J.G. : CIVIL ACTION 

Plaintiff, 11-2887 (WJM/MF) 

V. 

C.M. 

Defendant. 

C.M. 

Third-Party Plaintiff, 

V. 

V.G., N.G. and Mary Jo Lynch 

Third-Party Defendants. 

COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT, J.G., AND THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS, V.G. 

AND N.G.'S MOTION TO CORRECT THE FEBRUARY 24, 2015 RECORD 

Counterclaim Defendant, J.G. and Third-Party Defendants, V.G. and N.G. (collectively 

"Moving Parties") by and through their counsel, White and Williams LLP, hereby move for an 

Order correcting the February 24, 2015 hearing transcript to accurately reflect the terms of the 

parties' settlement agreement. 

INTRODUCTION 

The parties settled this litigation on October 23, 2014. The oral settlement agreement 

reached that day included mutual promises by the parties to: 1) dismiss the claims against each 

other without admission of liability, 2) refrain from future contact with each other, 3) prepare a 

confidentiality provision, and 4) not disparage each other. The parties did not agree that the 

aforementioned confidentiality provision would be a gag order precluding any future discussion 

regarding this litigation or matters that are part of the public record. 

15076538v. I 

Case 2:11-cv-02887-WJM-MF Document 190 Filed 03/10/15 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 2802
Nonetheless, a broad form confidentiality provision was placed on the record during the 

February 24, 2015 hearing. The February 24, 2015 hearing transcript does not, however, 

reference V.G.'s October 23, 2014 conversation with the Court wherein she was advised that 

neither a no disparagement clause nor confidentiality provision would preclude her from 

lecturing on issues relating to the litigation as long as she omits party names. Therefore, the 

Moving Parties seek correction of the February 24, 2015 hearing transcript to include the terms 

of the October 23, 2015 settlement. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

This case was commenced when Plaintiff J.G. filed his Complaint against Defendant 

C.M. C.M. then asserted a counterclaim against J.G. and joined V.G. and N.G. as third-party 

defendants. The parties collectively reached an agreement to settle this case on October 23, 

2014. See Hearing Transcript (2/24/15), attached to Declaration of Counsel, Exhibit "A", p. 3 

At that time, the parties placed the basic terms of the settlement on the record, pending the 

drafting and execution of a formal written settlement agreement. Id. Unfortunately, the 

transcript of that recitation of the terms is not available due to a technical or mechanical error. 

Id. Subsequently, in the process of drafting a written settlement agreement, the parties disagreed 

as to the terms that had been agreed upon with respect to a confidentiality provision. Id. 

The parties filed memoranda outlining their positions on this disagreement and the Court 

held a miscellaneous hearing on February 24, 2015. Id. During the hearing, the Court, relying 

on its own recollection and notes, attempted to reconstruct the October 23, 2014 settlement 

terms. Id. at p. 4. The Court would not, however, permit the parties to ask questions or set forth 

their recollection of the settlement terms. Id. at p. 6. Though the Moving Parties agreed with the 

essential settlement terms set forth on February 24, 2015, including a limited form of 

-4- 

15076538v.1 

Case 2:11-cv-02887-WJM-MF Document 190 Filed 03/10/15 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 2803
confidentiality provision, they did not agree, at any time, to "keep the matter confidential" or 

"not [] make any reference or allude to this lawsuit in any discussions moving forward." Id. at 

p.5. This confidentiality provision, which is tantamount to a gag order, is inconsistent with the 

settlement terms as agreed upon and articulated at the original October 23, 2014 settlement 

hearing. 

On October 23, 2014, J.G., N.G., and V.G. met with The Honorable Judge William 

Martini in the jury room to discuss potential settlement terms. See Affidavit of J.G. ¶ 2; 

Affidavit of N.G. ¶ 2; Affidavit of V.G. ¶ 2 and Declaration of Counsel ¶ 4. While discussing 

inclusion of a no disparagement clause and confidentiality provision, V.G. informed Judge 

Martini that she gives presentations in which she mentions this litigation, but does not reference 

party names or content that is beyond the public record. See Affidavit of J.G. ¶ 3-4; Affidavit of 

