

settlement.

Caesar v. Sugarhill Music Publishing Inc. (NY-S 1:01-

cv-06180 filed 07/09/2001).

Copyright infringement action concerning songs.

Settlement was reached between the plaintiffs and

one defendant. Court-ordered mediation produced a stipulation settling all issues in the case.

A sealed document was placed in the vault the

same day the court ordered the case to be discontinued without prejudice.
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-83

Toumarkine v. Hollywood Media Corp. (NY-S 1:01-

cv-06623 filed 07/20/2001).

Employment discrimination action alleging pretextual termination to conceal illegal age discrimination. The case settled on the record in open

court and was discontinued with prejudice. The

court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement terms. A sealed document was placed in the

vault two weeks later.

Charley v. Andin International (NY-S 1:01-cv-08302

filed 09/05/2001).

Employment discrimination action by a black

male employee with kidney and skin cancer, alleging discrimination based on race, color, and

disability, including wrongful termination and

failure to accommodate disabilities. The parties

reached a settlement agreement on the record,

and a sealed document was placed in the vault

two days later. The parties agreed to dismiss the

case with prejudice.

Top Rank Inc. v. Kelepeses (NY-S 1:01-cv-08382 filed

09/07/2001).

Action for violation of the Cable Communications

Act and for copyright infringement in transmitting without authorization the plaintiff’s pay-perview programs, including boxing matches. The

parties entered into an executed stipulation of

settlement, which was filed by the court under

seal. The court placed the sealed document in the

vault and ordered the case dismissed with prejudice the same day.

Albany International Corp. v. J.M. Voith Fabrics Inc.

(NY-S 1:01-cv-09455 filed 10/26/2001).

Patent infringement action concerning fabrics and

methods for making such fabrics. The parties

reached a settlement and agreed to dismiss the

case with prejudice, but only as to the allegations

of infringement concerning fabrics sold by the

defendants prior to the effective date of the settlement agreement. The stipulated order of dismissal indicated that the settlement agreement

was filed along with the stipulation. Several days

later a sealed document was placed in the vault.

Gund Inc. v. Ganz Inc. (NY-S 1:02-cv-00801 filed

02/01/2002).

Copyright infringement suit alleging that the defendants’ toy animals were substantially similar to

the plaintiff’s plush toys. The parties settled, and

the court granted their request to file their consent

judgment under seal because unrestricted access

to the consent judgment would result in inappropriate disclosure of trade secrets and other proprietary information. The case was dismissed

without prejudice to reopen it within thirty days if

the settlement was not consummated.

Centre Group Holdings Ltd. v. American International

Group Inc. (NY-S 1:02-cv-01955 filed 03/08/2002).

Trademark infringement action concerning financial and insurance services. The parties settled

and agreed to dismiss the case with prejudice. The

stipulation of dismissal states that the terms of the

settlement agreement are attached and the court

retains jurisdiction to enforce it. The agreement

was not attached to the stipulation of dismissal, so

it was probably the document the docket sheet

indicated was filed under seal three days previously.

McVicker v. Pactiv Corp. (NY-S 7:02-cv-02548 filed

04/03/2002).

Patent infringement case concerning garbage

bags. The parties agreed to settle all claims and

dismiss the action with prejudice. The court ordered the taped settlement agreement sealed and

placed in the vault.

Mannain v. J-Len Inc. (NY-S 7:02-cv-02919 filed

04/16/2002).

Employment discrimination action by four female

employees for sex discrimination, including sexual harassment, a hostile work environment, and

retaliation. The parties settled and submitted their

confidential settlement agreement and release to

the court under seal. The case was dismissed with

prejudice.

Clyde Otis Music Group v. MTV Networks

Enterprises Inc. (NY-S 1:02-cv-05326 filed

07/11/2002).

Copyright infringement action for unlawful airing

of a musical composition. The parties reached a

settlement agreement and agreed to dismiss the

case with prejudice. A sealed document was

placed in the vault a little over a month later.

CDC IXIS Capital Markets North America Inc. v.

Parker (NY-S 1:02-cv-06436 filed 08/13/2002).

Personal property fraud action for theft of trade

secrets. The parties settled and submitted to the

court a settlement agreement set forth in a consent

order. The court granted the parties’ request to

file an attachment to the consent order under seal

in order to protect the plaintiff’s highly sensitive
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-84

confidential and proprietary information. The

case was dismissed with prejudice.

Western District of New York

The Western District of New York has a new local

rule requiring a “substantial showing” to seal a

document, W.D.N.Y. L.R. 5.4(a), but this rule is

newer than the cases in this study. “Unless an order of the court otherwise directs, all sealed

documents will remain sealed after final disposition of the case.” Id. R. 5.4(f).

Statistics: 3,000 cases in termination cohort; 12

docket sheets are sealed (0.40%)—the disposition

codes for 10 of these cases suggest no sealed settlement agreements,61 and the disposition codes

for 2 of these cases suggest sealed settlement

agreements;62 106 unsealed docket sheets (3.5%)

have the word “seal” in them; 20 complete docket

sheets (0.67%) were reviewed; actual documents

were examined for 12 cases (0.40%); 11 cases

(0.37%) appear to have sealed settlement agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

Burns v. Imagine Films Entertainment Inc. (NY-W

1:92-cv-00243 filed 04/08/1992).

Copyright case alleging use of the plaintiffs’ copyrighted screenplays in the motion picture Backdraft. As a discovery sanction, the court ordered

the defendants’ answers stricken and entered a

default judgment against the defendants; trial was

set on the question of damages. The parties settled

all claims. The plaintiffs moved to enforce the confidential settlement agreement. The court ordered

the parties to resolve outstanding issues. One

week later the parties filed a stipulation and order

of dismissal with prejudice, requesting that the

court vacate its prior judgment of liability in favor

of the plaintiffs, which was based on the striking

of the defendants’ answers. On the day the case

was closed, a document was filed under seal. The

court agreed to vacate its prior judgment of liability.

Tops Markets Inc. v. Quality Markets Inc. (NY-W

1:93-cv-00302 filed 04/02/1993).

Antitrust action by a large supermarket chain

against other supermarkets and a commercial developer, who filed a counterclaim. The district 

61. Two judgments on motions before trial, 1 voluntary dismissal, 6 “other” dismissals, 1 “other” judgment.

62. One consent judgment, 1 case settled.

court bifurcated the case, and the jury returned a

liability verdict against the plaintiff on all counts

and in favor of the commercial developer on his

counterclaim. The plaintiff settled the counterclaim with the developer. The plaintiff’s original

attorney was discharged, and he filed to have a

lien placed on the case until he was paid for his

services. The district court denied the attorney’s

motion for fees and a lien, and the attorney appealed. The plaintiff moved to enter the settlement agreement with the developer into the record. The plaintiff sought to do this under seal to

preserve a nondisclosure agreement. The court

agreed to seal the settlement agreement. The court

of appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of

the attorney’s lien.

United States v. Genesee Valley Card (NY-W 6:97-cv06502 filed 11/12/1997).

Statutory action. The docket sheet is sealed. The

case was dismissed as settled.

Airsep Corp. v. ICAR SPA (NY-W 1:00-cv-00089

filed 01/26/2000).

Contract action alleging that defects in capacitors

manufactured and distributed by the defendants

caused oxygen concentrators manufactured and

sold by the plaintiff to catch fire. The parties settled, and the court dismissed the case without

prejudice, with leave to reopen it within sixty

days if settlement was not consummated. Two

months later a document was filed under seal,

and a final settlement conference was held to discuss the status of settlement. No further activity

occurred in the case.

Weidner v. Town of Eden (NY-W 1:00-cv-00162 filed

02/16/2000).

Civil rights action concerning the plaintiffs’ real

property. The case settled, the settlement terms

were put on the record, and the court recording

was sealed. The parties agreed to dismiss the action with prejudice, and the case was closed upon

court approval of the dismissal.

Nevarez v. Pittsford Central School District (NY-W

6:00-cv-06096 filed 03/06/2000).

Civil rights action under the Americans with Disabilities Act against a school district, its board of

education, and a principal for discrimination

against the plaintiffs and their disabled daughter.

The parties settled, and the court placed the settlement terms on the record. The parties executed

the stipulation and order to dismiss in open court,
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-85

and the court sealed the stipulation. The case was

closed.

Jeswald v. Frontier Central School District (NY-W

1:00-cv-00824 filed 09/22/2000).

Employment discrimination action by an obese

Native-American woman, alleging wrongful termination on the basis of her race and disability by

a school district. The defendant informed the

court that the parties had settled. Five months

later a document was filed under seal, and the

case was closed the same day.

Harms v. Dow Chemical Co. (NY-W 1:00-cv-01040

filed 12/19/2000).

Product liability action alleging that the decedent’s workplace exposure to the defendants’ vinyl chloride caused him to develop several illnesses, including liver cancer, which resulted in

his death. The defendants brought a third-party

complaint against the decedent’s employer for

contribution. The case settled, and the court

sealed an order of settlement. All parties agreed to

dismiss all claims with prejudice, and the court

dismissed the case.

United States v. 2986 Tallman Road (NY-W 6:01-cv06155 filed 03/23/2001).

Case involving the drug-related seizure of property. The docket sheet is sealed. The case was resolved by consent judgment.

Buchalski v. Dow Chemical Co. (NY-W 1:01-cv-00309

filed 04/27/2001).

Product liability action by a surviving wife alleging that the decedent’s workplace exposure to the

defendants’ vinyl chloride caused him to develop

several illnesses, including angiosarcoma of the

liver, which resulted in his death. The defendants

brought a third-party complaint against the decedent’s employer for contribution. The case settled,

and the court sealed tapes of a teleconference held

three days later. About a week later the court issued a sealed order of settlement. All parties

agreed to dismiss all claims with prejudice, and

the court dismissed the case.

Roberts v. County of Erie (NY-W 1:01-cv-00565 filed

08/09/2001).

Employment action for sexual discrimination

against the Erie County Sheriff’s Department by a

former nurse employee, alleging repeated instances of sexual harassment, discrimination, and

retaliation. During a settlement hearing, the parties settled, and the court ordered the proceedings

sealed. The parties were ordered to exchange a

written settlement agreement and sign a general

release. The court dismissed the case, and the

parties stipulated to dismiss all claims with prejudice.

Eastern District of North Carolina

The court amended its local rule on sealed documents effective January 1, 2003. Absent statutory

authority, court filings may be sealed only on

court order obtained by motion. E.D.N.C. L. Civ.

R. 79.2(a). Sealed documents must be delivered to

the court in red envelopes with three lines of

specified text designating the date of filing and

that the document is to be filed under seal. Id. R.

79.2(e). The docket designates “generically the

type of document filed under seal, but it will not

contain a description that would disclose its identity.” Id. R. 79.2(c). “After the action concludes

and all appeals have been completed, counsel is

charged with the responsibility of retrieving and

maintaining all sealed documents. Upon 10 days

notice by mail to counsel for all parties, and

within thirty days after final disposition, the court

may order the documents to be unsealed and they

will thereafter be available for public inspection.”

Id. R. 79.2(d).

Statistics: 2,808 cases in termination cohort; 143

docket sheets (5.1%) have the word “seal” in them

(but 57 of these merely have Crown Cork and Seal

Company as a party); 12 complete docket sheets

(0.43%) were reviewed; actual documents were

examined for 4 cases (0.14%); 3 cases (0.11%) appear to have sealed settlement agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

Lloyd v. Newton (NC-E 7:00-cv-00034 filed

02/22/2000).

Housing and accommodations action under the

Americans with Disabilities Act and state law for

failure to rent a hotel room to a disabled person

who had a service dog but who was not blind.

The parties filed a consent protective order, and

the transcript of the settlement conference was

sealed. The case ended in a stipulation of dismissal. Because the complaint included a claim for

negligent supervision, settlement discussions may

have included trade secrets on employee training.

Ramirez v. Beaulieu (NC-E 5:00-cv-00536 filed

07/25/2000).

Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and

state law by carpenters for unpaid wages. The
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-86

parties reached a confidential settlement agreement and filed a joint stipulation of dismissal. The

stipulation specified that if the plaintiff notified

the court within ninety days that the defendants

had breached the agreement, then an attached

sealed consent order would become effective. The

ninety days elapsed without such notice, and the

case was closed.

Watson v. Life Insurance Co. of North America (NC-E

5:01-cv-00870 filed 11/07/2001).

ERISA action for wrongfully denying disability

benefits to a processing clerk. The disabled beneficiary was represented by her mother, who had

power of attorney. The case settled, and the court

approved the settlement. A sealed settlement

agreement was filed.

Middle District of North Carolina

Sealed documents are sent to the records center in

Atlanta along with the rest of the case file, where

“[t]he confidentiality of sealed documents cannot

be assured.” M.D.N.C. L.R. 83.5(c). At the end of

the case, after the opportunity for appeal is exhausted, the clerk sends the parties a notice that

they may retrieve sealed documents.

Statistics: 2,284 cases in termination cohort; 63

docket sheets (2.8%) have the word “seal” in

them; 10 complete docket sheets (0.44%) were reviewed; actual documents were examined for 7

cases (0.31%); 6 cases (0.26%) appear to have

sealed settlement agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

Queen v. rha Health Services Inc. (NC-M 1:00-cv00101 filed 02/01/2000).

Class action under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and state law by employees of a residential facility for developmentally disabled

adults, alleging that the employees working a

night shift were required to remain on the premises without compensation for eight hours of their

eighteen-hour shifts. The court dismissed the state

law claims as preempted by the federal claim. The

case settled, and the parties filed a joint motion

under seal for an order approving the settlement.

Such an order was granted, but the order says

nothing about the terms of the settlement.

Saine v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (NC-M 1:00-cv00271 filed 03/20/2000).

ERISA action by a drug sales employee to challenge denial of short-term disability benefits for

migraine headaches. The court granted the defendants summary judgment on the ERISA claim, but

denied them summary judgment on a counterclaim for the return of mistakenly issued salary

checks. The parties settled the counterclaim before

trial, but the plaintiff apparently violated the settlement agreement (before the case was dismissed), so the defendant employer moved for

enforcement of the agreement, attaching the

agreement as a sealed exhibit. The plaintiff apparently violated the court’s order to enforce the

agreement by failing to return money and sales

supplies, including a car, a computer, and drugs,

so the employer moved for an order of contempt.

The court did not rule on this motion, because the

parties settled their dispute and filed a stipulated

dismissal.

Kurth v. BioSignia Inc. (NC-M 1:00-cv-00534 filed

06/01/2000).

Stockholders’ suit for wrongful cancellation of a

stock certificate allegedly worth $3.3 million. The

plaintiff received the certificate in exchange for

legal services provided to a CEO of a subsidiary

of the defendant. The defendant alleged that the

CEO’s interest in the certificate never vested because he was forced to resign, with a suggestion

of wrongdoing. The case settled on the eve of trial,

and the court sealed the transcript of the settlement conference. The plaintiff thereafter refused

to sign the settlement papers because of a term

impairing his ability to sell his stock, so the defendant filed a sealed motion to enforce the

agreement. The plaintiff’s unsealed response included the agreement as an exhibit. The disagreement was resolved, and a copy of the settlement agreement was attached to an unsealed

stipulation of dismissal.

Parks v. Alteon Inc. (NC-M 1:00-cv-00657 filed

07/13/2000).

Product liability case in which the plaintiff sued

drug companies, alleging that their experimental

diabetes drug caused kidney failure. The parties

reached a confidential private settlement agreement, but one defendant apparently was late in

making its settlement payment. The settlement

agreement was filed under seal as an exhibit to a

motion to enforce it. The case was dismissed

without action on the motion.

Gaskins v. Carolina Manufacturer’s Service Inc.

(NC-M 1:00-cv-01219 filed 12/01/2000).

Employment civil rights action in which black

plaintiffs sued their employer for race discrimina-
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-87

tion. One plaintiff had second thoughts about the

confidential settlement agreement and moved pro

se to set it aside. The defendant attached a sealed

copy of the settlement agreement to a motion to

enforce it. The court ruled against the plaintiff’s

motion and ordered her to pay a $3,600 sanction

to cover the defendant’s attorney fees to enforce

the agreement.

Estate of Mayo v. Kindred Nursing Centers East LLC

(NC-M 1:02-cv-00260 filed 04/05/2002).

Medical malpractice action against a nursing

home for wrongful death resulting from the insertion of a feeding tube into a patient’s trachea

instead of her esophagus, resulting in her lungs

receiving feeding solution. The case was dismissed pursuant to a sealed consent order.

Western District of North Carolina

Local Rule 5.1(D)(4) states: “Unless otherwise ordered by a court, any case file or documents under court seal that have not previously been unsealed by court order shall be unsealed at the time

of final disposition of the case.” According to the

clerk, sealed documents are not sent to the records

center. If there were an order to keep a document

sealed, the court probably would keep the whole

file, because there would be so few.

Statistics: 2,203 cases in termination cohort; 2

docket sheets are sealed (0.09%)—both of these

cases’ disposition codes suggest no sealed settlement agreements;63 101 unsealed docket sheets

(4.6%) have the word “seal” in them; 27 complete

docket sheets (1.2%) were reviewed; actual documents were examined for 14 cases (0.64%); 11

cases (0.50%) appear to have sealed settlement

agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

Estate of Carr v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp. (NC-W 5:99-

cv-00023 filed 02/24/1999), consolidated with

Estate of Carr v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp. (NC-W 5:99-

cv-00024 filed 02/24/1999), Estate of Carr v.

Louisiana-Pacific Corp. (NC-W 5:99-cv-00025 filed

02/24/1999), Estate of Phillips v. Louisiana-Pacific

Corp. (NC-W 5:99-cv-00026 filed 02/24/1999), and

Estate of Carr v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp. (NC-W 5:99-

cv-00027 filed 02/24/1999).

Consolidated motor vehicle tort action in which

five decedents’ estates sued the alleged employers

 

63. One case transferred to another district, 1 voluntary dismissal.

of a logging truck driver. According to the complaints, the driver became distracted while

changing a tape in his cab. He veered into oncoming traffic and ran a church van off the road.

He then swerved back into the correct lane, and

the truck’s logs spilled, crushing the van’s five

occupants. The district court granted summary

judgment to the defendants on the grounds that

the driver was not their agent, and the plaintiffs

appealed. The case settled on appeal. The court

had to approve the settlement agreement, because

one of the plaintiffs was a minor representing her

father’s estate. Terms of the settlement agreement

are under seal.

Delaney v. Stephens (NC-W 3:00-cv-00138 filed

03/24/2000).

Medical malpractice action by a three-year-old

boy for “cardiac arrest and cephalad hematoma”

allegedly resulting from his mother’s physician’s

using a “vacuum assisted delivery device” during

delivery. More than two years later the court denied a motion to continue the trial date, and one

week in advance of the scheduled trial date, a

document was filed under seal. A week later another document was filed under seal, and the case

was closed the following day, with the disposition

of the case coded as a consent judgment. A sealed

settlement agreement apparently was filed.

McKinney v. CVS Pharmacy Inc. (NC-W 1:01-cv00124 filed 06/08/2001).

Housing and accommodations action for refusal

to permit a customer with a service dog to bring

her dog into the store. The plaintiff alleged that

she brought in the dog while filling a prescription

and was rudely shooed away. A district manager

allegedly told the plaintiff, “we don’t have to let

handicapped people in .!.!. if we don’t want to.”

Subsequently the dog needed a prescription filled,

and when the plaintiff visited the store to fill it

she was humiliated, injured, and prosecuted for

violating the store’s no-dog rule. The defendants

claimed that the plaintiff was not disabled, the

dog was not a service dog, and the dog was not

sufficiently well-behaved. The case was dismissed

pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement. Nearly

two months later another document was filed under seal—apparently a motion by the defendants

to enforce the agreement. The plaintiff’s counsel

notified the court that the plaintiff had not yet

signed the agreement or received the settlement

check and that the plaintiff was no longer permitted to visit counsel at his office. Thereafter the

plaintiff represented herself. Two additional
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-88

documents were filed under seal, at least one of

which was an order.

McGinnis v. Eli Lilly and Co. (NC-W 5:02-cv-00010

filed 01/22/2002).

Product liability action by a surviving husband

and three children claiming that Prozac caused

the decedent’s suicide. Prior to a mediation conference the parties settled, and four documents

were filed under seal.

J.M. Huber Corp. v. Potlatch Corp. (NC-W 3:02-cv00034 filed 01/25/2002).

Trademark action concerning a plywood substitute called oriented strand board. The case was

dismissed in reliance on a settlement agreement,

which was sealed and filed as an exhibit to the

order dismissing the case. The order included the

statement that “[t]he parties .!.!. consent to the

Court retaining jurisdiction of this matter to enforce the terms of a confidential Settlement

Agreement!.!.!.!.”

Estate of Neville v. United States (NC-W 1:02-cv00029 filed 02/04/2002).

Medical malpractice action alleging wrongful

death at a Veterans’ Administration hospital following surgery to correct bile peritonitis, which

had resulted from an earlier negligent Veterans’

Administration hospital surgery. A mediator’s

report was filed under seal, and the case was dismissed as settled.

Rasavong v. Fortis Benefits Insurance Co. (NC-W

3:02-cv-00132 filed 03/29/2002).

ERISA action challenging the defendant’s refusal

to pay life insurance benefits on the grounds that

the plaintiff was a suspect in her husband’s murder. The parties moved for approval of a confidential settlement agreement, which the court

ordered filed under seal. The docket sheet, however, does not show such a filing, but the court

did approve the agreement. Unsealed documents

disclose that the defendant paid the $370,000 insurance claim in full to the plaintiff and that this

was deemed in the best interest of her minor children, who would receive the payment themselves

if she were ineligible. It is not clear what term of

the settlement agreement remains confidential.

District of North Dakota

Unless the court orders otherwise, sealed documents are returned to the parties filing them when

the case is over. D.N.D. L.R. 5.1(F)(1). If an entire

file is permanently sealed, then the court retains

custody of it. Id. R. 5.1(F)(3).

Statistics: 574 cases in termination cohort; 126

docket sheets (22%) have the word “seal” in them;

8 complete docket sheets (1.4%) were reviewed;

actual documents were examined for 6 cases

(1.0%); 5 cases (0.87%) appear to have sealed settlement agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

Jones-VanTassel v. Richland County (ND 3:99-cv00060 filed 04/16/1999).

Civil rights employment action by an emergency

manager against her former employer for wrongful termination based on sex. The transcript of the

settlement conference was sealed. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement.

United States v. BM&H Partnership (ND 3:99-cv00163 filed 11/17/1999).

Action under the Fair Housing Act by husband

and wife caretakers of an apartment complex for

wrongful termination and eviction. The complaint

alleged retaliation for aiding tenants in asserting

their right to fair housing. The transcript of the

settlement conference was sealed. The court approved the settlement on behalf of the plaintiffs’

three minor children.

Steen v. United States (ND 4:00-cv-00040 filed

03/21/2000).

Personal injury action under the Federal Tort

Claims Act by an Air Force base maintenance

worker who was employed by a civilian contractor, for sexual harassment and assault by a civilian employee who inspects the work of contractors. During the settlement conference the court

agreed to keep the settlement amount under seal.

About a month after the settlement conference,

the government filed a motion to unseal the settlement amount of $30,000 because confidentiality

provisions in settlement agreements are contrary

to the policy of the Department of Justice

Johnson v. Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. (ND 1:00-cv00047 filed 04/10/2000).

Personal injury action by a pharmaceutical sales

representative for wrongful termination based on

his felony conviction, which had been divulged to

the defendant prior to his employment. The parties settled at a pretrial conference. The court or-
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-89

dered that transcripts and any settlement documents that contain monetary amounts be sealed.

Binstock v. The Finder (ND 1:00-cv-00087 filed

07/14/2000).

Personal injury action under the Family Medical

Leave Act and state law by a woman who was

unaware that she was entitled to twelve weeks of

maternity leave and returned to work after five

weeks so that she would not lose her benefits. The

court granted summary judgment on the state law

claim of negligence. The transcript of the settlement conference was sealed.

Northern District of Oklahoma64

“No pleading, document, or record shall be

placed under seal without a prior, specific order

of the court finding good cause to do so.” N.D.

Okla. L.R. 79.1(D).

Statistics: 1,954 cases in termination cohort; 176

docket sheets (9.0%) have the word “seal” in

them; 35 complete docket sheets (1.8%) were reviewed; actual documents were examined for 15

cases (0.77%); 11 cases (0.56%) appear to have

sealed settlement agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

First National Bank and Trust Co. of Miami v. Ottawa

County Chapter of the American Cancer Society (OKN 4:99-cv-00691 filed 08/18/1999).

Contract action concerning the identity of the

rightful claimants of a $1.6 million residuary trust

fund. The case settled. The clerk’s minutes indicate that the court ordered the settlement agreement and the agreed order for distribution of

funds filed under seal. Shortly thereafter, two

sealed documents were filed with the court.

Whelan v. Saint John (OK-N 4:00-cv-00109 filed

02/07/2000).

Medical malpractice action against a plastic surgeon, alleging negligence and battery resulting in

serious permanent injury. The case was dismissed

as settled. The confidentiality order relating to the

case dismissal was filed under seal.

 

64. This district is included in the study because of

its good-cause rule.

Rogers v. Kaplan (OK-N 4:00-cv-00321 filed

04/19/2000).

Medical malpractice action on behalf of an incompetent person, alleging negligence in the administration of epidural anesthesia, which resulted in severe and permanent brain injury. The

case was dismissed as settled. The settlement

hearing transcript was sealed.

Ramsey v. Brighter Day Inc. (OK-N 4:00-cv-00593

filed 07/18/2000).

Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act for

failure to pay habilitation training specialists and

supervisors overtime compensation. The case was

dismissed as settled, and the confidential settlement agreement was filed under seal.

Doe v. City of Tulsa (OK-N 4:00-cv-00896 filed

10/18/2000).

Civil rights action alleging failure to take adequate precautions to avoid public disclosure of

the plaintiff’s medical condition. The case was

dismissed as settled. The court ordered all matters

related to the case sealed except for the agreed

judgment, which discloses the amount of settlement to be $9,000. The sealed documents include

the complaint, settlement conference report, and

administrative closing order.

Raimond v. Toys “R” Us—Delaware Inc. (OK-N

4:00-cv-01090 filed 12/29/2000).

Product liability action on behalf of a minor who

was severely injured by a dangerously designed

and manufactured water toy sold by the defendant. The case was dismissed as settled. Documents related to the joint settlement report hearing, including the court’s order dismissing the

case, were sealed.

Momper v. Hartford Life Insurance Co. (OK-N 4:01-

cv-00597 filed 08/10/2001).

Insurance action on behalf of a minor to recover

benefits for injuries incurred during a soccer

match. The case settled. The court approved the

settlement and ordered the transcript of the settlement proceedings sealed.

Sandoval v. Travelers Property Casualty (OK-N 4:01-

cv-00847 filed 11/15/2001).

Insurance action by a surviving spouse alleging

failure to pay benefits for the decedent’s lethal

injuries sustained in an automobile accident that

was caused by an uninsured motorist’s negli-
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-90

gence. The case settled. The court appointed a

guardian ad litem for the decedent’s minor child

and approved the settlement. The court order was

filed under seal.

Ainsworth v. Bailey Inc. (OK-N 4:02-cv-00191 filed

03/08/2002).

Civil rights action on behalf of children, alleging

race discrimination by the defendant’s hotel. The

case settled, and the court order approving the

settlement was sealed.

Impressions on Hold International Inc. v. AMFYOYO

LLC (OK-N 4:02-cv-00216 filed 03/21/2002).

Trademark infringement action alleging the attempted conversion of an on-hold message company and the wrongful use of the company’s

name. The defendants filed a counterclaim alleging breach of contract. The case settled, and the

court ordered the transcript of the settlement proceedings sealed.

United States ex. rel Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of

Oklahoma v. Humble Riggs & Associates LLC (OK-N

4:02-cv-00239 filed 04/01/2002).

Statutory action concerning the management of a

tobacco enterprise on United States property entrusted to an Indian tribe. The case settled. The

court granted the plaintiff’s motion to seal certain

filed documents, including the settlement agreement.

Eastern District of Pennsylvania

No relevant local rule.

Statistics: 19,520 cases in termination cohort;

655 docket sheets (3.4%) have the word “seal” in

them; 208 complete docket sheets (1.1%) were reviewed; actual documents were examined for 192

cases (0.98%); 183 cases (0.94%) appear to have

sealed settlement agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

Tara M. v. City of Philadelphia (PA-E 2:97-cv-01041

filed 02/11/1997).

Civil rights case involving a foster child who was

sexually abused and seriously burned by her foster parents. The plaintiff alleged that the foster

parents were not properly screened. After the

child was injured, the defendant failed to properly

treat the child’s physical and mental injuries. A

third-party complaint was filed by the Department of Human Services against the attorney who

was appointed counsel for the child. Another

third-party complaint was filed against the insurer of the company with which the defendant

contracted to provide foster care services. A petition for leave to compromise the minor’s claims

and the defendant’s response were sealed. The

order of dismissal reported that the settlement

amount was $4,310,000.

Lord v. Living Bridges (PA-E 2:97-cv-06355 filed

10/14/1997).

Personal injury case against an adoption agency

that falsely represented the background and

health status of three Mexican minors adopted by

the plaintiffs. A sealed settlement agreement was

filed.

Graco Children’s Products Inc. v. Regaldo

International LLC (PA-E 2:97-cv-06885 filed

11/10/1997).

Patent case involving a “foldable play yard.” The

defendant filed a sealed motion to enforce the

settlement agreement. Three months after the

motion was filed, the court denied it as moot, because the parties had filed a consent judgment

and voluntary permanent injunction. The consent

judgment noted that the defendant would pay the

plaintiff a set amount, but the amount was not

revealed.

Keyes v. Deere & Co. (PA-E 2:98-cv-00602 filed

02/06/1998).

Product liability case involving a minor. Early in

the case the mother was removed as plaintiff and

a guardian ad litem was appointed. The entire

case file is sealed. A settlement agreement is

among the sealed documents. The final entry on

the docket sheet reports that the minor received

$21,024.

Slater v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. (PA-E 2:98-

cv-01711 filed 03/31/1998).

Insurance case involving a workers’ compensation claim. The entire case was sealed. The plaintiff filed a motion to enforce the settlement

agreement. After a four-day jury trial, the case

was settled.

E.B. v. Easton Area School District (PA-E 2:99-cv00256 filed 01/19/1999).

Civil rights case involving a 13-year-old boy who

was assaulted by a teacher. The signed release

and order permitting compromise of the minor’s

claims were sealed.
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-91

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. Shapiro

(PA-E 2:99-cv-00526 filed 02/01/1999).

Securities fraud case involving a scheme to register, offer, and sell securities. A sealed settlement

agreement was filed.

Ruiz v. Metrobank of Philadelphia NA (PA-E 2:99-cv00655 filed 02/08/1999).

Contract action by a woman and her minor child

involving default on a promissory note. The petition to settle the minor’s claims was sealed. A

motion for sanctions included an exhibit revealing

that the minor received $224,455.

Miller v. Hygrade Food Products Corp. (PA-E 2:99-

cv-01087 filed 03/01/1999).

Employment class action by African-American

plaintiffs against their employer for race discrimination. The transcript of a settlement hearing was

sealed.

In re Air Crash Disaster Near Peggy’s Cove, Nova

Scotia on September 2, 1998 (MDL 1269 transferred

04/07/1999).65

Airline cases claiming that an aircraft crashed because of a malfunction in the in-flight entertainment center, killing 229 passengers and crew

members. A stipulation and order was filed under

seal in each member case on the same day that the

case was closed. 65

 

65. This multidistrict litigation includes 144 Pennsylvania Eastern member cases in our termination cohort: Tschudin v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (PA-E 2:99-

cv-02291 filed 05/04/1999); Dwek v. McDonnell

Douglas Corp. (PA-E 2:99-cv-02293 filed 05/04/1999);

Kalogridakis v. Swissair (PA-E 2:99-cv-02523 filed

05/17/1999); Arnaldi v. Sair Group (PA-E 2:99-cv-02524

filed 05/17/1999); Junod v. Swissair (PA-E 2:99-cv02528 filed 05/17/1999); Economopoulos v. Swissair

(PA-E 2:99-cv-02554 filed 05/18/1999); Kief v. Swissair

(PA-E 2:99-cv-02534 filed 05/19/1999); Kessler v. Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-02586 filed

05/19/1999); Librett v. Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E

2:99-cv-03146 filed 06/21/1999); Neuweiler v. Swissair

Transport Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-03147 filed 06/21/1999);

Lee v. Sair Group (PA-E 2:99-cv-03148 filed

06/21/1999); Harrity v. Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E

2:99-cv-03245 filed 06/25/1999); Scott v. Swissair

Transport Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-03753 filed 07/23/1999);

Rizza v. Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-03948

filed 08/04/1999); Wilson v. Swissair Transport Co.

(PA-E 2:99-cv-04058 filed 08/11/1999); Rogers v. Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-04193 filed

08/19/1999); Rogers v. Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E

2:99-cv-04194 filed 08/19/1999); Myers v. Swissair

 

Transport Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-04195 filed 08/19/1999);

Shuster v. Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-04235

filed 08/20/1999); Caripides v. Swissair Transport Co.

(PA-E 2:99-cv-04236 filed 08/20/1999); Watson v. Delta

Airlines Inc. (PA-E 2:99-cv-04869 filed 09/30/1999);

Estate of Tahmoush v. Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E

2:99-cv-04971 filed 10/07/1999); Diba v. Swissair

Transport Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-04972 filed 10/07/1999);

Troyon v. Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-05236

filed 10/22/1999); Estate of Colmery v. Swissair Group

(PA-E 2:99-cv-05269 filed 10/25/1999); Estate of Kleinman v. Delta Airlines Inc. (PA-E 2:99-cv-05316 filed

10/27/1999); Nelson v. Sair Group (PA-E 2:99-cv-05372

filed 10/29/1999); Lamotta v. Interactive Flight Technologies Inc. (PA-E 2:99-cv-05526 filed 11/08/1999);

Estate of Hopcraft v. Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E 2:99-

cv-05584 filed 11/09/1999); Arnaldi v. Sair Group (PAE 2:99-cv-05623 filed 11/12/1999); Diasparra v. Swissair

Group (PA-E 2:99-cv-05624 filed 11/12/1999); Thompson v. Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-05773 filed

11/19/1999); Estate of Kief v. Swissair (PA-E 2:99-cv05775 filed 11/19/1999); Smith v. Swissair Transport

Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-05776 filed 11/19/1999); Conley v.

Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-05778 filed

11/19/1999); Mann v. Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E

2:99-cv-05779 filed 11/19/1999); Estate of Gerety v.

Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-05780 filed

11/19/1999); McGinnis v. Interactive Flight Technologies Inc. (PA-E 2:99-cv-05809 filed 11/22/1999); Diasparra v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours and Co. (PA-E 2:99-

cv-05812 filed 11/22/1999); Alleaume v. Swissair

Transport Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-05854 filed 11/23/1999);

Monay v. Swissair (PA-E 2:99-cv-05855 filed

11/23/1999); Dwek v. Swissair (PA-E 2:99-cv-05857

filed 11/23/1999); Faherty v. Swissair Transport Co.

(PA-E 2:99-cv-05858 filed 11/23/1999); Wight v. Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-05860 filed

11/23/1999); Fetherolf v. Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E

2:99-cv-05861 filed 11/23/1999); Abady v. Swissair

Transport Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-05997 filed 12/01/1999);

Estate of Smith v. Swissair (PA-E 2:99-cv-06002 filed

12/01/1999); Mcginnis v. Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E

2:99-cv-06003 filed 12/01/1999); Hawkins v. Swissair

Transport Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-06004 filed 12/01/1999);

Amposta v. Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-06010

filed 12/01/1999); Dalmais-Kitzinger v. Swissair

Transport Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-06013 filed 12/01/1999);

Brown v. Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-06014

filed 12/01/1999); De Roussan v. Swissair Transport

Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-06019 filed 12/01/1999); Albertsen v.

Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-06024 filed

12/01/1999); Rizza v. Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E

2:99-cv-06026 filed 12/01/1999); Levina v. Swissair

Transport Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-06027 filed 12/01/1999);

St. George-Kreis v. Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E 2:99-

cv-06030 filed 12/01/1999); De Graef v. Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-06031 filed 12/01/1999); Estate

of Ezell v. Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-06032

filed 12/01/1999); Smith v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-92

 

and Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-06033 filed 12/01/1999); Kassel

v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours and Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-06035

filed 12/01/1999); Boure v. Sair Group (PA-E 2:99-cv06040 filed 12/01/1999); Valade v. Sair Group (PA-E

2:99-cv-06043 filed 12/01/1999); Richard v. Sair Group

(PA-E 2:99-cv-06044 filed 12/01/1999); Rossi v. Sair

Group (PA-E 2:99-cv-06046 filed 12/01/1999); Burckhardt v. Sair Group (PA-E 2:99-cv-06049 filed

12/01/1999); Babolat v. Sair Group (PA-E 2:99-cv-06050

filed 12/01/1999); Pavrette v. Sair Group (PA-E 2:99-cv06052 filed 12/01/1999); Baconnier v. Sair Group (PA-E

2:99-cv-06053 filed 12/01/1999); Foxford v. Sair Group

(PA-E 2:99-cv-06055 filed 12/01/1999); Gabourdes v.

Sair Group (PA-E 2:99-cv-06056 filed 12/01/1999);

Gardner v. Sair Group (PA-E 2:99-cv-06058 filed

12/01/1999); Salakhoutdinov v. Sair Group (PA-E 2:99-

cv-06059 filed 12/01/1999); Kenneth v. Sair Group (PAE 2:99-cv-06060 filed 12/01/1999); Levina v. Swissair

Transport Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-06061 filed 12/01/1999);

Bell v. Swissair (PA-E 2:99-cv-06075 filed 12/01/1999);

Burrus v. Swissair (PA-E 2:99-cv-06084 filed

12/02/1999); Mendo Martínez v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours and Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-06086 filed 12/02/1999);

Burrus v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours and Co. (PA-E 2:99-

cv-06087 filed 12/02/1999); Kief v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours and Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-06088 filed 12/02/1999);

Dwek v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours and Co. (PA-E 2:99-

cv-06093 filed 12/02/1999); Monay v. E.I. Dupont de

Nemours and Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-06094 filed

12/02/1999); Hastie v. Sair Group (PA-E 2:99-cv-06100

filed 12/02/1999); Dwek v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.

(PA-E 2:99-cv-06102 filed 12/02/1999); Baconnier v.

Sair Group (PA-E 2:99-cv-06110 filed 12/02/1999);

Mendo Martínez v. Swissair (PA-E 2:99-cv-06113 filed

12/02/1999); Mendo Martínez v. McDonnell Douglas

Corp. (PA-E 2:99-cv-06119 filed 12/02/1999); Alleaume

v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (PA-E 2:99-cv-06150 filed

12/03/1999); Thompson v. Swissair Transport Co. (PAE 2:99-cv-06169 filed 12/06/1999); de la SoudiereGerety v. Interactive Flight Technologies Inc. (PA-E

2:99-cv-06170 filed 12/06/1999); Scarboro v. McDonnell

Douglas Corp. (PA-E 2:99-cv-06172 filed 12/06/1999);

Estate of Mir-Alai v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (PA-E

2:99-cv-06173 filed 12/06/1999); Estate of Benjamin v.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. (PA-E 2:99-cv-06174 filed

12/06/1999); Estate of Makarevitch v. McDonnell

Douglas Corp. (PA-E 2:99-cv-06176 filed 12/06/1999);

Smith v. Interactive Flight Technologies Inc. (PA-E 2:99-

cv-06178 filed 12/06/1999); Jhurani v. Sair Group (PA-E

2:99-cv-06180 filed 12/06/1999); Schachter v. Sair

Group (PA-E 2:99-cv-06181 filed 12/06/1999); Wilkins

v. Sair Group (PA-E 2:99-cv-06182 filed 12/06/1999);

Estate of Mozes v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours and Co.