N.G. ¶ 3-4; Affidavit of V.G. ¶ 3-4 and Declaration of Counsel ¶ 6. She indicated her intent to 

continue presenting, but did not want a settlement agreement to impede her right. See Affidavit 

of J.G. ¶ 5; Affidavit of N.G. ¶ 5; Affidavit of V.G. ¶ 5 and Declaration of Counsel ¶ 7. In 

response, Judge Martini assured her that neither a no disparagement nor confidentiality provision 

would preclude her right to continue presenting as long as she removed any reference to party 

names. See Affidavit of J.G. ¶ 6; Affidavit of N.G. ¶ 6; Affidavit of V.G. ¶ 6 and Declaration of 

Counsel ¶ 8. When reciting the terms of the settlement agreement on the record, the parties did 

not agree to a confidentiality provision precluding the parties from referencing in the future: 1) 

the litigation in its entirety, or 2) matters already part of the public record. See Affidavit of J.G. 

¶ 7-8; Affidavit of N.G. ¶ 7-8; Affidavit of V.G. ¶ 7-8 and Declaration of Counsel ¶ 10. The 

Moving Parties' understanding of the confidentiality provision was represented in their 

comments to the proposed settlement agreement. See settlement agreement with V.G., N.G. and 

-5- 

15076538v.1 

Case 2:11-cv-02887-WJM-MF Document 190 Filed 03/10/15 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 2804
J.G.'s edits, attached to Declaration of Counsel, Exhibit "B." Accordingly, the Moving Parties 

seek to correct the February 24, 2015 record to accurately reflect the terms of the agreement. 

ARGUMENT 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow a court to "correct a clerical mistake or a 

mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other 

part of the record." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). Additionally, the court may relieve a party from an 

order due to "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect" on just terms. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 60(b). Further, a party may prove an official record by any method authorized by law. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 44(c). Where no copy of the content of an official record is available, a party may 

prove the content through the use of other evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 1005. 

Here, the parties reached a settlement agreement on October 23, 2014. While J.G., V.G. 

and N.G. have no interest in voiding or altering the settlement agreement, they should not be 

forced to comply with a confidentiality provision that lacks consideration.' Prior to placing the 

basic settlement terms on the record, the moving parties agreed that V.G. would be permitted to 

continue referring to this case, without party names, in her speeches and presentations. There 

was no agreement to a gag order. 

Unfortunately, the transcript of the October 23, 2014 settlement is not available and the 

Court did not reference its communication with the Moving Parties relating to the breadth of the 

confidentiality provision during the February 24, 2015 record reconstruction. When an official 

record of a proceeding is not available, a party may prove the content of that record by any 

means authorized by law. In these circumstance, Rule of Civil Procedure 44 and Rule of 

1 CM received consideration for dismissing his counterclaim and third-party claims as: 1) J.G. 

agreed to dismiss all of his claims against C.M. without admission of liability, 2) the parties 

agreed to not disparage each other, 3) the parties agreed to cease contact with each other, and 4) 

the parties agreed to a limited form of confidentiality. 

-6- 

15076538v.1 

Case 2:11-cv-02887-WJM-MF Document 190 Filed 03/10/15 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 2805
Evidence 1005 permit proof of the court proceedings via affidavit and similar evidence. The 

affidavits of V.G., N.G., and J.G. all demonstrate that the settlement agreement did not include a 

provision requiring complete confidentiality. Therefore, the Moving Parties respectfully request 

a correction of the February 24, 2015 record to remove any reference or requirement by the 

parties to "keep the matter confidential" or "not [] make any reference or allude to this lawsuit in 

any discussions moving forward" and replace these terms with a provision that requires: "1) the 

parties are to keep the terms of this settlement agreement confidential, 2) the parties are 

permitted to discuss the case publicly but without identifying party names, and 3) the parties are 

permitted to discuss matters contained in the public docket." These provisions accurately reflect 

the terms of confidentiality provision. 

CONCLUSION 

For all of the foregoing reasons, Counterclaim Defendant, J.G. and Third-Party 

Defendants, N.G. and V.G. respectfully request that the court enter the attached order correcting 

the reconstructed record to include the agreed upon confidentiality provision. 

Respectfully submitted, 

WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP 

Attorneys for Counterclaim Defendant, J.G. 

and Third-Party Defendants, V.G. and N.G. 

By: Jared K. Levy, Esquires 

LibertyView 

457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 400 

Cherry Hill, NJ 08002-2220 

Phone: 856.317.3600 

Dated: March 10, 2015 

-7- 

15076538v.1 

Case 2:11-cv-02887-WJM-MF Document 190 Filed 03/10/15 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 2806