(PA-E 2:99-cv-06242 filed 12/08/1999); Kokoruda v.

Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-06267 filed

12/09/1999); Sheer v. Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E

2:99-cv-06268 filed 12/09/1999); Houtait v. Swissair

Transport Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-06269 filed 12/09/1999);

Karamanoukian v. Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E 2:99-

 

cv-06270 filed 12/09/1999); Smith v. Swissair (PA-E

2:99-cv-06418 filed 12/15/1999); Leite de Roussan v.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. (PA-E 2:99-cv-06438 filed

12/17/1999); Rizza v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (PA-E

2:99-cv-06443 filed 12/17/1999); Levina v. McDonnell

Douglas Corp. (PA-E 2:99-cv-06444 filed 12/17/1999);

Levina v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (PA-E 2:99-cv06446 filed 12/17/1999); St. George-Kreis v. McDonnell

Douglas Corp. (PA-E 2:99-cv-06448 filed 12/17/1999);

Sutton v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours and Co. (PA-E 2:99-

cv-06450 filed 12/17/1999); Ezell Brown v. Interactive

Flight Technologies Inc. (PA-E 2:99-cv-06497 filed

12/21/1999); Burghardt v. Swissair Transport Co. (PAE 2:99-cv-06537 filed 12/23/1999); Estate of Hoche v.

Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E 2:00-cv-00011 filed

01/03/2000); Beckett v. Sair Group (PA-E 2:00-cv-00130

filed 01/10/2000); Estate of Springer v. Sair Group (PAE 2:00-cv-00155 filed 01/11/2000); Mallin v. Sair Group

(PA-E 2:00-cv-00330 filed 01/18/2000); Viollet v.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. (PA-E 2:00-cv-00418 filed

01/24/2000); Viollet v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (PAE 2:00-cv-00419 filed 01/24/2000); Noceto v. McDonnell

Douglas Corp. (PA-E 2:00-cv-00420 filed 01/24/2000);

Viollet v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (PA-E 2:00-cv00421 filed 01/24/2000); Kennett v. Interactive Flight

Technologies Inc. (PA-E 2:00-cv-00422 filed

01/24/2000); Diasparra v. Interactive Flight Technologies Inc. (PA-E 2:00-cv-00694 filed 02/08/2000); Sutton

v. Interactive Flight Technologies Inc. (PA-E 2:00-cv00695 filed 02/08/2000); O’Gara v. Sair Group (PA-E

2:00-cv-00912 filed 02/18/2000); Rizza v. Interactive

Flight Technologies Inc. (PA-E 2:00-cv-01417 filed

03/20/2000); Estate of Milne v. Swissair (PA-E 2:00-cv02258 filed 05/01/2000); Estate of Ezell v. E.I. Dupont

de Nemours and Co. (PA-E 2:00-cv-02259 filed

05/01/2000); Estate of Hoche v. Swissair Transport Co.

(PA-E 2:00-cv-02623 filed 05/23/2000); Estate of Ikonomopoulou v. Interactive Flight Technologies Inc.

(PA-E 2:00-cv-02676 filed 05/25/2000); Rizza v. Santa

Barbara Aerospace Inc. (PA-E 2:00-cv-03558 filed

07/13/2000); Estate of Coppola v. Swissair Transport

Co. (PA-E 2:00-cv-04105 filed 08/14/2000); Kennett v.

Santa Barbara Aerospace Inc. (PA-E 2:00-cv-05281 filed

10/16/2000); Estate of Donaldson v. Swissair Transport

Co. (PA-E 2:00-cv-05495 filed 10/30/2000); Froghi v.

Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E 2:00-cv-05497 filed

10/30/2000); Gabourdes v. Sair Group (PA-E 2:00-cv05499 filed 10/30/2000); Scarboro v. Swissair (PA-E

2:00-cv-05526 filed 10/31/2000); Makarevitch v. Swissair (PA-E 2:00-cv-05527 filed 10/31/2000); Guely v.

Swissair (PA-E 2:00-cv-05528 filed 10/31/2000); Rizza

v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours and Co. (PA-E 2:00-cv-05557

filed 11/01/2000); Estate of Gerety v. Santa Barbara

Aerospace Inc. (PA-E 2:00-cv-05857 filed 11/16/2000);

Coop Generale d’Assurances SA v. Swissair (PA-E 2:00-

cv-06392 filed 12/18/2000); Lamotta v. Santa Barbara

Aerospace Inc. (PA-E 2:01-cv-00092 filed 01/08/2001);

Coop Generale d’Assurances SA v. McDonnell Douglas

Corp. (PA-E 2:01-cv-00200 filed 01/16/2001); Hoche v.
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-93

Monument Builders of Pennsylvania Inc. v. Catholic

Cemeteries Association (PA-E 2:99-cv-02030 filed

04/22/1999).

Antitrust case involving restraint of trade and

conspiracy to fix prices for monuments and markers. A settlement agreement was filed, but the

amount of the settlement was sealed. The plaintiff

filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement.

HomeNexus Inc. v. DirectWeb Inc. (PA-E 2:99-cv02316 filed 05/05/1999).

Trademark case involving theft and execution of

the plaintiff’s business plan for a computer and

Internet service. The plaintiff’s motion to dismiss

the case with prejudice pursuant to a settlement

agreement was sealed.

Valitek Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv03024 filed 06/15/1999).

Copyright case in which the entire record was

sealed. The court granted a joint motion to seal

the record of the negotiated settlement.

Talus v. D&L Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-03386 filed

07/02/1999).

Product liability action by the parents of an eightyear-old boy who suffered an eye injury while

playing with a ‘“Stomp Rocket” toy. A sealed settlement agreement was filed. An order approving

the petition to compromise the minor’s action reveals a settlement amount of $400,000.

Spaziani v. Chester County Hospital (PA-E 2:99-cv04172 filed 08/18/1999).

Medical malpractice case involving the premature

birth of the plaintiffs’ child, which resulted from a

misdiagnosis of an infection. The plaintiffs’ son

was born with cerebral palsy. The plaintiffs’ motion to approve the settlement was sealed.

Mahoney v. Daisy Manufacturing Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv04286 filed 08/25/1999).

Product liability action by the parents of a 16-

year-old boy who suffered a severe brain injury

when he was shot in the head with an air gun by a

friend. The plaintiffs alleged that the air gun was

defective because a BB became lodged in the internal parts of the gun and allowed numerous

 

Santa Barbara Aerospace Inc. (PA-E 2:01-cv-01722 filed

04/09/2001).

rounds of air to be fired, which caused the user to

erroneously believe the gun was empty. A thirdparty complaint was filed by the manufacturer

and distributor against the person who fired the

air gun. The petition to seal court documents related to the settlement was granted.

Dunkin’ Donuts Inc. v. Shree Dev Donut LLC (PA-E

2:99-cv-06655 filed 12/30/1999).

Trademark case involving continued use of the

“Dunkin’ Donuts” mark after termination of a

franchise agreement. The consent judgment was

sealed.

Holdsworth v. Allegheny University Medical Practices

at Hahnemann Hospital (PA-E 2:00-cv-02443 filed

05/11/2000).

ERISA and wrongful death action involving delay

and denial of benefits to provide the plaintiff’s

decedent minor daughter with health care services to treat her cancer. The court order approving

the settlement was filed under seal.

Villanova University v. Villanova Alumni Education

Foundation Inc. (PA-E 2:00-cv-03007 filed

06/13/2000).

Trademark case concerning an affiliation agreement. The tape of the settlement conference and

the order dismissing the case were sealed.

Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. v. Church of the Lord

Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith (PA-E 2:00-cv03320 filed 06/29/2000).

Insurance case against a church, its officers, and

other individuals. The entire case file is sealed.

The last document filed was a stipulation of dismissal.

Shumake v. Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc. (PA-E 2:00-

cv-03427 filed 07/06/2000).

Motor vehicle product liability action by the parents of a man who died in a car crash when the

restraint system failed in a 1994 Toyota Tercel in

which he was a passenger. A sealed settlement

agreement was filed.

InterDigital Communications Corp. v. Lomp (PA-E

2:00-cv-04579 filed 09/11/2000).

Labor litigation case involving breach of an employment contract. The plaintiff filed documents

under seal three weeks before the case was dismissed as settled. A sealed settlement agreement

apparently was filed.
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-94

Dusewicz v. National Casualty Co. (PA-E 2:00-cv04625 filed 09/12/2000).

Insurance action by a mother and father and their

four minor children against their health insurance

company for denying coverage of the minors’

Lyme disease. The plaintiffs’ petition to settle or

compromise a minor’s action was sealed.

Ford Motor Co. v. Cattco Marketing (PA-E 2:00-cv04672 filed 09/14/2000).

Trademark case involving infringement of the

“MOTORCRAFT” mark in the defendant’s Web

site domain name. A sealed settlement agreement

was filed.

Windowwizards Inc. v. Window Wholesalers Inc. (PAE 2:00-cv-04679 filed 09/14/2000).

Trademark case alleging unfair competition in

making disparaging remarks about the plaintiff’s

window product to potential customers. Three

months after the case was dismissed, a sealed

consent order was filed.

Coles v. University of Pennsylvania Health System

(PA-E 2:00-cv-05178 filed 10/12/2000).

Employment action by an African-American female dietetic assistant based on sex, race, and age

discrimination. One day before the case was dismissed, the record of a status conference was

sealed.

Pilotti v. Bell (PA-E 2:00-cv-05695 filed

11/08/2000).

Employment action by a sales assistant against

her former employer for sexual harassment. The

plaintiff filed a sealed motion to enforce the settlement agreement. Three days later the plaintiff

withdrew the motion.

Estate of Bailey v. NBC News Productions Inc. (PA-E

2:00-cv-05717 filed 11/09/2000).

Product liability action by the estate of a man who

died when he fell 100 feet while installing a cable

on a television tower. A third-party complaint

was brought against the manufacturer of the clip

used by the decedent to attach his harness to the

hoisting line. The petition for approval of settlement and the order approving settlement were

sealed.

Booth v. Grand Pacific Finance Corp. (PA-E 2:00-cv06034 filed 11/28/2000).

Contract case involving breach of a graphic design and printing services contract. The plaintiff

filed a sealed motion to enforce the settlement

agreement. The court denied the motion as moot,

but the order contained settlement terms that

were crossed out.

Susavage v. Bucks County Schools Intermediate Unit

No. 22 (PA-E 2:00-cv-06217 filed 12/08/2000).

Civil rights action by the parents of a handicapped child who died from injuries sustained

when she was strangled by an ill-fitting safety

harness while being transported to school. The

tape of the settlement conference was sealed.

McCollins v. Woods Services Inc. (PA-E 2:01-cv00110 filed 01/08/2001).

Personal injury action by a woman and her 12-

year-old son, who was sexually abused by a 15-

year-old student at a private residential school for

the mentally retarded. The plaintiffs’ petition to

approve the settlement and the order approving

settlement were sealed.

Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Schmalz (PA-E 2:01-cv00361 filed 01/24/2001).

Contract action involving breach of an employment agreement and misappropriation of trade

secrets. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Millard v. Nasoya Foods Inc. (PA-E 2:01-cv-01313

filed 03/20/2001).

Motor vehicle personal injury action by the estate

of a man who was burned to death when the defendants’ tractor-trailer crashed into his car. A

sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Slaymaker v. Rival Co. (PA-E 2:01-cv-03912 filed

08/02/2001).

Product liability action by the father of an 11-

month-old boy who sustained serious burns as a

result of coming in contact with hot oil spilled

from the defendant’s multi-cooker. The plaintiff

alleged that the cooker had a design defect that

allowed it to slide off of surfaces. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Eisen v. Temple University (PA-E 2:01-cv-04165

filed 08/15/2001).

Employment action by a tenured mathematics

professor against his former employers, who fired
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-95

him when he refused to pass all students in a remedial math class. The same day that the case was

closed, a court order, presumably containing

terms of the settlement, was sealed. The defendant filed a settlement statement the same day,

stating that the plaintiff did not have evidence to

support grade inflation.

Harris v. Rohm & Haas Co. (PA-E 2:01-cv-05184

filed 10/12/2001).

Employment action by an African-American

woman alleging race discrimination with respect

to promotion and compensation. The defendant

filed a sealed motion to enforce the settlement

agreement. The plaintiff’s response to the motion

also was sealed. The court granted the defendant’s motion to enforce.

Burgee v. Vision Quest Ltd. (PA-E 2:01-cv-05948

filed 11/28/2001).

Civil rights action by an African-American treatment family advocate, who suffered from posttraumatic stress disorder, against his former employer for discrimination based on age and disability. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Ely v. Doylestown Lumber and Millwork Inc. (PA-E

2:02-cv-00423 filed 01/25/2002).

Employment action by a delivery driver against

his former employer for age discrimination. A

sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Medina v. Rose Art Industries Inc. (PA-E 2:02-cv01864 filed 04/05/2002).

Product liability action by the parents of a minor

child who suffered burns while playing with a

“Creative Case Soap Making” art project. The

plaintiffs’ motion to settle and compromise the

minor’s action was sealed.

Dougherty v. Dougherty (PA-E 2:02-cv-06683 filed

08/09/2002).

Civil rights action by the mother of a 13-year-old

boy who was grabbed by a police officer while

walking home, verbally assaulted, beaten, and

arrested for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. The petition to settle or compromise the minor’s claims was sealed.

Middle District of Pennsylvania

Court documents are unsealed two years after the

case is over, unless good cause is shown. M.D.

Penn. L.R. 79.5.

Statistics: 4,678 cases in termination cohort; 520

docket sheets (11%) have the word “seal” in them;

25 complete docket sheets (0.53%) were reviewed;

actual documents were examined for 12 cases

(0.26%); 10 cases (0.21%) appear to have sealed

settlement agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

Gould Inc. v. A & M Battery & Tire Service (PA-M

3:91-cv-01714 filed 12/23/1991).

Environmental action seeking declaratory judgment under CERCLA for causing pollution on the

plaintiff’s property. After a bench trial the court

ordered that the defendants were responsible for

25% of the cleanup costs. The plaintiff filed two

motions to enforce two settlement agreements

with three of the defendants. The two settlement

agreements were filed as sealed attachments to

the motion. One motion was withdrawn, and the

court ordered that the second settlement agreement could not be enforced because the attorney

did not have the authority to settle. The plaintiff

was awarded approximately $10 million by the

remaining forty-two defendants. The plaintiff

filed three sealed motions to enforce the settlement agreement against three of the remaining

defendants.

Havenstrite v. Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc. (PA-M

3:93-cv-00120 filed 01/26/1993).

Personal injury action that was consolidated with

two other cases. The lead case involved an employee of a battery-crushing and lead-processing

facility who suffered health problems when exposed to excessive quantities of lead. After the

cases were consolidated all filings occurred in the

lead case. The two companion cases involved

families with residences near the processing facility. After an eight-day bench trial, the court

awarded $130,000 to four children who suffered

from learning disabilities as a result of lead exposure. The plaintiffs’ claims of diminution of property value and loss of use and enjoyment were

dismissed. Two other plaintiffs were awarded

$145,000 for injuries caused by lead exposure. The

approval of a partial distribution of funds was

sealed.

Doe v. Chamberlin (PA-M 3:97-cv-01765 filed

11/18/1997).

Personal injury action by the parents of minors

ages 15 and 16 who were photographed by the

defendants in sexually suggestive positions. The

plaintiffs filed a sealed motion to enforce the set-
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-96

tlement agreement. The court granted the motion

to enforce a settlement amount of $350,000. The

transcript of the hearing to enforce was sealed.

Van Arsdale v. Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc. (PA-M

1:99-cv-02206 filed 12/22/1999).

Product liability action involving the death of a

man who suffered head injuries while operating a

Toyota fork-lift. A sealed settlement agreement

was filed.

First Union National Bank v. Solfanelli (PA-M 3:00-

cv-00732 filed 04/21/2000).

Statutory action involving an appeal of a bankruptcy judgment. The defendant had defaulted on

a stipulation and security agreement with the

plaintiff that was initiated during the defendant’s

bankruptcy. The plaintiff decided to liquidate

stock collateral that the defendant had pledged,

but the defendant still owed $1,191,496. The defendant filed an adversary proceeding against the

plaintiff, alleging that it violated the agreement,

and the court ruled in favor of the defendant and

deemed the entire debt satisfied. The same day

that the case settled, two sealed documents were

filed.

Fessler v. Losch Plumbing & Heating Inc. (PA-M

3:00-cv-01456 filed 08/14/2000).

Statutory action under the Family and Medical

Leave Act by a husband and wife who were

wrongfully terminated after they took time off

after the birth of their child. The tape of a settlement conference was sealed.

Sampson v. Wayne Memorial Hospital (PA-M 3:00-

cv-01581 filed 09/06/2000).

Medical malpractice action by the parents of a

minor who was misdiagnosed by the defendants

and subsequently lost his right testicle. The plaintiffs’ petition to approve distribution of funds was

sealed.

Graham Packaging Co. v. Mooney (PA-M 1:00-cv02027 filed 11/20/2000).

Patent case involving “blown-finish hot fill containers.” The last entry on the docket sheet notes

that all documents in the case were sealed. A joint

sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Bosserman v. Lloyd-Silber Orthopedics Inc. (PA-M

1:01-cv-02288 filed 12/03/2001).

ERISA action by a woman against her former employer for withholding $18,771 in principal from

her employee stock ownership trust account. A

sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Mizerak v. Webster Trucking Corp. (PA-M 3:02-cv00277 filed 02/20/2002).

Motor vehicle case in which one defendant’s car

struck the plaintiffs’ van from behind while it was

stopped in traffic and then forced it into another

lane of a highway, where it was hit by another

defendant’s tractor-trailer. This accident resulted

in the death of the plaintiffs’ youngest child, injury to two other minor children, and a traumatic

injury that has left the father in a vegetative state.

The court granted the plaintiffs’ sealed petition to

approve the settlement. The order noted that the

allocation of $120,000 was to be used for the benefit of the father’s medical care.

Western District of Pennsylvania

No relevant local rule.

Statistics: 6,218 cases in termination cohort; 306

docket sheets (4.9%) have the word “seal” in

them; 44 complete docket sheets (0.71%) were reviewed; actual documents were examined for 20

cases (0.32%); 16 cases (0.26%) appear to have

sealed settlement agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

Koppers Co. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. (PA-W

2:85-cv-02136 filed 09/16/1985).

Insurance case involving a manufacturing company’s coverage for chemical-waste liability.

Shortly before trial, the plaintiff settled with most

of the insurance companies. At least some of these

settlement agreements were confidential and filed

under seal. A jury awarded the plaintiff

$70,072,341. The court reduced the verdict against

the remaining defendants to account for the limits

of the insurance policies and the amounts of settlement.

Keystone Powdered Metal Co. v. Borg-Warner

Automotive Morse TEC Corp. (PA-W 1:98-cv-00106

filed 03/24/1998).

Contract case involving breach of a confidentiality

agreement and a supply agreement. A sealed motion and six sealed documents were filed two

days before the case was closed.
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-97

SGL Carbon Corp. v. Dupenn Inc. (PA-W 1:98-cv00231 filed 08/12/1998).

Personal property damage case involving misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of an employment contract, and breach of fiduciary duties.

A sealed settlement agreement was filed as an

attachment to the stipulation of dismissal. The

court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement until the conclusion of the terms

of the agreement.

CCL Container (Hermitage) Inc. v. Exal Corp. (PA-W

2:98-cv-01786 filed 10/28/1998).

Patent case involving infringement of a “method

of forming a metal container having an elongated

neck.” A joint sealed settlement agreement was

filed.

Joseph v. Sears Roebuck & Co. (PA-W 1:99-cv-00013

filed 01/20/1999).

Personal injury action by the parents of a minor

who injured her face in the defendant’s store

when she fell into glass shelving. The plaintiffs’

motion for settlement was filed under seal.

T.M. v. Perry (PA-W 2:99-cv-00831 filed

05/27/1999).

Personal injury case involving the sexual abuse of

the plaintiffs’ 11-year-old granddaughter by her

minor cousin while visiting her aunt and uncle

over the summer. The plaintiffs’ motion for settlement of the minor’s claims was filed under seal.

United States ex rel. Diehl v. Three Rivers Family

Hospice Inc. (PA-W 2:00-cv-00077 filed

01/12/2000).

Qui tam action under the False Claims Act for

fraudulent Medicare billing against providers of

rehabilitative medical services. The plaintiff filed

a settlement agreement as an attachment to a motion to enforce. Two weeks later the court sealed

the motion and the settlement agreement.

Etzel v. General McLane School District (PA-W 1:00-

cv-00032 filed 01/28/2000).

Civil rights case involving a middle school student who was suspended from school without a

hearing for using the word “kill” in a talent show

video. The parties filed a sealed motion for approval of settlement. One month after the case

was dismissed, the court granted a newspaper’s

request to unseal the motion. The motion included a letter to the student’s parents stating that

the school district was “satisfied that violent action was not intended” by the plaintiff. The motion for approval did not disclose any other terms

of settlement.

Southwest Recreational Industries Inc. v. Turf USA

Installations Inc. (PA-W 2:00-cv-00342 filed

02/23/2000).

Designated a slander case, this case is really an

unfair competition case that includes causes of

action for commercial disparagement and defamation and involves a synthetic sports surface

product. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Angelo v. General Motors Corp. (PA-W 2:00-cv00871 filed 05/04/2000).

Product liability case. The court granted a joint

motion to approve the minor’s settlement and seal

the record. All documents were sealed.

Benson v. First Energy Nuclear Operating Co. (PA-W

2:00-cv-01101 filed 06/05/2000).

Designated an employment discrimination case,

this is really a class action under the Fair Labor

Standards Act by power plant employees for failure to pay overtime wages. A sealed settlement

agreement was filed.

Aguirre v. Alamo Rent-A-Car Inc. (PA-W 2:00-cv01374 filed 07/14/2000).

Motor vehicle action by a woman injured in an

accident. The transcripts from two settlement conferences were sealed. The case was dismissed as

settled twelve days after the second sealed settlement conference.

Performance Health Inc. v. Kustomer Kinetics Inc.

(PA-W 2:00-cv-02323 filed 11/22/2000).

Trademark infringement case involving “analgesic balm” products. The defendant’s motion to

enforce the settlement agreement was sealed.

Estate of Grannis v. City of New Castle (PA-W 2:01-

cv-00033 filed 01/04/2001).

Civil rights action by the estate of a man who

committed suicide while being held for public

drunkenness and disorderly conduct at the defendant’s jail. In the order closing the case, the

court noted that the case was settled and ordered

the parties to file a motion to approve settlement.

Ten days later the plaintiff filed a sealed motion.
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-98

Smith v. City of Monessen (PA-W 2:01-cv-00744

filed 04/26/2001).

Civil rights case in which the police removed an

11-year-old from the custody of her mother and

did not allow her mother to accompany her

daughter to the hospital. The police released the

minor into the custody of a non–family member,

who sexually abused her. The court denied the

defendant’s sealed motion to enforce the settlement agreement. The joint motion for dismissal

noted that the minor would receive $359.71 per

month for ten years after she turned 18. The settlement also provided for $4,000 for future burial

of the mother and $9,200 for attorney fees.

APT Acquisition Corp. v. Southwest Recreational

Industries Inc. (PA-W 2:01-cv-01893 filed

10/10/2001).

Designated a patent case, this case is really a

trademark infringement case involving a polyurethane product. A sealed consent judgment was

filed.

District of Puerto Rico

No relevant local rule.

Statistics: 3,562 cases in termination cohort; 223

docket sheets (6.3%) have the word “seal” in

them; 159 complete docket sheets (4.5%) were reviewed; actual documents were examined for 120

cases (3.4%); 117 cases (3.3%) appear to have

sealed settlement agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

Generadora de Electricidad del Caribe Inc. v. Foster

Wheeler Corp. (PR 3:94-cv-01405 filed 03/29/1994).

Designated a personal injury action, this is really a

contract action concerning a partnership to construct a $200 million electric plant in the Dominican Republic. In their third amended complaint,

the plaintiffs added a claim for development of

stress-related lupus by one of the principals. Several defendants filed counterclaims under seal.

The case was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement.

Guillemard Noble v. Sánchez Rodríguez (PR 3:94-cv01961 filed 07/14/1994).

Motor vehicle action for permanent brain injury

by a passenger in an automobile crash that killed

the driver. The plaintiff alleged that two defendants were racing their cars, and one of them hit a

five-foot-tall mound of dirt, constructed by other

defendants, causing the car to fly and hit the car

in which the plaintiff was riding. The dirt mound

was created in excavation for a warehouse’s water

pipe, and the plaintiff named as defendants various entities associated with the excavation. The

defendants filed cross-claims against each other.

The plaintiff settled with all defendants pursuant

to sealed settlement agreements, but the court was

asked to decide whether the warehouse owners’

insurance policy covered the action. The court

decided that it did not, and the warehouse owners

appealed. The court of appeals affirmed. An unsealed order discloses that the warehouse owners’

share of settlement obligations was $126,500.

Serrano Moran v. Toledo Davila (PR 3:96-cv-01383

filed 03/29/1996).

Civil rights action by the parents of a mentally

impaired man who was beaten by the police during an arrest and later died of his injuries. The

medical malpractice claims against the hospital

were dismissed. A sealed settlement agreement

was filed. The court granted a motion for disbursement of funds in the amount of $40,103 to

the plaintiffs.

Landrau Romero v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (PR

3:96-cv-01470 filed 04/16/1996).

Employment action for wrongful constructive

termination because of race. The case was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement

approved by the court.

Dominguez Cruz v. Suttle Caribe Inc. (PR 3:96-cv01611 filed 05/20/1996).

Statutory action for wrongful termination because

of age. The court granted summary judgment to

the defendant on the federal claims and dismissed

the state claims without prejudice, but the court of

appeals reversed the summary judgment. The

case settled on the eve of trial, but a dispute arose

over the terms of settlement, such as confidentiality. An unsealed “motion in further support of

motion for entry of judgment” discloses the

amount of settlement to be $250,000. The parties

resolved their dispute by sealed stipulation.

Gines Vega v. Crowley American Transport Inc. (PR

3:96-cv-01638 filed 05/24/1996).

Motor vehicle action against the owner of a trailer

hauled by a trucker who sped through a red light

and collided with a car, killing the car’s driver

and three passengers and injuring the fourth passenger. The plaintiffs included the injured passenger and many relatives of the deceased and

injured, including minors. The trailer’s owner
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-99

filed a third-party complaint against the driver,

the driver’s employer, the truck’s owner, the consignee of the cargo, insurance companies, and

conjugal partnerships of the individuals. Crossclaims and third-party complaints also were filed.

The case was consolidated with three other related actions. A sealed settlement agreement was

filed. Unsealed documents indicate that the entire

litigation included several half-million-dollar settlements.

Herrera v. Ports Authority of the Commonwealth of

Puerto Rico (PR 3:96-cv-01743 filed 06/19/1996).

Employment action by a chief of purchases clerk

and her minor children against her former employer for race and political discrimination. A

sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Arrivi Cros v. Torres Rivera (PR 3:96-cv-02216 filed

10/07/1996).

Employment action by attorneys against the

president of the Industrial Commission of Puerto

Rico for wrongful demotion and termination because of political party affiliation. The case was

dismissed pursuant to sealed settlement agreements with each plaintiff. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to show cause why settlement payments were not made on time, and just

over two weeks later the defendant deposited a

check for $125,000 with the court. The plaintiffs

then filed an unsealed motion for disbursement of

funds, specifying individual settlements of

$53,000, $40,000, and $32,000. The following

month the court issued checks for $53,175.08,

$40,133.39, and $32,108.40.

Saavedra Rodriguez v. Enron Corp. (PR 3:96-cv02443 filed 11/22/1996).

Personal injury action consolidated with over 500

other cases and including over 1,500 plaintiffs

against a gas company for deaths and injuries resulting from a massive gas explosion. Additional

actions were filed in commonwealth court. The

litigation is sometimes referred to as the Rio Piedras Explosion Litigation. The 632-page docket

sheet catalogs 3,685 documents. Over the course

of the litigation, there were numerous settlements,

and there appear to be some settlement agreements filed under seal. It appears that settlement

amounts sum to several dozen million dollars.

Some settlement payments were jeopardized by

Enron’s bankruptcy.

San Antonio Mendoza v. WMS Industries (PR 3:97-

cv-01717 filed 05/07/1997).

Labor litigation by three casino employees against

their former employer for age discrimination and

failure to pay minimum wage. A sealed settlement agreement was filed. Eleven months later

the court granted a disbursement of funds in the

amount of $28,083 to one plaintiff and her minor

child.

González Sampayo v. Fuentes Agostini (PR 3:97-cv01784 filed 05/20/1997).

Civil rights action by two special agents of Puerto

Rico’s justice department against the department

for interfering with their investigation of a senator’s drug trafficking and other organized crime

involvement. The case was dismissed pursuant to

a sealed settlement agreement. An unsealed motion for consignment states that the department of

justice paid $50,000 in settlement. The court subsequently released $50,193.67.

Rivera Rodgríguez v. Frito Lay Snacks Caribbean Inc.

(PR 3:97-cv-01825 filed 05/28/1997).

Employment action for wrongful termination of a

human resources director. The plaintiff alleged

that after the defendant’s Puerto Rico operation

came under the control of the defendant’s Mexican office, he was terminated because he was over

40 (he was 46), he was Puerto Rican, and he had a

history of chronic asthma and lymphoma. The

case was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement.

Caribe Shipping Co. v. Puerto Rico Ports Authority

(PR 3:97-cv-01837 filed 05/30/1997).

Bankruptcy withdrawal. A shipping company

filed for bankruptcy and sought an injunction

against eviction by the port authority. The port

authority filed a third-party action against the

shipping company’s principals for $1.2 million in

back rent, penalties, and interest. The adversary

actions were withdrawn to the district court. The

case was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement.

Howe Investment Ltd. v. Perez & Compania de Puerto

Rico Inc. (PR 3:97-cv-01864 filed 06/05/1997).

Contract action for $1.5 million unpaid in an

agreement to buy stevedoring services stock options for $4,250,000. The case was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement.
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-100

Valles Santiago v. General Motors Corp. (PR 3:97-cv02209 filed 08/12/1997).

Motor vehicle product liability case against the

manufacturer and designer of a Chevrolet van.

The plaintiffs’ van was parked in the emergency

lane on a roadway and was struck behind by another car, which caused the fuel tank to explode.

Two children died, and three other children and

three adults were seriously burned. The plaintiffs

alleged a failure to warn and that the van had a

faulty fuel system, bumper, and chassis because of

manufacturing and design defects. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Pandolfi de Rinaldis v. Varela Llavona (PR 3:97-cv02699 filed 11/18/1997).

Civil rights action by an executive director for

wrongful termination after he denounced his coworkers’ irregular use of council funds. A sealed

settlement agreement was filed. The court granted

disbursement of funds in the amount of $27,586 to

the plaintiff.

Mejías Miranda v. BBII Acquisition Corp. (PR 3:98-

cv-01107 filed 02/06/1998).

Labor litigation alleging wrongful termination

following pregnancy complications. The case was

dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement approved by the court.

Colón v. Hospital Damas Inc. (PR 3:98-cv-01237 filed

03/09/1998).

Medical malpractice action alleging that a patient’s treatment for a sore shoulder ultimately

resulted in extensive brain surgery for a nonexistent tumor, which rendered the patient permanently comatose. The plaintiffs were the patient’s

wife, two minor sons, parents, brother, and sister.

The sixteen defendants included physicians and

corporate medical service providers. Nine defendants settled for $4,000 each. After additional litigation, the remaining defendants settled for an

additional $2,250,000 total, and a sealed settlement agreement showing how much each defendant contributed was filed.

Batiste Perez v. Cruz (PR 3:98-cv-01267 filed

03/16/1998).

Civil rights action by three municipal officials

against the new municipal administration for politically motivated curtailments of responsibility.

The case was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement.

Portalatin v. Feliciano de Melecio (PR 3:98-cv-01336

filed 04/01/1998).

Employment action for wrongful constructive

discharge because of party affiliation. The case

was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement

agreement.

Rosado v. Puerto Rico Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. (PR

3:98-cv-01384 filed 04/09/1998).

Contract action alleging that the defendant employer induced the plaintiff to transfer from the

employer’s operations in Puerto Rico to operations in Brazil without disclosing that he would

lose substantial employment benefits. The case

was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement

agreement.

Ramírez Cancel v. Loomis Fargo and Co. (PR 3:98-cv01574 filed 05/27/1998).

Civil rights action for the wrongful identification

of five adults and one minor as suspects in an

armed robbery. The case was dismissed pursuant

to a sealed settlement agreement.

FAC Inc. v. Cooperativa de Seguros de Vida (PR 3:98-

cv-01592 filed 05/29/1998).

RICO action by a company with the responsibility

for filing Medicare claims on behalf of Puerto

Rico’s health department against a company with

the responsibility for reviewing such claims. The

plaintiff alleged that the defendant sought illegal

kickbacks for approving the claims. The defendants filed a counterclaim, alleging defamation.

The case was dismissed as settled, and the plaintiff filed a sealed motion to enforce it. The matter

was resolved, and the plaintiff’s principals were

paid $1,521,416.58 by docketed check.

Madre v. Ortíz Ramos (PR 3:98-cv-01594 filed

06/01/1998).

Civil rights action by a mother and her two

daughters, age four and six, for wrongful removal

of the daughters to foster care, where they were

sexually abused. All plaintiffs appeared by pseudonyms. The case was dismissed pursuant to a

sealed settlement agreement. Docketed attorney

fees and expenses were $106,933.92.

Ramos Christian v. Ochoa Fertilizer Co. (PR 3:98-cv01987 filed 08/28/1998).

Employment action by an administrative manager

for wrongful termination. The plaintiffs included

the employee, his wife, and their children. The
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-101

case settled on the morning scheduled for trial,

and the court approved a sealed settlement

agreement.

Colón Mulero v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. (PR 3:98-

cv-02090 filed 09/29/1998).

Motor vehicle product liability action for injuries

suffered when a Mitsubishi Expo’s air bags deployed in a low-speed head-on collision. A

month-old baby riding in her mother’s arms became a quadriplegic. The mother also was injured.

A second child and the woman’s mother also

were in the accident and were plaintiffs in the

case. The case was dismissed pursuant to a sealed

settlement agreement approved by the court.

Alvarado Rivera v. American Airlines Inc. (PR 3:98-

cv-02120; filed 10/06/1998).

Airplane case consisting of twelve cases (three

from the Virgin Islands) that were transferred by

the MDL Panel to the District of Puerto Rico as

MDL 1284. This case became the lead case and

was filed against the airline and engine manufacturer of a plane that was forced to make an

emergency landing after the engine caught fire.

The plaintiffs were injured while exiting the plane

using the inflatable ramps. A sealed stipulation

was filed to approve the settlement agreements of

minor plaintiffs in two member cases.

Vázquez Casas v. Commercial Development

Administration (PR 3:98-cv-02198 filed

10/22/1998).

Designated a civil rights prisoner petition, this is

really an employment sex discrimination action

by the former director of the Commonwealth of

Puerto Rico’s Commercial Development Administration’s Center in Caguas for wrongful termination. The case was dismissed pursuant to a sealed

settlement agreement, and the plaintiff was paid

$85,000, according to the docket sheet.

Quinones González v. Loomis Fargo & Co. (PR 3:98-

cv-02248 filed 11/04/1998).

Labor–management relations action by an armored truck driver against his union for breach of

a collective bargaining agreement by failing to

request arbitration or appeal his dismissal. A

sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Meléndez Arroyo v. Cutler-Hammer de P.R. Co. (PR

3:98-cv-02395 filed 12/14/1998).

Labor litigation by a 58-year-old accountant

against her former employer for age discrimination. The district court granted the defendant

summary judgment, but the court of appeals reversed. The case subsequently was dismissed

pursuant to a sealed judgment, which was followed by a sealed motion brought jointly by the

parties and a sealed order.

Bernabel Díaz v. Detroit Diesel Allison Division (PR

3:99-cv-01002 filed 01/04/1999).

Product liability action by a Coast Guard engineer

who lost a thumb and three fingers from his

dominant hand while servicing a ship’s diesel

engine. The case was dismissed as settled, and

settlement terms pertaining to payment to a minor dependent were sealed.

Garcia Medina v. Compagnie Generale des Eaux (PR

3:99-cv-01114 filed 02/02/1999).

Designated a civil rights action, this really is an

action by a Puerto Rican woman claiming sex and

national origin discrimination in employment.

The case was dismissed pursuant to a settlement

agreement approved and sealed by the court.

Algarin Rodríguez v. Santiago Rivera (PR 3:99-cv01178 filed 02/17/1999).

Personal injury action by the wife of a man who

was killed when a truck carrying chemicals exploded, blowing the truck’s doors into her husband’s car. The defendants include the truck

driver, the owner of the truck, the company that

provided maintenance for the truck, the owner of

the chemicals being transported, and the owner of

the container in which the chemicals were stored.

Both the truck driver and the maintenance company filed cross-claims against all other defendants. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.

An informative motion by the owner of the

chemicals revealed a payment to the plaintiff of

$65,000.

Cintrón Parrilla v. Eli Lilly Industries Inc. (PR 3:99-

cv-01229 filed 03/05/1999).

ERISA action for disability benefits by a chemist

who developed carpal tunnel syndrome and thoracic outlet syndrome. The defendants filed a motion to enforce a settlement agreement, specifying

the amount of settlement to be $60,000. The case

was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement

agreement, but the plaintiff filed a letter pro se

asking the court’s help concerning some settlement terms. The case continues.
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-102

Rios Reyes v. Wackenhut Corrections Corp. (PR 3:99-

cv-01306 filed 03/24/1999).

Prisoner civil rights action by an incarcerated

former police officer, alleging that the defendants

subjected him to disparate and highly restrictive

conditions of confinement while in administrative

segregation and refused to transfer him to another

facility in direct violation of court orders. A sealed

settlement agreement was filed. The court granted

the motion to disburse $8,500 in funds to the

plaintiff.

Ojeda del Rio v. Pfizer Pharmaceuticals Inc. (PR 3:99-

cv-01398 filed 04/13/1999).

Designated a personal injury action, this is an

employment discrimination action by a chemical

plant worker, alleging failure to accommodate his

diabetes, ulcers, and carpal tunnel syndrome. The

action was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement.

Figueroa Rodríguez v. Volkswagen of America Inc.

(PR 3:99-cv-01422 filed 04/16/1999).

Motor vehicle product liability action for complications from a fractured arm, which resulted from

a Volkswagen Golf’s airbag exploding in a fenderbender. The plaintiffs filed a sealed informative

motion on September 18, which the court granted

“until October 19.” The parties filed a stipulation

for dismissal on October 3, and the case was dismissed on October 18. The sealed motion probably contained terms of settlement.

Caraballo Rodríguez v. Clark Equipment Co. (PR 3:99-

cv-01446 filed 04/26/1999).

Product liability action by two construction workers against the manufacturer of a crane that

dropped a four-ton load on their legs, causing

each to lose a leg and suffer permanent disabilities

in the remaining leg. The case was dismissed by

sealed judgment pursuant to a settlement agreement.

Yannello v. Patriot American Hospitality Inc. (PR

3:99-cv-01597 filed 06/01/1999).

Personal injury action for a fractured ankle suffered by the plaintiff when using a Wave Runner

personal water craft at a resort. The plaintiff alleged that the injury resulted from improper

training for the plaintiff. The plaintiff also alleged

improper medical treatment of the ankle. The action was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement. After the case was closed, the

plaintiff filed a motion to seize assets of the renter

of the Wave Runner for nonpayment of its $15,000

(12%) settlement contribution. (This implies that

the total amount of settlement was $125,000.) The

defendant paid $12,500 of the amount owed, and

the court subsequently issued a writ of attachment for the remaining amount due.

Santiago Marrero v. Laboy Alvarado (PR 3:99-cv01601 filed 06/02/1999).

Civil rights action for the group rape of a 17-yearold pretrial detainee who was improperly housed

with young adults. The minor appeared in court

papers by his initials; his parents appeared by

their full names. The case was dismissed pursuant

to a sealed settlement agreement.

Muniz Suffront v. Bidot de Jesus (PR 3:99-cv-01616

filed 06/04/1999).

Civil rights prisoner petition for inadequate medical care. After jury selection, the case was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement.

Hernández Alfonso v. San Juan Motors Co. (PR 3:99-

cv-01620 filed 06/04/1999).

Employment action by a salesman against his

former employer for age discrimination. A sealed

settlement agreement was filed.

Lorenzo Carrero v. Caribbean Refrescos Inc. (PR 3:99-

cv-01708 filed 06/25/1999).

Employment action for wrongful termination and

failure to accommodate foot pain arising from

psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. The case was

dismissed pursuant to a sealed judgment incorporating terms of settlement.

Microsoft Corp. v. Computer Shack Inc. (PR 3:99-cv01757 filed 07/06/1999).

Copyright case for unlawful distribution and sale

of counterfeit computer programs. The complaint

was temporarily sealed. The court awarded the

plaintiff a partial judgment of $9,354. A sealed

settlement agreement was filed.

Majewska v. Bared & Sons Inc. (PR 3:99-cv-01770

filed 07/08/1999).

Employment action by a jewelry salesperson for

sexual harassment. The case was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement approved

by the court.
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-103

Cruz Jiménez v. Mueblerias Delgado Inc. (PR 3:99-cv01792 filed 07/14/1999).

ERISA action for failure to notify the plaintiff of

his COBRA rights upon his termination. The case

was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement

agreement.

Carl v. Cohen (PR 3:99-cv-01810 filed 07/19/1999).

Employment action by a naval base elementary

school teacher for the school’s refusal to administer prescribed injections to alleviate the teacher’s

periodic severe allergic reactions. The case was

dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement. The Defense Department’s unsealed notice

of satisfaction of judgment discloses that the

plaintiff received $255,334 and her attorneys received $124,666.

Rosário Rodríguez v. Trans Union de Puerto Rico Inc.

(PR 3:99-cv-01819 filed 07/21/1999).

Designated a personal injury action, this is an action against two credit report services for damages arising from identity theft. Sealed documents

were filed after a motion to enforce a settlement

agreement and a stipulation for entry of judgment. The case was dismissed pursuant to a private settlement agreement “to remain under seal.”

Ferretería Re-Ace Inc. v. Heil Environmental

Industries Ltd. (PR 3:99-cv-01820 filed

07/21/1999).

Contract action concerning distribution of refusecollection products. The case was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement.

López Rivera v. Ramos (PR 3:99-cv-01829 filed

07/23/1999).

Personal injury case alleging that the defendant,

who was acting as a medical expert in another

personal injury case, performed a medical examination on the plaintiffs that included offensive

touching of private body parts. The defendant

filed a third-party complaint against his medical

malpractice insurer. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Carmona Rios v. Aramark Corp. (PR 3:99-cv-01985

filed 09/01/1999).

Labor litigation for wrongful termination of a

food services director because of age. The case

was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement

agreement. An unsealed joint information motion

of parties’ settlement efforts states that the settlement conference judge recommended a settlement

amount between $130,000 and $140,000.

Fernández Martínez v. Citibank NA (PR 3:99-cv02009 filed 09/10/1999).

Civil rights action by an account executive and

her minor daughter against her former employer

for discrimination based on her physical disabilities. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Rodríguez v. First Hospital Panamericano Inc. (PR

3:99-cv-02019 filed 09/13/1999).

Employment action under the Americans with

Disabilities Act for failure to hire the plaintiff as a

nursing director because of her lupus. The case

was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement

agreement.

Mendoza v. Hospital Doctor’s Center of Manati (PR

3:99-cv-02027 filed 09/14/1999).

Medical malpractice action by the estate of a

woman, including her minor child, who died

from complications following an improper intubation during a Caesarian section. The doctor’s

insurance company filed a third-party complaint

seeking reimbursement of any payments made to

the plaintiff. A sealed settlement agreement was

filed.

Nuñez González v. United Parcel Service Inc. (PR

3:99-cv-02060 filed 09/22/1999).

Employment action by a black Dominican UPS

driver for race and national origin discrimination.

The case was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement approved by the court.

Baez v. Puerto Rico Electrical Power Authority (PR

3:99-cv-02139 filed 10/07/1999).

Employment action by an electrician assistant for

wrongful failure to promote him to a managerial

position because of his political affiliation. The

case was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement.

Cruz Montes v. Cooperativa de Seguros de Vida (PR

3:99-cv-02158 filed 10/14/1999).

Employment action for sexual harassment. The

case was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement.
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-104

Rosario Zayas v. Klosterman Baking Co. (PR 3:99-cv02246 filed 11/10/1999).

Employment action by a maintenance worker for

sexual harassment by her supervisor. On the third

day of a jury trial, the case was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement.

Guerrero Torres v. Clean Harbors Inc. (PR 3:99-cv02290 filed 11/24/1999).

Designated a civil rights action, this really is an

action for employment discrimination on the basis

of sex and pregnancy. The case settled just after

the jury was impaneled and sworn. After the case

was dismissed, the plaintiff filed a sealed motion

for execution of settlement. The defendant’s unsealed response and the plaintiff’s unsealed reply

show a dispute over confidentiality of the settlement. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff

agreed to confidentiality, and the plaintiff claimed

that she did not. The dispute apparently was resolved by the parties.

Ramos Girald v. Compresores y Equipos Inc. (PR 3:99-

cv-02308 filed 12/02/1999).

Designated a federal employers’ liability action,

this is an employment action by a billing clerk for

wrongful termination because of age. The case

was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement

agreement.

Durieux Rodríguez v. Toledo (PR 3:99-cv-02344 filed

12/10/1999).

Civil rights action against police officers for a

group beating. The defendants claimed that the

beating was a figment of the plaintiff’s imagination, and alleged that his severe facial injuries resulted from a motorcycle accident. The case was

dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement. The docket sheet shows that the plaintiff

was paid $150,300.99 and his attorney was paid

$50,000.

Mario Rivera v. Zory’s Hallmark (PR 3:99-cv-02348

filed 12/13/1999).

Copyright case involving the unauthorized reproduction of artwork. A sealed settlement

agreement was filed.

Perez Rodríguez v. Irizarry Cancel (PR 3:99-cv-02407

filed 12/27/1999).

Civil rights action against police officers by a father, mother, and 14-year-old son for the warrantless search of their house and seizure of fifteen

firearms and 1,169 munitions. The case was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement, but an unsealed motion to issue payment

discloses that the amount of settlement was

$55,000; the parents received $33,916.67, their attorney received $18,083.33, and the minor received $3,000.

Roman Castro v. Kelly Services Inc. (PR 3:99-cv02430 filed 12/30/1999).

Sex discrimination employment action for wrongful termination because of pregnancy. The case

was dismissed pursuant to a settlement agreement approved and sealed by the court.

Pramco LLC v. San Juan Bay Marina Inc. (PR 3:00-

cv-01008 filed 01/03/2000).

Foreclosure action to recover $471,733.73 in principal and $18,043.81 in interest due on a $500,000

Small Business Administration loan. The parties

informed the court of settlement at a pretrial

hearing, the tape of which the court ordered

sealed. In a motion requesting more time to draw

up settlement papers, the defendants stated that

they had made one payment of $200,000 to the

plaintiff and the first monthly installment of

$4,500. The settlement agreement was subsequently filed under seal. A dispute over settlement payments arose, and the plaintiff threatened

to foreclose on real property security for the loan,

but the dispute was resolved and the case dismissed.

Adorno Colón v. Toledo Davila (PR 3:00-cv-01101

filed 01/25/2000).

Civil rights action by a man and his son, who

were beaten by the police after the father’s car

crashed into a police car. A sealed settlement

agreement was filed. An informative motion revealed that the plaintiffs received $125,000.

Sierra Reyes v. San Jorge Children’s Hospital (PR

3:00-cv-01246 filed 02/25/2000).

Medical malpractice case involving the death of

the plaintiffs’ 11-year-old son from complications

of improper anesthesia. The hospital filed a thirdparty complaint against the anesthesiologist. A

sealed settlement agreement was filed. The motion requesting disbursement of funds notes that

the hospital paid $400,000 and the doctors paid

$300,000. The decedent’s minor brother received

$100,000 of the settlement.
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-105

Avian Technology International Inc. v. Industrias

Avicolas de Puerto Rico Inc. (PR 3:00-cv-01346 filed

03/16/2000).

Contract case involving breach of a purchasing

agreement. On the second day of a jury trial, the

settlement was placed on the record under seal.

J.A. Rafael Doll Inc. v. Lowell Shoe Inc. (PR 3:00-cv01352 filed 03/17/2000).

Contract case involving breach of an exclusive

sales representative agreement. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Díaz Colón v. Pepsi Cola of Puerto Rico Bottling Co.

(PR 3:00-cv-01424 filed 04/05/2000).

Employment action by a truck driver against his

former employer for age discrimination. The court

denied the defendant’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement, because the defendant never

signed it. Seven weeks later a sealed settlement

agreement was filed.

Martínez v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (PR 3:00-

cv-01468 filed 04/13/2000).

Civil rights action by a firefighter for sexual harassment by her supervisor. A sealed settlement

agreement was filed. The court granted the disbursement of funds in the amount of $75,186 to

the plaintiff.

Mercado Negrón v. Toledo (PR 3:00-cv-01577 filed

05/09/2000).

Civil rights action by a man for unlawful arrest

and conviction for the sale of cocaine against the

arresting officers, prosecutor, and a jury member

who he claimed knew him. (A key witness later

claimed he was coerced.) Claims were dismissed

against the prosecutor and juror. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Mora Monteserin v. Intel Puerto Rico Ltd. (PR 3:00-

cv-01659 filed 05/26/2000).

Employment action by an engineer against his

former employer for discrimination based on his

age and disability. A sealed settlement agreement

was filed.

Rodríguez v. Morales Tefel (PR 3:00-cv-01731 filed

06/09/2000).

Copyright case involving illegal reproduction of

the plaintiff’s songs. The defendant filed a counterclaim for breach of contract. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Martínez Rosado v. Instituto Medico del Norte Inc.

(PR 3:00-cv-01748 filed 06/14/2000).

Personal injury and medical malpractice action by

the parents of a woman who died of injuries sustained in a car accident after she was transferred

from the defendants’ hospital to another hospital.

A sealed settlement agreement was filed. The

court granted a motion for disbursement of funds

in the amount of $100,000 to the plaintiffs.

Nazario Robles v. Raytheon Aerospace (PR 3:00-cv01844 filed 07/10/2000).

Labor litigation for wrongful termination because

of age. The case was dismissed pursuant to a

sealed settlement agreement.

Dapena Thompson v. Municipality of San Juan (PR

3:00-cv-01928 filed 07/19/2000).

Employment action for wrongful demotion because of political party affiliation. The case was

dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement, but unsealed documents disclose that the

plaintiff received $150,807.63 and a job reclassification to the highest pay grade of $4,994.

Correa Cardona v. Municipality of San Juan (PR 3:00-

cv-01995 filed 08/07/2000).

Employment action by the director of San Juan’s

legal aid program, claiming adverse employment

actions related to the plaintiff’s support of a losing

candidate for mayor. The case settled, and the

magistrate judge filed a sealed final settlement

conference report stating the terms of the agreement. The plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to

enforce it. The court responded by dismissing the

case pursuant to the sealed agreement. San Juan

moved to set aside the judgment on the grounds

that settlements by San Juan must be approved by

its municipal assembly. The court agreed that legally required approval by the assembly meant

that the judgment had to be vacated, but the court

sanctioned San Juan $3,500 and sanctioned its attorneys the same amount for raising the issue so

late. The court’s order disclosed that the disputed

settlement agreement called for a raise in the

plaintiff’s salary from $4,738 per month to $5,488

per month. The case again settled during trial, and

a sealed document was filed. An informative motion subsequently disclosed that the assembly approved the settlement at a public hearing.
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-106

Ruiz v. Home Depot (PR 3:00-cv-02082 filed

08/24/2000).

Employment action by a service representative

who was terminated by the defendant when she

requested an accommodation of fixed hours because of her hepatitis C condition. The court

granted the joint stipulation for voluntary dismissal. The plaintiff filed a motion pro se to vacate the judgment on the ground that she revoked

the settlement agreement. The defendant filed a

sealed settlement agreement along with its opposition to the motion to vacate. The court determined that the settlement agreement was not revoked.

Bender v. Loomis Fargos and Co. of Puerto Rico Inc.

(PR 3:00-cv-02150 filed 09/08/2000).

Personal injury action for the wrongful death of

the plaintiff’s 10-year-old daughter when the defendant’s out-of-control armored truck collided

with a car in which the girl was a passenger. The

case was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement.

Cruz Osorio v. Northwest Security Management Inc.

(PR 3:00-cv-02223 filed 09/21/2000).

Employment action by a security officer for sexual

harassment and wrongful termination because of

sex and pregnancy. The case was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement.

Santos Marín v. Kiewit Construction Co. (PR 3:00-cv02470 filed 11/17/2000).

Employment action by a field service engineer for

wrongful termination because of Puerto Rican

national origin. The case was dismissed pursuant

to a sealed settlement agreement.

Rosa Flores v. Kiewit Kenny Zachary (PR 3:00-cv02471 filed 11/17/2000).

Employment action by a construction worker for

wrongful termination and harassment because of

Puerto Rican national origin. The action was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement.

Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Puerto Rico v. Dellsky Realty

Corp. (PR 3:00-cv-02540 filed 12/06/2000).

Contract case in which the plaintiff sought reimbursement of money spent on remodeling the defendant’s property. A sealed settlement agreement was filed. One month later the court granted

the motion to disburse funds in the amount of

$403,015 to the plaintiff.

Jorge Rodríguez v. Toledo Davila (PR 3:00-cv-02558

filed 12/11/2000).

Civil rights action by a police officer wrongfully

convicted of selling drugs to an undercover officer, who later was found to have participated in

other sham prosecutions. The plaintiff served 2.5

years of a 15-year sentence. The case was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement

approved by the court. An unsealed motion requesting disbursement of funds states that the

amount of settlement was $30,000. The docket

sheet shows that the plaintiff received a check for

$30,090.37.

Sánchez v. Pavarini Merit LP (PR 3:01-cv-01107

filed 01/23/2001).

Employment case filed under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and ERISA by an administrative

assistant against her former employer for terminating her while out on maternity leave and failing to comply with notice requirements concerning continuation of medical plan coverage. A

sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Perez Corchado v. Puerto Rico Police Department (PR

3:01-cv-01189 filed 02/14/2001).

Designated a civil rights action, this is an employment action by a policewoman for sexual

harassment by her supervisor. The case was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement

approved by the court. Thereafter the court disbursed $125,188.13.

Estrada Berríos v. Daewoo Motor de Puerto Rico Inc.

(PR 3:01-cv-01217 filed 02/21/2001).

Designated a civil rights action, this is an employment action alleging unwanted sexual advances and adverse treatment because of pregnancy. The action was dismissed pursuant to a

settlement agreement, which appears to have

been filed under seal.

RJO Inc. v. López (PR 3:01-cv-01284 filed

03/09/2001).

Trademark case involving the illegal use of the

“Son By Four” mark by a recording company. The

defendants filed a counterclaim for breach of

contract. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-107

Matos Morales v. Searle A. Monsanto Co. (PR 3:01-

cv-01346 filed 03/26/2001).

Labor action by a woman who had a job offer

withdrawn by a defendant when he found out

about her disability. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Cortes Jiménez v. González Fernández (PR 3:01-cv01419 filed 04/09/2001).

Medical malpractice action against doctors who

misdiagnosed the plaintiff’s medical condition

and performed an unnecessary open-heart surgery. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.

The court granted the motion for the authorization of funds for the plaintiff’s minor child in the

amount of $10,000.

Santiago Ramos v. Rodríguez Otero (PR 3:01-cv01444 filed 04/16/2001).

Employment action by thirty-three employees

who did not have their position renewed by the

newly elected mayor because of their political affiliations. Two other plaintiffs who retained their

position alleged that they were harassed because

of their political affiliation. A sealed settlement

agreement was filed.

Dupprey Valentín v. K-Mart Corp. (PR 3:01-cv-01540

filed 05/01/2001).

Employment action by a part-time customer

service representative against her former employer for terminating her when she revealed she

was pregnant. A sealed settlement agreement was

filed.

Rivera Requena v. Trailer Bridge Inc. (PR 3:01-cv01575 filed 05/04/2001).

Employment action by an area manager against

his former employer for age discrimination. A

sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Quinones v. American Airlines Inc. (PR 3:01-cv01708 filed 05/30/2001).

Airplane action by a woman who fractured her

knee while on the defendant’s plane. The settlement conference report was sealed.

Rivera Berríos v. Alvarado (PR 3:01-cv-01763 filed

06/07/2001).

Medical malpractice action for a botched removal

of wisdom teeth. The case was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement.

Cortés v. First Bank of Puerto Rico Inc. (PR 3:01-cv01776 filed 06/11/2001).

Employment action for sex and age discrimination. The case was dismissed pursuant to a sealed

settlement agreement approved by the court.

Rivera v. Puerto Rico Electrical Power Authority (PR

3:01-cv-01784 filed 06/12/2001).

Personal injury action by the wife of a man who

was electrocuted when the pole he was using to

pick fruit hit the defendant’s power line. The defendant filed a third-party complaint against the

owner of the fruit trees that blocked the clear view

of the power line. A sealed settlement agreement

was filed.

Lebrón Santiago v. Qualex Caribe Corp. (PR 3:01-cv01802 filed 06/14/2001).

Civil rights action by a chemical driver against his

former employer, who terminated him after he

returned from a work-related back injury and requested light duty. A sealed settlement agreement

was filed.

Ewing v. Rivera (PR 3:01-cv-01866 filed

06/27/2001).

Civil rights action by a man held in jail for

twenty-one days for wrongful arrest and prosecution for rape. A sealed settlement agreement

was filed. The court granted the motion to consign

funds in the amount of $8,000 to the plaintiff.

Lopez Cuevas v. Acevedo Sevilla (PR 3:01-cv-01871

filed 06/28/2001).

Employment action for wrongful constructive

discharge in retaliation for jury service. The court

appointed counsel to represent the plaintiff and

dismissed the action pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement.

Velez Virola v. Casiano Quiles (PR 3:01-cv-01890

filed 07/03/2001).

Employment action by an administrative official

who was reassigned to another position without

notice because of his political affiliation. A sealed

settlement agreement was filed.

Fuladoza Alequín v. First Federal Finance Corp. (PR

3:01-cv-01891 filed 07/03/2001).

Employment action for wrongful termination because of pregnancy. The case was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement.
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-108

Santos Santiago v. Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentina

(PR 3:01-cv-02030 filed 08/01/1001).

Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act by a

bank employee for unpaid overtime compensation. The case was dismissed pursuant to a sealed

settlement agreement.

Rodríguez Meléndez v. First Hospital Panamericano

(PR 3:01-cv-02050 filed 08/06/2001).

Labor action by a woman against her former employer, who terminated her after she continued to

ask for time off to attend therapy for her carpal

tunnel syndrome and to take her son to therapy

for his hyperactivity. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Microsoft Corp. v. SkyTalkwest Telecom LLC (PR

3:01-cv-02127 filed 08/21/2001).

Designated a contract action, this is an action for

infringement of computer software copyrights by

a lessor of computer equipment. The complaint

was filed under seal, the court issued a temporary

restraining order, the complaint was unsealed,

and the parties filed a sealed, consented preliminary injunctive decree. The case was closed that

day.

Gracia Delgado v. Calderón (PR 3:01-cv-02198 filed

09/07/2001).

Employment action by an administrator against

his former employer, the governor of Puerto Rico,

for political discrimination. A sealed settlement

agreement was filed. The court granted the motion to disburse funds in the amount of $135,000

to the plaintiff.

Perez Salamán v. Banco Santander Puerto Rico (PR

3:01-cv-02208 filed 09/12/2001).

Employment action by a black bank employee

against his former employer for race discrimination. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Rivera Bou v. Premier Farnell Co. (PR 3:01-cv-02373

filed 10/15/2001).

Employment action by a saleswoman against her

former employer for age discrimination. A sealed

settlement agreement was filed.

Colón Andujar v. Cooperativa de Ahorro y Credito

Vegabajena Inc. (PR 3:01-cv-02378 filed

10/15/2001).

Designated a civil rights action, this is really an

employment action by an executive vice president

against her former employer for age discrimination. A sealed stipulation for voluntary dismissal

was filed.

Quinones v. Castro Rios (PR 3:01-cv-02495 filed

11/02/2001).

Contract case involving breach of a performance

agreement by the defendants’ band. The plaintiff

filed a civil suit in Ohio and was awarded a default judgment of $77,786. The plaintiff filed this

case to domesticate the judgment. A sealed settlement agreement was filed. Four months later

the plaintiff filed a motion for attachment of the

defendants’ property, because they did not pay

the settlement.

Medina Tejeda v. Dencarribbean Inc. (PR 3:01-cv02518 filed 11/06/2001).

Designated a product liability action, this is really

an employment action by a black waitress against

her former employer for race discrimination. A

sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Don King Productions Inc. v. Santana (PR 3:01-cv02741 filed 12/28/2001).

Statutory action against the owner of a bar who

charged customers to view a televised boxing

match without a license agreement with the

plaintiff. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Rodríguez v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (PR 3:02-

cv-01193 filed 02/08/2002), consolidated with

Perez Hernández v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

(PR 3:02-cv-01582 filed 04/16/2002).

Employment actions by commonwealth employees for wrongful termination in retaliation for

supporting a losing candidate for governor. Four

cases were consolidated. The actions were dismissed pursuant to sealed settlement agreements,

three of which were filed in the lead case and one

of which was filed in a member case. Docket

sheets in the four cases indicate settlement payments of $160,223.59, $141,025.95, $110,153.72, and

$100,139.75.

Vázquez Ortiz v. Raytheon Aerospace Inc. (PR 3:02-

cv-01682 filed 05/06/2002).

Classified as a personal injury case, this is an employment action for wrongful termination and

disability discrimination. The case was dismissed

pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement.
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-109

Popular Inc. v. Popular Staffing Services Corp. (PR

3:02-cv-02058 filed 07/11/2002).

Trademark action concerning use of the name

“POPULAR.” The action was dismissed pursuant

to a sealed settlement agreement.

District of South Carolina

A new local rule proscribes the filing of a sealed

settlement agreement. D.S.C. L.R. 5.03(C).

Statistics: 8,126 cases in termination cohort; 311

docket sheets (3.8%) have the word “seal” in them

(but 136 of these merely have “seal” as the docket

entry clerk identifier, and another 13 merely have

“seal” in the party name); 25 complete docket

sheets (0.31%) were reviewed; actual documents

were examined for 8 cases (0.10%); 8 cases (0.10%)

appear to have sealed settlement agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

Doe v. Florence School District No. 1 (SC 4:99-cv01007 filed 04/08/1999).

Civil rights action by a developmentally disabled

15-year-old girl for rape by a school security

guard, who had been transferred to his current

position from another school where he had been

accused by parents of sexually harassing students.

The court dismissed the case as settled and

scheduled a settlement conference one week later

to approve the settlement agreement because

there was a minor party. The settlement agreement is sealed.

Johnson v. Prime Inc. (SC 8:00-cv-01523 filed

05/17/2000).

Motor vehicle action against a truck driver and

trucking companies for wrongful death caused by

the truck’s colliding with traffic stopped for road

construction. The plaintiff dismissed the trucker

and settled with the trucking companies, whose

liability insurer paid the settlement. The court

dismissed the action without prejudice and then

conducted a sealed settlement conference two

weeks later, at which it dismissed the action with

prejudice after the terms of the settlement apparently were satisfied.

Seeling v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. (SC 3:00-cv01893 filed 06/14/2000).

Action under the Federal Employer’s Liability Act

by a trainman for unspecified injuries allegedly

resulting from his employer’s negligence in

maintaining a safe working environment. Documents filed in the case indicate the trainman may

have fallen off a train. The judge issued an order

dismissing the case as “settled by the payment of

a sum of money” and sealing “the record of this

settlement, other than the fact of its existence.”

Curry v. Fripp Co. (SC 9:00-cv-02579 filed

08/18/2000).

Contract action for payment of a $4.5 million

commission on facilitating the sale of a golf course

business. The court dismissed the action without

prejudice as settled, retaining jurisdiction for sixty

days to enforce the settlement agreement. Near

the end of that sixty-day period, the plaintiff filed

a motion to enforce the agreement, attaching a

sealed copy of the agreement. The defendants apparently missed the first settlement payment of

$100,000 and raised objections concerning drafts

of the settlement documents. Court documents

indicate that other material terms of the settlement agreement concern stock certificates and a

golf course. Seven months after the motion to enforce was filed, the court dismissed the case with

prejudice as fully resolved.

Fanning v. Columbia Housing Authority (SC 3:00-cv02833 filed 09/12/2000).

Housing action for disability discrimination. The

plaintiff alleged that she was wrongfully denied

public housing on the incorrect ground that she

could not live without assistance. The court dismissed the action without prejudice as settled on

February 6, 2001, retaining jurisdiction for thirty

days to enforce the settlement. On March 20 the

court dismissed the action as settled with prejudice and ordered “these documents” sealed. On

April 12 the court again dismissed the action with

prejudice.

Williams v. Ford Motor Co. (SC 2:00-cv-03398 filed

10/26/2000).

Motor vehicle product liability action for wrongful death resulting from a Ford Aerostar van’s

rolling over. One plaintiff—who was not involved

in the accident—represented himself as well as

the estates of his late wife and his late 12-year-old

daughter, who were killed. The other plaintiff was

a 17-year-old son, who was injured. The court

dismissed the action as settled without prejudice,

retaining jurisdiction for sixty days to enforce the

settlement. One month later the plaintiffs moved

to reopen the case so that the court could approve

the settlement agreement with the minor plaintiff.

The court approved the agreement. The amounts

of the settlement and the plaintiffs’ attorneys’

contingency fee were sealed, but unsealed records
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-110

show that 59% of the settlement went to the

mother’s claim, 40% went to the daughter’s claim,

and 1% went to the son’s claim.

White v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (SC 2:00-cv-03803

filed 12/05/2000).

Motor vehicle product liability action alleging that

defective designs of the roof and seatbelts of a

Jeep Grand Cherokee caused the death of the

driver and two passengers, and the injuries of two

additional passengers, in a rollover caused by another vehicle. The plaintiffs representing estates

and a minor filed a sealed petition, which was

granted, along with a sealed order approving a

settlement. The court dismissed the action as settled without prejudice, retaining jurisdiction for

sixty days to enforce the settlement agreement.

Three months later the court granted a motion

under seal.

Davis & Small Decor Inc. v. Desperate Enterprises

Inc. (SC 2:01-cv-00914 filed 03/27/2001).

Copyright action concerning the novelty signs

“Mom’s Bed & Breakfast,” “Dad’s Fix-It Shop,”

and “Grandma’s Babysitting Service.” The plaintiff filed a sealed “motion .!.!. to file under seal,

and for sanctions, or to enforce settlement agreement.” The case was dismissed pursuant to an

agreed order of injunction and dismissal permanently enjoining the defendant from selling signs

similar to the plaintiff’s.

District of South Dakota

No relevant local rule.

Statistics: 820 cases in termination cohort; 40

docket sheets (4.9%) have the word “seal” in

them; 6 complete docket sheets (0.73%) were reviewed; actual documents were examined for 0

cases; no case appears to have a sealed settlement

agreement.

Eastern District of Tennessee66

Court records may be sealed only upon a showing

of good cause. E.D. Tenn. L.R. 26.2(b). Absent a

court order to the contrary, court records are unsealed thirty days after the conclusion of the case.

Id. R. 26.2(d). “All such orders shall set a date for

the unsealing of the Court Records.” Id.

Statistics: 3,128 cases in termination cohort; 249

docket sheets (8.0%) have the word “seal” in them

 

66. This district was selected at random for the

study, and it has a good-cause rule.

(but 52 of these merely have the word “seal” in a

party name); 15 complete docket sheets (0.48%)

were reviewed; actual documents were examined

for 11 cases (0.35%); 8 cases (0.26%) appear to

have sealed settlement agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

Kunis v. Murray (TN-E 3:98-cv-00365 filed

06/18/1998).

Securities action for fraudulent sale of unregistered securities. The case settled. The details of the

settlement agreement were sealed by the court’s

granting a protective order.

Gutierrez v. Bridgestone/Firestone Inc. (TN-E 3:98-

cv-00484 filed 07/31/1998).

Product liability action concerning the defective

manufacture of a tire, which caused the tread to

separate and the vehicle to overturn, ejecting the

plaintiffs from the car. The plaintiffs sustained

severe injuries. One plaintiff died. The case settled. Each plaintiff received $2,777.78 from the

Ford Motor Company. The transcript of a minor’s

settlement hearing with regard to Bridgestone/Firestone was sealed.

Walker v. Hospital of Morristown (TN-E 2:99-cv00081 filed 02/23/1999).

Medical malpractice action concerning negligent

pulmonary care of a woman after the delivery of

her child via cesarean section. As a result, the

plaintiff’s spouse suffered permanent brain damage, leaving her in a permanent vegetative state.

She subsequently died. The case settled. The minutes of the minors’ settlement hearing and the

court order approving the minors’ settlements

were sealed for one year.

Monroe v. National Seating Co. (TN-E 3:99-cv-00363

filed 07/09/1999).

Employment discrimination action by a 51-yearold vice president for age discrimination and

wrongful termination stemming from his refusal

to sign allegedly fraudulent financial reports. The

case was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement.

Samaduroff v. Corrections Corp. of America (TN-E

1:00-cv-00062 filed 02/25/2000).

Civil rights action for the wrongful death of an

inmate, alleging that a corrections facility’s failure

to provide medically necessary methadone treatment resulted in the inmate’s suicide. The case
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-111

was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement

agreement.

Conner v. DTS Truck Division Co. (TN-E 2:00-cv00150 filed 05/04/2000).

Motor vehicle action for wrongful death caused

by the defendant’s negligent driving of a tractortrailer, which resulted in a violent collision. The

plaintiff’s husband sustained serious external and

internal injuries and died six days after the accident. The case settled. A minor’s settlement conference and the court order approving the details

of the minor’s settlement agreement were sealed.

Lee v. Harper (TN-E 1:00-cv-00381 filed

11/10/2000).

Motor vehicle action for wrongful death, which

occurred when the defendant’s speeding car catapulted onto the decedent’s car, crushing him. The

case was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement.

Floyd v. Tennessee Secondary Schools Athletic

Association (TN-E 3:01-cv-00538 filed 11/14/2001).

Civil rights action arising from the defendants’

dismissal of the plaintiff’s daughter from the girls’

basketball team in retaliation for the mother’s

voicing concerns about the coach’s temperament

and behavior. The case settled. The settlement

agreement and the court order approving the minor’s settlement, which detailed the settlement

payments, were sealed.

Middle District of Tennessee

No relevant local rule.

Statistics: 3,162 cases in termination cohort; 581

docket sheets (18%) have the word “seal” in them;

39 complete docket sheets (1.2%) were reviewed;

actual documents were examined for 24 cases

(0.76%); 18 cases (0.57%) appear to have sealed

settlement agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

Catalano v. Federal Extradition Agency, Inc. (TN-M

3:97-cv-00790 filed 07/30/1997).

Motor vehicle action for wrongful death as a result of transporting prison inmates in a negligently maintained Ford Econoline Van, which

caught on fire. Six companion cases also were

filed. The court designated this to be the lead case.

Ford settled. The court approved the settlement

on behalf of a minor in the case by sealed order.

The settlement agreement does not appear to be

filed in the other cases, nor does there appear to

be a minor involved in the other cases. A year

later, the court approved another settlement

agreement on behalf of the minor by sealed order.

However, an unsealed order reveals that the insurance company defendant had to pay the minor’s guardian $80,000 to be used for college.

Bryant v. Potter (TN-M 3:98-cv-00872 filed

09/18/1998).

Labor action by a postal employee alleging sexual

harassment and discrimination by the town postmaster. The case settled, and the court ordered the

settlement agreement filed under seal. The plaintiff filed a motion to reopen the case, alleging that

the defendant failed to fulfill his obligations under the terms of the settlement agreement. The

court denied the plaintiff’s motion.

Murphy v. RMD Corp. (TN-M 3:99-cv-00886 filed

09/15/1999); Murphy v. RMD Corp. (TN-M 3:99-

cv-00907 filed 09/23/1999).

Class action lawsuits pursuant to the Fair Labor

Standards Act for failure to properly compensate

restaurant managers and service employees for

overtime work. The cases settled, and the settlement agreements were filed under seal.

EEOC v. Strategic Outsourcing Inc. (TN-M 3:99-cv00938 filed 09/30/1999).

Age and sex discrimination employment action

on behalf of a sales manager. The case settled. The

plaintiffs filed a sealed motion to enforce the settlement agreement. The transcript of the original

settlement conference later was filed under seal.

Pruitt v. Rutherford County (TN-M 3:99-cv-01155

filed 12/10/1999).

Section 1983 civil rights action on behalf of a minor, alleging rape by another minor while they

both were serving time in a juvenile detention

center. The case settled. The settlement agreement

was approved by the court and sealed.

Matiaz v. Eidson (TN-M 3:00-cv-00485 filed

05/19/2000).

Wrongful death action arising from the negligent

driving of a pickup truck, which resulted in the

truck’s rolling over and the plaintiff’s husband,

who was riding in the bed of truck, being pinned

beneath the vehicle. Passengers who were able to

escape from the vehicle attempted for thirty minutes to extricate the deceased. They then walked

over an hour to a telephone, called a friend, and
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-112

went home to change clothes before going to the

police station to report the incident. A passerby

with a tractor arrived at the scene of the accident

and turned the truck upright. The defendant employer, who had remained at the scene, then

threw the man into a nearby pig pond. To prevent

the body from floating to the surface, the defendant held the body down in the pond with a stick.

Drowning was the cause of death. The case settled. The court approved a minor’s settlement and

placed the settlement agreement under seal.

United States ex rel. Bledsoe v. Community Health

Systems Inc. (TN-M 2:00-cv-00083 filed

09/22/2000).

Fraud action concerning Medicaid and Medicare

claims. The government declined to intervene.

The plaintiff, relying on government settlement

drafts, maintained that the parties reached a settlement and filed under seal a motion to recognize

the settlement. The motion was denied, and the

case was dismissed.

Doe v. Aramark Educational Resources Inc. (TN-M

3:01-cv-00245 filed 03/13/2001); Ridge v. Aramark

Educational Resources Inc. (TN-M 3:01-cv-00281

filed 03/23/01); Doe v. Aramark Educational

Resources Inc. (TN-M 3:01-cv-00282 filed

3/23/2001).

Personal injury actions on behalf of minors, alleging rape and sexual molestation by a teacher.

The cases settled. The court approved the minors’

settlement agreements and placed them under

seal.

Heil v. Gotee Records Inc. (TN-M 3:01-cv-00284 filed

03/26/2001).

Trademark infringement action concerning records. The case settled. The court reporter filed

under seal the transcript of the settlement agreement announced in open court. The court found

no reason for the transcript to be maintained under seal in the file. Accordingly, the court ordered

the docket entry stricken and the transcript destroyed.

Clinard v. M.J. Halgard Construction (TN-M 3:01-cv00467 filed 05/22/2001).

Employment discrimination action for retaliatory

discharge after the plaintiff attempted to end her

affair with her supervisor. The case settled. The

settlement agreement was filed under seal.

Chargois v. Troxell (TN-M 3:01-cv-00554 filed

06/22/2001).

Section 1983 civil rights action on behalf of a minor, alleging sexual molestation by a teacher. The

plaintiff further alleged that the school principal

and other school personnel were aware of the

sexual relationship but failed to intervene on the

minor’s behalf or notify her parents. The case settled. The court approved the minor’s settlement

and sealed the settlement agreement.

Deuss v. Ebenezer Home of Tennessee Inc. (TN-M

3:01-cv-00589 filed 06/29/2001).

Class action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards

Act, alleging that a nursing home failed to properly compensate its employees, including the activities director and nursing technician, for overtime work. The case settled. The settlement

agreement was filed under seal.

United Shows of America Inc. v. Rubin (TN-M 3:01-

cv-01331 filed 09/20/2001).

Anticipatory breach of contract action concerning

investment in an expo center. The case was dismissed as settled. The defendant filed a sealed

motion to enforce the settlement agreement. The

plaintiffs filed for bankruptcy, which has stayed

the action.

Dolgencorp Inc. v. Big Lots Inc. (TN-M 3:01-cv01533 filed 11/28/2001).

Trademark infringement action. The case settled.

The plaintiffs filed a sealed motion to enforce the

settlement agreement. A final settlement was

reached, and the clerk was directed to “terminate

minutes for enforcement of settlement agreement.”

Fletcher v. Kolcraft Enterprises Inc. (TN-M 3:02-cv00422 filed 04/25/2002).

Personal injury action for the negligent manufacture of a stroller, which collapsed and severed the

tip of a child’s finger. The case settled. The plaintiff filed a sealed motion to approve the minor’s

settlement agreement. The court granted the motion.
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-113

Western District of Tennessee

No relevant local rule.

Statistics: 2,759 cases in termination cohort; 222

docket sheets (8.0%) have the word “seal” in

them; 37 complete docket sheets (1.3%) were reviewed; actual documents were examined for 16

cases (0.58%); 7 cases (0.25%) appear to have

sealed settlement agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

Lammey v. Ford Motor Co. (TN-W 2:99-cv-02156

filed 02/19/1999).

Product liability action for the negligent manufacture of a car, resulting in the car’s rolling out of

the plaintiff’s driveway and rolling over the 3-

year-old plaintiff’s head. The case was dismissed

as settled. The court order approving the minor’s

settlement and settlement payment was sealed.

Doe v. City of Memphis Board of Education (TN-W

2:99-cv-03075 filed 12/09/1999), consolidated

with C.W. v. City of Memphis Board of Education

(TN-W 2:99-cv-03076 filed 12/09/1999).

Civil rights actions for failure of the principal and

school board to intervene on behalf of children to

prevent emotional, physical, and sexual abuse by

their special education teachers. The court appointed a guardian ad litem for the minors. The

cases were dismissed as settled. The court orders

approving the minors’ settlements and detailing

the payments to the plaintiffs were sealed.

Reed v. Corrections Corp. of America (TN-W 2:00-cv02473 filed 05/26/2000).

Section 1983 civil rights action for failure of a juvenile detention center to prevent the plaintiff’s

suicide attempt, which resulted in severe and

permanent brain injury. The case settled. The

transcript of the settlement hearing and the order

approving the cash settlement were sealed.

Warner v. Owens (TN-W 2:01-cv-02250 filed

03/28/2001).

Motor vehicle action by a child arising from a car

accident, claiming that the uninsured defendant

negligently drove her car over the median and

into oncoming traffic. The plaintiff suffered severe

permanent injuries to her head, face, mouth, teeth,

and entire nervous system, which required extensive medical treatment. The case settled. The order approving the minor’s settlement and detailing payment was sealed.

Harper v. Gordon (TN-W 2:02-cv-02347 filed

05/07/2002); Northfield Insurance Co. v. Gordon

(TN-W 2:02-cv-02503 filed 06/21/2002).

Harper is a personal injury action for wrongful

death by a father for the negligent driving of a

day care center’s bus driver, which resulted in an

accident and the death of his son and several

other children. The plaintiff alleged that the bus

driver, who had a history of drug use, allowed the

bus to leave the road and strike highway structures and that the defendants failed to provide

proper safety restraints and procedures in and for

the bus.

Northfield Insurance is an insurance contract action against the owner of the day care center that

hired the bus driver. The insurance company

claimed that the accident was not covered under

the day care center’s policy.

The cases were dismissed as settled. Settlement

agreements were sealed and filed in a related

case, Robinson v. Tennessee Department of Human

Services (TN-W 2:02-cv-2370 filed 5/13/02) (still

pending).

District of Utah67

The sealing of a court document requires a

showing of good cause. D. Utah L. Civ. R. 5-2(a).

Absent an order to the contrary, sealed documents are unsealed at the end of the case. Id. R. 5-

2(f).

Statistics: 2,387 cases in termination cohort; 3

docket sheets are sealed (0.13%)—all of these

cases’ disposition codes suggest no sealed settlement agreements;68 179 unsealed docket sheets

(7.5%) have the word “seal” in them; 11 complete

docket sheets (0.46%) were reviewed; actual

documents were examined for 8 cases (0.34%); 8

cases (0.34%) appear to have sealed settlement

agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

Flying J Inc. v. Comdata Network Inc. (UT 1:96-cv00066 filed 07/01/1996).

Antitrust action by a truck-stop company against

a credit company. The case settled. The plaintiffs

filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement. Attached to the motion was a sealed exhibit

containing the settlement agreement and release;

however, the accompanying memorandum of

 

67. This district is included in the study because of

its good-cause rule.

68. One dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, 2 “other”

dismissals.
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-114

support reveals that the defendants agreed to

provide the plaintiffs with unrestricted fuel-card

access to their point-of-sale devices at major truck

stops.

Icon Health & Fitness Inc. v. Keys Fitness Products

Inc. (UT 1:97-cv-00114 filed 10/02/1997).

Patent infringement action concerning treadmills.

The case settled. The plaintiffs filed a motion to

enforce the settlement agreement. The accompanying memorandum was sealed. Another document—perhaps the settlement agreement—also

was filed under seal.

Scott v. Riddle (UT 2:99-cv-00042 filed

01/25/1999).

Class action alleging violation of the Fair Debt

Collection Practices Act. The case settled, and the

settlement agreement was filed under seal. An

order allows the class administrator to distribute

unclaimed funds in the amount of $5,121.47 to a

charity.

Iomega Corp. v. Castlewood Systems Inc. (UT 1:99-cv00080 filed 07/06/1999).

Patent infringement action by a data storage

manufacturer. The case settled. The defendants

failed to fulfill their obligations under the settlement agreement. The plaintiffs filed a sealed motion for entry of a stipulated judgment pursuant

to the settlement agreement. The judgment later

was unsealed. For the defendants’ failing to make

the $10,000 payment by the date specified in the

settlement agreement, the court awarded the

plaintiffs $1,775,000 in damages plus attorney

fees.

Mohamed v. International Rescue Committee (UT

2:00-cv-00588 filed 07/26/2000).

Employment discrimination action. The case settled at mediation. A dispute arose regarding the

amount of the settlement, and both parties filed

motions seeking to enforce the settlement agreement; however, only the defendant’s motion was

sealed. The plaintiff’s motion notes that he would

only accept an after-tax offer of $24,000. The court,

unable to determine if there was a meeting of the

minds, denied the motions. The case ultimately

was dismissed as settled.

Crosslin v. Hansen (UT 2:00-cv-00648 filed

08/15/2000).

Medical malpractice action arising from the negligent insertion of a feeding tube, resulting in the

plaintiffs’ daughter’s death. The case settled, and

the settlement agreement appears to be sealed.

However, the docket shows a check in the amount

of $39,000 payable to a third party claiming to

have a lien.

Financial Freedom International v. International

Credit Repair Services Inc. (UT 2:00-cv-00659 filed

08/17/2000).

Copyright infringement action concerning the

reproduction of credit education materials. The

case settled, and the settlement agreement was

filed under seal.

Turner v. MacKenzie (UT 2:00-cv-00697 filed

09/01/2000).

Personal injury action concerning defamatory

comments posted on the Internet regarding the

plaintiff’s professional competence and integrity.

The parties entered into settlement discussions.

Although the defendant maintained that parts of

the discussions have appeared on the Internet, the

court sealed all matters dealing with the settlement agreement. The defendant filed a sealed

motion to enforce the settlement agreement,

which the court granted.

Eastern District of Virginia

No relevant local rule. Practices vary among the

divisions: in Alexandria a document can be sealed

by handwriting the word “sealed” on the document, but in Richmond a motion to seal is required. The district’s rules committee will consider a proposed uniform rule this spring.

Statistics: 14,448 cases in termination cohort;

330 docket sheets (2.3%) have the word “seal” in

them; 57 complete docket sheets (0.39%) were reviewed; actual documents were examined for 47

cases (0.33%); 44 cases (0.30%) appear to have

sealed settlement agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

United States ex rel. Groshans v. Unisys Corp. (VA-E

1:02-cv-01589 filed 02/29/1996).

Qui tam action under the False Claims Act for

false billing in contracting for the Trident Missile

Program. The docket shows only the four documents that the government asked to be unsealed,

including an amended complaint. The case was

dismissed pursuant to a settlement agreement.

Because of sealed docket entries, however, it cannot be determined with certainty that the agreement was filed.
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-115

America Online Inc. v. CN Productions Inc. (VA-E

1:98-cv-00552 filed 04/16/1998).

Statutory action under the Lanham Act, alleging

that the defendants sent the plaintiff’s subscribers

unsolicited electronic mail containing the plaintiff’s trademark along with information on pornographic Web sites, products, and services. The

defendants were held in contempt for violating a

permanent injunction. An additional sixteen individuals and thirteen entities were held in civil

contempt for conspiring with the defendants to

violate the injunction. The plaintiff was awarded

$6,904,712 in damages. The court sealed the

memorandum opinion and judgment because it

contained details of the settlement amount. The

plaintiff filed a motion to partially unseal the

judgment and memorandum opinion to show that

this type of public violation will be punished and

substantial damages awarded. One month later a

redacted version of the order was unsealed.

United States ex rel. Doe v. University of Virginia

Health System (VA-E 1:01-cv-01691 filed

07/16/1998).

Qui tam action under the False Claims Act for

fraudulent Medicare billing. A settlement agreement initially was filed under seal, but it, the

complaint, and other documents were unsealed

when the case was dismissed. The defendant paid

the United States $3 million and the relator

$600,000.

Price v. Foster (VA-E 1:99-cv-00549 filed

04/19/1999).

Personal injury action for wrongful death resulting from the defendants’ severing a hospital oxygen line. A sealed settlement agreement was filed

and approved, and the order of approval stated

that the decedent’s three adult children each

would receive $1,000 and the plaintiff’s attorneys

would receive $35,000. The guardian ad litem rejected the settlement of $1,000 for the decedent’s

minor grandchild. One month after the case was

dismissed, the plaintiff filed a motion to reconfirm

approval of the settlement agreement. The court

reconfirmed approval and awarded the minor

grandchild $5,000 to be used solely for education

and support.

Franklin v. First Union Corp. (VA-E 3:99-cv-00344

filed 05/05/1999), consolidated with Franklin v.

First Union Corp. (VA-E 3:99-cv-00610 filed

09/07/1999).

ERISA actions including RICO allegations concerning 401(k) plans of current and former bank

employees. The defendants denied liability, but

agreed to pay $26 million to named plaintiffs and

a class of approximately 150,000. The list of potential class members was filed under seal.

MCI Communications Corp. v. Essential Voice

Computing Inc. (VA-E 3:00-cv-00105 filed

02/25/2000).

Patent infringement action involving a telephonebased personnel tracking system. Three months

after a settlement agreement was reached, the defendants refused to execute the final documents.

The plaintiff filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement, and the court granted a motion

to seal the motion because it contained settlement

terms. The court ordered a consent judgment with

a permanent injunction. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the consent judgment and permanent injunction.

Advamtel LLC v. Sprint (VA-E 1:00-cv-01074 filed

04/17/2000).

Statutory action concerning collection of telecommunications charges, alleging that Sprint

used ninety plaintiffs’ telephone lines without

paying applicable tariffs. Sprint filed a counterclaim for overbilling. A few plaintiffs dismissed

their actions pursuant to confidential settlement

agreements as the litigation proceeded. After

Sprint reached settlement agreements with all

plaintiffs but one, it filed under seal a motion to

enforce the settlement agreement. Disagreements

with the remaining plaintiff ultimately were resolved, and the case was dismissed as settled.

Fordham v. OneSoft Corp. (VA-E 1:00-cv-01078 filed

06/29/2000).

Computer software copyright infringement action. An order concerning settlement proceeds

stated that the defendant deposited $644,285. The

plaintiff filed a motion and memorandum under

seal for disbursement of the settlement proceeds.

One week later the plaintiff filed a suggestion of

bankruptcy. The court granted the plaintiff’s motion for disbursement of settlement proceeds

eleven weeks later. The attorney in the case was

granted a lien against the settlement funds, and
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-116

the court ordered that the attorney fees and expenses be paid out of the settlement funds.

Garcia v. Gloucester Seafood Inc. (VA-E 4:00-cv00069 filed 06/30/2000).

Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act

for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages.

The plaintiffs were Mexican citizens recruited to

work at the defendants’ seafood-processing plant.

The court dismissed the action as settled, retaining jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. Approximately three months later the court

issued an agreed order to reopen the case for entry of judgment pursuant to a sealed settlement

agreement. Approximately three months later the

case was closed upon the court’s satisfaction that

settlement payments had been made.

Alegre v. United States (VA-E 4:00-cv-00074 filed

07/19/2000).

Medical malpractice action for severe brain injury

resulting from improper treatment after routine

surgery at a Veterans Administration Hospital.

The government admitted liability and agreed to

pay $950,000. The government’s attorney filed

under seal a motion to approve the settlement

agreement, but unsealed documents disclose the

settlement agreement’s terms.

Doe v. Holcomb (VA-E 2:00-cv-00597 filed

08/15/2000).

Personal injury action for sexual molestation of a

Headstart student by a school bus driver. An

agreed protective order held confidential

(1)!medical and psychological information about

the plaintiff, (2)!information concerning the criminal investigation of the bus driver, and (3)!the

identity of the plaintiff. The court approved a

sealed settlement agreement.

Opsahl v. E*Trade Group (VA-E 1:00-cv-01501 filed

09/06/2000).

Contract action for breach of a corporate acquisition agreement. After acquiring a company in

which the plaintiff was a corporate officer with

significant stock options, the defendants allegedly

failed to timely file a registration statement with

the SEC, causing the plaintiff significant delay in

his ability to exercise his stock options. A sealed

settlement agreement was attached as an exhibit

to the plaintiff’s motion to enforce. The motion

involved disputed escrow arrangements. Six days

later the plaintiff withdrew the motion to enforce

and asked the court to destroy the sealed settlement agreement or return it to the plaintiff’s

counsel. In the final order of dismissal the court

ordered that the settlement agreement remain

permanently sealed.

Bryant v. Southside Gin Inc. (VA-E 3:00-cv-00616

filed 09/22/2000).

RICO action by farmers, alleging that the defendants stole their cotton while it was being processed at the defendants’ gins. A sealed settlement

agreement was filed. A confessed judgment was

granted in favor of some plaintiffs for $184,106. In

the order of dismissal the court ordered that the

plaintiffs “shall not pursue enforcement of the

confessed judgment.”

Zeller v. America Online Inc. (VA-E 1:00-cv-01603

filed 09/27/2000).

Employment discrimination action by a manager

against his former employer for wrongful termination resulting from his reporting sexual harassment of co-workers. The case was dismissed as

settled. One month after the case was dismissed,

the defendant filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement and attached a sealed settlement

agreement as an exhibit. The plaintiff also filed a

motion to enforce the settlement agreement. A

report and recommendation were filed under seal,

and the court granted the defendant’s motion to

enforce the settlement agreement.

Asbestos Multidistrict Litigation: Estate of Lott v.

American Standard Inc. (VA-E 2:00-cv-03931 filed

10/10/2000); Blackburn v. American Standard Inc.

(VA-E 2:00-cv-03981 filed 10/19/2000); Estate of

Chapman v. American Standard Inc. (VA-E 2:01-cv04223 filed 02/01/2001); Estate of Smith v.

American Standard Inc. (VA-E 2:01-cv-04291 filed

02/09/2001); Estate of Johnson v. American Standard

Inc. (VA-E 2:01-cv-04343 filed 02/22/2001); Estate

of Carpenter v. American Standard Inc. (VA-E 2:01-

cv-04451 filed 03/26/2001); Dreyer v. American

Standard Inc. (VA-E 2:01-cv-04787 filed

04/17/2001); Estate of Russell v. American Standard

Inc. (VA-E 2:01-cv-04977 filed 04/23/2001); Estate

of Howell v. American Standard Inc. (VA-E 2:01-cv05007 filed 04/23/2001); Estate of Dickey v.

American Standard Inc. (VA-E 2:01-cv-05427 filed

05/14/2001); Estate of Holland v. American Standard

Inc. (VA-E 2:01-cv-05431 filed 05/14/2001); Estate

of Boyette v. American Standard Inc. (VA-E 2:01-cv05511 filed 06/01/2001).

Asbestos product liability litigation for the wrongful deaths of workers who were exposed to the
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-117

inhalation of asbestos and industrial dust and fibers. These cases were transferred by the MDL

Panel to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as

MDL 875. All of the plaintiffs were represented by

the same law firm in Norfolk, Virginia. Claims

were dismissed against two of the defendants. A

settlement was reached with one of the defendants, and the petition for approval of the compromised settlement was sealed. The order approving the compromised settlement also was

sealed.

Wyatt v. S. C. Jones Service Inc. (VA-E 3:00-cv-00720

filed 11/01/2000).

Employment discrimination action by a black

plaintiff who sued a former employer for wrongful termination. The defendant sought sanctions

against the plaintiff for filing a frivolous lawsuit,

because the plaintiff had filed similar claims in the

past. The court ordered sanctions prohibiting the

plaintiff from filing a civil action or filing pro se

without prior approval of the court for five years.

The plaintiff also was ordered to pay the defendants’ attorney fees and expenses. The court

granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and

motion for summary judgment. A sealed settlement agreement was filed eight days after the

sanctions were imposed.

Cousino v. Sunbeam Corp. (VA-E 2:00-cv-00876 filed

11/22/2000).

Product liability action by two parents and their

five-year-old daughter, alleging that an electric

blanket caught fire. The court conducted a sealed

settlement conference and approved a sealed settlement agreement.

Haider v. American Honda Motor Co. (VA-E 1:00-cv02079 filed 12/14/2000).

Motor vehicle action for wrongful death in a traffic accident in which the driver of a Honda Accord survived, but two passengers were killed. A

mediation report was filed under seal. The defendants’ response to the plaintiff’s petition for approval of the settlement agreement stated that

confidentiality of the agreement was an essential

term.

SY Technology Inc. v. System Studies and Simulation

Inc. (VA-E 1:00-cv-02129 filed 12/22/2000).

Contract action for breach of a proprietary data

agreement by the defendant, who alleged that a

former employee used sensitive financial and

trade secrets to benefit his new company. After a

jury trial had commenced the parties reached a

settlement. The case was dismissed, and the final

order was placed under seal presumably because

it contained terms of the settlement agreement.

Alley v. Core Inc. (VA-E 2:01-cv-00065 filed

01/29/2001).

Designated a product liability case, this is an ERISA action for wrongful denial of disability benefits to an employee for a work injury to a knee and

subsequent unsuccessful arthroscopic surgery.

The case was consolidated with Alley v. Sickness

and Accident Disability Plan for Bell Atlantic Employees (VA-E 2:01-00123 filed 02/26/2002). The court

awarded the plaintiff summary judgment, and the

plaintiff moved for $53,432.50 in attorney fees and

$2,770.97 in costs. The defendant appealed the

summary judgment. While the case was on appeal, it settled pursuant to a settlement agreement, which was filed under seal in district court.

Jappell v. American Association of Blood Banks (VA-E

1:01-cv-002228 filed 02/09/2001).

Personal injury action involving the wrongful

death of a woman who contracted HIV from the

defendant’s blood products. The complaint alleged that the defendant failed to properly screen

blood donors. A sealed settlement agreement was

filed, and the case was dismissed as settled. Eight

days after the case was dismissed, the plaintiff

filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement. The hearing on the motion to enforce the

settlement agreement has not occurred.

Verizon Online Services Inc. v. McDonald (VA-E

1:01-cv-00432 filed 03/19/2001).

Statutory action under the Computer Fraud and

Abuse Act, alleging that the defendants sent unsolicited electronic mail advertising goods and

services to the plaintiff’s subscribers. A sealed

settlement agreement was filed as an attachment

to the motion for stipulated judgment.

Breeden v. PYA/Monarch Inc. (VA-E 2:01-cv-00194

filed 03/20/2001).

Employment action for disability discrimination

by a warehouse worker who was not relieved of

lifting duty while he recovered from an off-work

wrist injury. The action was dismissed as settled,

but nearly four months later the plaintiff filed a

sealed motion to enforce the settlement agreement, which subsequently was sealed by agreed

order. The motion to enforce was denied by a

sealed order.
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-118

Vance v. Everly Funeral Homes Inc. (VA-E 1:01-cv01048 filed 07/05/2001).

Employment action in which an assistant manager sued a former employer for sexual harassment and constructive termination. The plaintiff

filed a sealed motion to enforce the settlement

agreement. The defendant’s memorandum in opposition to the settlement agreement also was

sealed. The case was dismissed as settled.

Canon USA Inc. v. Lease Group Resources Inc. (VA-E

1:01-cv-01086 filed 07/10/2001).

Contract action seeking nearly $5 million in payment for the provision of several hundred photocopiers to the federal government. The parties

moved for dismissal pursuant to a settlement

agreement and asked the court to appoint a magistrate judge as special master to supervise the

settlement, “[g]iven the complex nature of the

settlement obligations, the period of time over

which they will be performed, and the possibility

that the resolution of disputes will require factual

determinations and legal analysis.” The memorandum in support of the motion, presumably

containing a copy of the settlement agreement,

was sealed. But the 23-page settlement agreement

was filed unsealed as an exhibit to two enforcement motions subsequently filed by the defendant. The court continues to oversee the agreement.

Estate of Bui v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (VA-E 2:01-

cv-00612 filed 08/13/2001).

Motor vehicle product liability action for wrongful death resulting from a wheel coming off a

Dodge van carrying church group youths. The

decedent’s estate sued manufacturers of the van,

the wheel, and the tire. The estate filed a sealed

petition for approval of a settlement agreement,

which initially was approved by sealed order and

subsequently approved by unsealed order after

the decedent’s sisters in Vietnam had been given

notice of the agreement. An unsealed Vietnamese

translation of the settlement agreement suggests

that the settlement was for $282,500—$82,500

from the van manufacturer, $140,000 from the

wheel manufacturer, and $60,000 from the tire

manufacturer.

Fredley v. Huthwaite Inc. (VA-E 1:01-cv-01337 filed

08/29/2001).

Employment discrimination action alleging that

the defendants paid the plaintiff less than her

male counterparts for equal work. The plaintiff

filed a motion to enforce a settlement agreement

two weeks after the case was settled and filed the

sealed settlement agreement as an exhibit. In their

response to the plaintiff’s motion, the defendants

reported that they attempted to pay the plaintiff

$14,500 by check, but she wanted cash. The court

ordered the case dismissed as settled because the

parties had reached an agreement.

Hoffstaetter v. Gwaltney of Smithfield Ltd. (VA-E

2:01-cv-00665 filed 08/31/2001).

Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act

by employees of a pork-processing and hogslaughtering facility for failure to pay overtime

wages. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Automall Online Inc. v. American Express Travel

Related Services Co. (VA-E 1:01-cv-01705 filed

11/08/2001).

Contract action for breach of a rewards participation agreement. After a jury trial had commenced,

the parties settled. The settlement was placed on

the record under seal pursuant to a confidentiality

order.

Leavitt-Imblum v. McNeil (VA-E 2:01-cv-00942 filed

12/18/2001).

Copyright infringement action alleging that the

defendants incorporated the plaintiffs’ cross-stitch

patterns into a computer program, allowing users

to stitch uncountable copies of the plaintiffs’ designs without payment of royalties. The settlement agreement was filed under seal.

Drexler v. Aeon Knowledge Inc. (VA-E 1:02-cv-00174

filed 02/01/2002).

Statutory action under wiretapping law for misappropriation of the Internet domain name

“wonderful.com,” which was registered by an

individual for his personal use. The case was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement.

Fenelus v. Dav-El Capital City Inc. (VA-E 1:02-cv00417 filed 03/21/2002).

Designated a civil rights action, this is an employment discrimination action by a black chauffeur for discrimination, assault and battery, and

constructive termination. The plaintiff filed a motion and memorandum under seal to enforce the

settlement agreement. The case was dismissed

before the court ruled on the motion.
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-119

Western District of Virginia

A standing order “governs the unsealing of

documents,” but a presiding judge may make exceptions. Sealing of a document generally may be

considered “only upon written motion.” W.D. Va.

L.R. Part XIII.A. Documents generally “are to be

unsealed within thirty (30) days from the date of

the order to seal.” Id.

Statistics: 3,593 cases in termination cohort; 112

docket sheets (3.1%) have the word “seal” in

them; 41 complete docket sheets (1.1%) were reviewed; actual documents were examined for 31

cases (0.86%); 28 cases (0.78%) appear to have

sealed settlement agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

Sales v. Grant (VA-W 6:96-cv-00027 filed

04/01/1996).

Civil rights action by two assistant election registrars for the City of Lynchburg, who alleged that

they were not reappointed to their positions because they are Democrats. The court awarded the

defendants judgment as a matter of law at the

close of evidence in a jury trial, but the court of

appeals reversed. After a second appeal, a second

jury awarded one plaintiff $55,000 in compensatory damages and $40,000 in punitive damages

and the other plaintiff, $57,000 in compensatory

damages and $35,000 in punitive damages. Following the trial the parties settled the action pursuant to a sealed settlement agreement incorporated by reference into an unsealed consent decree. Although the defendants denied liability,

they agreed to pay each plaintiff $26,000 plus ten

years of periodic payments in accordance with the

agreement, with payments totaling close to

$400,000. Thereafter the court awarded the plaintiffs $814,893 in attorney fees and $28,893.19 in

expenses for the five-and-a-half years of litigation

in this case. The court destroyed the sealed settlement agreement eight months later.

Thompson v. Town of Front Royal (VA-W 5:98-cv00083 filed 11/04/1998); Blackman v. Town of Front

Royal (VA-W 5:99-cv-00017 filed 03/19/1999).

Employment race discrimination actions by a

public works laborer and a public works carpenter, who alleged overt and severe racism against

African-Americans by the director of public

works and another supervisor. Parties agreed to a

settlement at a settlement conference before a

magistrate judge, who filed the terms of settlement under seal for review by the district judge,

who in turn dismissed the action as settled.

Weber v. Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (VA-W

3:98-cv-00109 filed 11/17/1998).

Environmental action by twenty-six plaintiffs

against operators of a landfill dump. The defendant filed a motion for a protective order against

discovery of material the defendant claimed was

protected by attorney–client privilege and as attorney work product. A few months later sealed

documents were filed, including reports and recommendations and orders. One sealed document

was labeled “order and settlement agreement.”

But the action by most of the plaintiffs was dismissed pursuant to a lengthy settlement agreement that was filed unsealed. Two separate orders

each dismissed the action as settled as to a pair of

plaintiffs. Documents pertaining to an interpleader action by a third party refer to settlement

with the remaining pair of plaintiffs.

Spanky’s LLC v. Travelers Commercial Insurance Co.

(VA-W 7:99-cv-00095 filed 02/11/1999),

consolidated with Spanky’s of Virginia LLC v.

Travelers Commercial Insurance Co. (VA-W 7:99-cv00096 filed 02/11/1999) and Macher v. Travelers

Commercial Insurance Co. (VA-W 7:99-cv-00097

filed 02/11/1999).

Insurance actions for a pattern of unreasonable

practices by an adjuster. After mediation by a

magistrate judge, a sealed memorandum of settlement was filed and the case was dismissed.

Rogers v. Pendleton (VA-W 7:99-cv-00164 filed

03/16/1999).

Civil rights action against two police officers for

unlawful search and seizure when the officers

responded to a noise complaint concerning the

plaintiff’s party. A sealed document was filed the

same day as a stipulation of dismissal.

Carter Machinery Co. v. Time Collection Solutions

Inc. (VA-W 7:99-cv-00255 filed 04/15/1999).

Contract and fraud action for a faulty payroll

system. The defendant filed a counterclaim for

unpaid bills. A memorandum of settlement was

filed under seal, and the case was dismissed four

and a half months later. Four months after that,

the parties were ordered to remove sealed materials.

Dean v. Crescent Mortgage Corp. (VA-W 3:00-cv00035 filed 04/19/2000).

Truth in lending action for the defendant’s refusal

to let the plaintiff rescind a $400,000 loan secured

by the plaintiff’s home. After a settlement confer-
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-120

ence before a magistrate judge, a sealed settlement

agreement was filed.

Green v. Ford Motor Co. (VA-W 3:00-cv-00049 filed

06/01/2000), consolidated with Carey v. Ford

Motor Co. (VA-W 3:00-cv-00050 filed 06/01/2000).

Consolidated motor vehicle product liability actions against Ford and U-Haul for the wrongful

deaths of the driver and a passenger of a U-Haul

truck. The truck burst into flames—allegedly because of a design defect—in a rollover accident

apparently caused by the driver’s falling asleep at

the wheel. Ford filed a cross-claim against U-Haul

for destroying the damaged truck without letting

Ford inspect it. The parties reached a confidential

settlement agreement, which the court had to approve because Virginia law requires court approval of wrongful death settlements. (An action

by an additional passenger who survived also

was consolidated, but approval of the settlement

in that case apparently was not necessary.) Several sealed documents subsequently were filed.

Longwall-Associates Inc. v. Wolfgang Preinfalk GmbH

(VA-W 1:00-cv-00086 filed 06/23/2000).

Contract product liability action against a German

manufacturer of mining equipment. The defendant’s North American distributor alleged that

gearboxes sold to a third party were defective.

The defendant filed a counterclaim for 767,520.96

DM and $155,312 US in unpaid bills, plus additional damages. Four days after the court denied

the defendant’s motion for partial summary

judgment on two of the plaintiff’s five claims, a

sealed document was filed and the case was

closed as settled.

Lashea v. Ringwood (VA-W 7:00-cv-00556 filed

07/12/2000).

Prisoner petition against a prison nurse, challenging the quality of medical care for appendicitis. The case settled, and on the same day that a

stipulation of dismissal was filed a sealed document was filed.

Village Lane Rentals LLC v. Capital Financial Group

(VA-W 5:00-cv-00061 filed 07/13/2000).

Securities action by investors in a Texas apartment complex for false and misleading statements

about the condition, occupancy rate, and profits of

the complex. On the eve of trial, an unsuccessful

settlement conference was held in the morning,

and a sealed settlement conference was held in the

afternoon. Approximately three weeks later, a

stipulated dismissal was filed, and a sealed

document was filed a week and a half after that.

This sealed document most likely contained terms

of the settlement agreement.

Hale v. Elcom of Virginia Inc. (VA-W 3:00-cv-00085

filed 09/28/2000).

Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act

against the CBS television affiliate in Richmond

for denial of overtime compensation to television

announcers. The parties settled and filed their

settlement agreement under seal for the court’s

approval pursuant to the court’s order “and applicable law.” The dismissal order disclosed that

one provision of the settlement agreement was

that the plaintiff’s attorney not represent “similarly-situated individuals in future litigation

against the defendants.”

Advance Stores Co. v. Exide Corp. (VA-W 7:00-cv00853 filed 11/03/2000).

Breach of contract action by an auto parts retailer

against a motor vehicle battery wholesaler. The

case was litigated under a protective order, and

many sealed documents were filed. The action

was dismissed as settled the same day that a

sealed settlement agreement was filed. Three

sealed documents were filed three months later,

and then an unsealed response to the defendant’s

motion to enforce the agreement was filed. Six

sealed documents of renewed litigation followed

two to three months later, and the matter ultimately was dismissed again as settled.

Bryant v. Delta Star Inc. (VA-W 6:00-cv-00113 filed

12/11/2000).

Employment action, originally filed pro se, for

discrimination on the basis of age and disability.

The plaintiff ultimately obtained representation,

and her case was consolidated with two others

against the same defendant. The court dismissed

the disability discrimination claims as not first

presented to the EEOC, and the cases went to trial

on the age discrimination claims. A memorandum

of settlement pertaining to all three cases was

filed under seal but docketed only for the lead

case, and the lead case was dismissed.

Ebelt v. Dotson (VA-W 4:01-cv-00025 filed

05/04/2001).

Personal property damage action against a car

dealer for odometer fraud. The parties filed a

sealed document one day, and a sealed motion to
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-121

dismiss the next day. On the third day, the court

dismissed the action as settled.

Comsonics Inc. v. TVC Communications Inc. (VA-W

5:01-cv-00053 filed 06/20/2001).

Patent infringement case concerning a portable

sampling spectrum analyzer. A sealed settlement

and licensing agreement was filed under seal, and

the case was dismissed as settled.

American Red Cross v. Central Virginia Safety

Concepts LLC (VA-W 3:01-cv-00068 filed

06/22/2001).

Contract action against former employees who

started a competing health training business for

improper use of confidential business information. A consent order of dismissal ordered the defendants to refrain from soliciting new business

from parties on a sealed list.

Smith v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (VA-W 4:01-

cv-00041 filed 07/24/2001).

Employment discrimination action by a quality

inspector at a tire plant against a supervisor for

sexual harassment and against their employer for

failure to stop it. After the case was referred to a

magistrate judge for mediation, two sealed documents and a sealed motion to dismiss were filed,

followed by an order to dismiss the action as settled.

Epperly v. Southstar Corp. (VA-W 7:01-cv-00654

filed 08/27/2001).

Employment action by a person with epilepsy for

wrongful failure to rehire because of disability. A

memorandum of settlement was filed under seal,

and the case was dismissed.

Palmer v. Shire Richwoods Inc. (VA-W 7:01-cv-00739

filed 09/26/2001).

Employment action by a male 47-year-old recovering alcoholic with a brain tumor, alleging discrimination on the basis of age, disability, and sex,

and violation of the Family and Medical Leave

Act in his employer’s replacing him with a

younger, healthier woman. The case was dismissed pursuant to a sealed memorandum of settlement.

Teamsters National Automobile Transporters Industry

Negotiating Committee v. Hook Up Inc. (VA-W 7:02-

cv-00035 filed 01/10/2002).

Labor action alleging that the closing of a truck

distribution terminal violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act by not

giving employees sixty days’ notice. The case was

dismissed pursuant to a sealed memorandum of

settlement, which was subsequently destroyed.

Phi Delta Theta International Fraternity v. Phi Delta

Alpha (VA-W 3:02-cv-00028 filed 03/05/2002).

Designated a trademark infringement action, this

is an action by the international Phi Delta Theta

fraternity against an expelled University of Virginia chapter, which changed its name to Phi

Delta Alpha, but continued to suggest association

with Phi Delta Theta, such as by referring to its

members as “Phi Delts.” The chapter was expelled

for serving alcohol, which resulted in the hospitalization of an underage student. The case was

dismissed pursuant to a sealed “sketch settlement

agreement.” The unsealed consent order dismissing the action states that the settlement did

not include an award of damages.

Reyes-Ibarra v. Miller (VA-W 7:02-cv-00681 filed

05/23/2002).

Action by migrant agricultural workers under the

Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act for

improper wages, working conditions, and notice

of labor regulations. The plaintiffs were hired to

create Christmas decorations from evergreens.

The action was dismissed pursuant to a sealed

memorandum of settlement.

Younger v. FWC Inc. (VA-W 6:02-cv-00038 filed

06/19/2002).

Employment discrimination action for sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge. The case was

dismissed pursuant to a sealed memorandum of

settlement.

Eastern District of Washington

No relevant local rule.

Statistics: 1,355 cases in termination cohort; 70

docket sheets (5.2%) have the word “seal” in

them; 3 complete docket sheets (0.22%) were reviewed; actual documents were examined for 2

cases (0.15%); 2 cases have sealed settlement

agreements (0.15%).
Sealed Settlement Agreements

C-122

Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

United States ex rel. Carbaugh v. Westinghouse

Hanford Co. (WA-E 2:96-cs-00171 filed

03/19/1996).

Qui tam action under the False Claims Act for

fraudulently billing for workers’ fringe benefits. A

sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Lohr v. Komatsu Electronic Materials (WA-E 2:00-cs00225 filed 06/29/2000).

Product liability case in which two employees

were seriously injured and one was killed when a

pressure line exploded. Three minor plaintiffs in

the case had guardians ad litem. The court sealed

five documents filed during the thirty days preceding the filing of the recommendation by the

guardians ad litem and ordered that “counsel

shall file all further pleadings concerning settlement of this matter under seal.” A stipulation order dismissing the case gives no additional information.

Western District of Washington69

“There is a strong presumption of public access to

the court’s files and records which may be overcome only on a compelling showing that the public’s right of access is outweighed by the interests

of the public and the parties in protecting files,

records, or documents from public review.” W.D.

Wash. L. Civ. R. 5(g)(1). In civil actions, after the

case is over, if the entire record is sealed, the file is

destroyed, id. R. 5(g)(5)(D); if part of the record is

sealed, then sealed documents are returned to

submitting parties, id. R. 5(g)(5)(C).

Statistics: 6,116 cases in termination cohort; 741

docket sheets (12%) have the word “seal” in them;

23 complete docket sheets (0.38%) were reviewed;

actual documents were examined for 16 cases

(0.26%); 12 cases (0.20%) appear to have sealed

settlement agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Commonwealth Insurance

Co. (WA-W 2:98-cv-01454 filed 10/14/1998).

Contract action involving an insurance coverage

dispute for losses suffered by the plaintiff for excessive soil settlement at the plaintiff’s warehouse.

A cross-claim was filed against the architect and

the engineer who were responsible for the design,

planning, and construction of the warehouse. A

 

69. This district was selected at random for the

study, and it has a good-cause rule.

settlement was reached with the engineer. A motion for setoff of the amount paid by the settlement was filed under seal. A stipulated protective

order noted that the settlement agreement was

confidential. The plaintiff was awarded

$10,845,740 from the insurance company. The decision was affirmed on appeal.

MetroNet Services Corp. v. U.S. West

Communications Inc. (WA-W 2:00-cv-00013 filed

01/05/2000).

Antitrust case challenging the defendant’s monopoly over local and long-distance telecommunication services. The plaintiff filed a motion under seal to enforce the settlement agreement. The

court denied the plaintiff’s motion. The court

granted the defendant’s motion for summary

judgment. The case currently is under appeal.

Kim v. Méndez (WA-W 2:00-cv-00071 filed

01/14/2000).

Employment action by a Korean cook against his

former employer and two former co-workers for

race discrimination and retaliation. A guardian ad

litem was appointed to oversee the interests of the

plaintiff, who was hospitalized for psychiatric

care. The court granted a partial summary judgment for one of the co-worker defendants. A joint

stipulated agreement provides that the terms of

the settlement agreement remain confidential. The

court approved and sealed the guardian ad litem

report.

Supnick v. Amazon.com Inc. (WA-W 2:00-cv-00221

filed 02/11/2000).

Class action involving Web navigation software

that gave the defendant access to users’ names,

passwords, and other confidential information. A

sealed settlement agreement was filed. One week

after the settlement agreement was filed, it was

unsealed. The defendant agreed to modify its

software so that it does not collect confidential

information. The defendant agreed to pay $1.9

million to named plaintiffs and a class of approximately 47,500, and $100,000 to a fund that

will provide grants to university-based programs

with Internet public policy issues.

Lambert v. Henderson (WA-W 3:00-cv-05165 filed

03/21/2000).

Employment discrimination action by a black

mailman against his former employer for refusing

to provide light-duty work for him after his surgery. Minutes of the settlement were placed on
Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-123

the record under seal during the settlement conference.

Savage v. Combined Insurance Co. of America (WAW 3:00-cv-05319 filed 06/01/2000).

Labor litigation involving failure to pay commissions on the sale of Medicare supplemental policies. The settlement agreement was placed on the

record under seal during the settlement conference.

White v. Johnston & Culberson Inc. (WA-W 2:00-cv00982 filed 06/07/2000).

Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act for

failure to pay overtime wages. A sealed settlement agreement was filed. The court approved

the settlement.

Gorchoff v. North Shore Agency (WA-W 2:00-cv01329 filed 08/07/2000).

Class action under the Fair Debt Collection Act for

failing to provide the name of the original creditor

in a collection letter and for threatening to take

action not legally allowed by the defendant. The

case was dismissed as settled, and the order of

dismissal was filed under seal. A sealed settlement agreement apparently was filed.

Precor Inc. v. Brunswick Corp. (WA-W 2:00-cv01392 filed 08/17/2000).

Patent infringement case involving a patent for a

treadmill. Six weeks after the case was dismissed,

the defendant filed a motion under seal to enforce

the settlement agreement. The court granted the

defendant’s motion.

Chance v. Avenue A Inc. (WA-W 2:00-cv-01964 filed

11/20/2000).

Class action by persons who were secretly tracked

by the defendant as they surfed the Internet. The

defendant’s motion for summary judgment was

granted. The plaintiffs appealed, but later voluntarily dismissed the appeal. The court granted a

joint motion for preliminary approval of the class

action settlement that was filed under seal.

Chilbeck v. Deere & Co. (WA-W 3:01-cv-05287 filed

05/29/2001).

Product liability wrongful death case involving a

man who suffocated when his tractor tipped over,

pinning him between the tractor’s rollover protective structure and the ground. The decedent’s

minor child was represented by a guardian ad

litem, whose report on the settlement was sealed.

A joint stipulation was filed that the settlement

documents be filed under seal.

In re Arctic Rose LLC (WA-W 2:01-cv-01360 filed

08/31/2001).

Statutory action in admiralty by owners of a fishing vessel for exoneration from or limitation of

liability arising from an accident that resulted in

the deaths of thirteen people. Seven guardian ad

litem reports were filed under seal and approved

by the court for the decedents’ minor children.

The order authorizing settlement was filed under

seal.
The Federal Judicial Center

Board

The Chief Justice of the United States, Chair

Judge Pierre N. Leval, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Judge Terence T. Evans, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Judge James A. Parker, U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico

Judge Sarah S. Vance, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

Judge Bernice B. Donald, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee

Chief Judge Robert F. Hershner, Jr., U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of

Georgia

Magistrate Judge Robert B. Collings, U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Leonidas Ralph Mecham, Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

Director

Judge Barbara J. Rothstein

Deputy Director

Russell R. Wheeler

About the Federal Judicial Center

The Federal Judicial Center is the research and education agency of the federal judicial

system. It was established by Congress in 1967 (28 U.S.C. §§ 620–629), on the recommendation of the Judicial Conference of the United States.

By statute, the Chief Justice of the United States chairs the Center’s Board, which also

includes the director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and seven judges

elected by the Judicial Conference.

The Director’s Office is responsible for the Center’s overall management and its relations with other organizations. Its Systems Innovation & Development Office provides

technical support for Center education and research. Communications Policy & Design

edits, produces, and distributes all Center print and electronic publications, operates the

Federal Judicial Television Network, and through the Information Services Office maintains a specialized library collection of materials on judicial administration.

The Judicial Education Division develops and administers education programs and

services for judges, career court attorneys, and federal defender office personnel. These

include orientation seminars, continuing education programs, and special-focus workshops.

The Court Education Division develops and administers education and training programs and services for nonjudicial court personnel, such as those in clerks’ offices and

probation and pretrial services offices, and management training programs for court

teams of judges and managers.

The Research Division undertakes empirical and exploratory research on federal judicial processes, court management, and sentencing and its consequences, often at the

request of the Judicial Conference and its committees, the courts themselves, or other

groups in the federal system.

The Federal Judicial History Office develops programs relating to the history of the

judicial branch and assists courts with their own judicial history programs.

The Interjudicial Affairs Office provides information about judicial improvement to

judges and others from foreign countries and identifies international legal developments

of importance to personnel of the federal courts.