Robert Timothy Reagan, Shannon R. Wheatman, Marie Leary ... · Sealed Settlement Agreements in...

Sealed SettlementAgreements 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’sstatutory 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 Ju-dicial Center.

This page is left blank intentionally to facilitate printing of the document double-sided.

iii

ContentsAcknowledgments vThe Report 1

The Law of Sealing 1Findings 3Conclusion 8

Appendix A. Method A-1Appendix B. Federal District Court Rules on Sealed Records B-1Appendix C. Descriptions of Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements C-1

v

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

Donna Pitts-Taylor, Vashty Gobinpersad, and Estelita Huidobro for their assis-tance with this project. We are grateful to Ed Cooper, Rick Marcus, RussellWheeler, Jim Eaglin, Syl Sobel, Tom Willging, Molly Treadway Johnson, KenWithers, Martha Kendall, and Geoff Erwin for advice on this report. We are es-pecially grateful to the clerks of court, other court staff, and archive personnelwho provided us with information and helped us acquire access to court files.

1

The ReportThe Judicial Conference of the United States’ Advisory Committee on Civil Rulesasked the Federal Judicial Center to conduct research on sealed settlementagreements filed in federal district court. Although the practice of confidentialsettlement agreements is common, the question is how often and under what cir-cumstances such agreements are filed under seal.

Many civil cases settle before trial, and defendants commonly seek confiden-tiality agreements concerning the terms of settlement. Usually such agreementsare not filed. A high proportion of civil cases settle,1 but a sealed settlementagreement is filed in less than one-half of one percent of civil cases. In 97% ofthese 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 andcopy 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 isnot 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 forimproper purposes.” Id. at 598.

Accountability is a principal reason for public access. Joy v. North, 692 F.2d880, 893 (2d Cir. 1982) (“An adjudication is a formal act of government, the basisof which should, absent exceptional circumstances, be subject to public scru-tiny.”); Jessup v. Luther, 277 F.3d 926, 928 (7th Cir. 2002) (“the public cannotmonitor judicial performance adequately if the records of judicial proceedingsare secret”); id. at 929 (“The public has an interest in knowing what terms of set-tlement a federal judge would approve and perhaps therefore nudge the partiesto 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 byreason. Any step that withdraws an element of the judicial process from publicview makes the ensuing decision look more like fiat, which requires compellingjustification.”).

Courts of appeals have determined that the common law presumption of ac-cess applies to documents filed with the court, although it does not apply todocuments exchanged in discovery, Federal Trade Commission v. Standard FinancialManagement Corp., 830 F.2d 404, 408 (1st Cir. 1987); United States v. Amodeo, 71F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995), or to settlement agreements not filed, Pansy v. Bor-ough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 781–83 (3d Cir. 1994). Also, the presumption ofpublic access is stronger for documents filed in conjunction with substantive ac-tion 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 that22% were dismissed as settled and 2% were terminated on consent judgment. Another 10% werevoluntary 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 ExtrusionTechnologies Inc., 998 F.2d 157, 165 (3d Cir. 1993); Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto-mobile 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 isfiled with the court for the court’s approval or interpretation, then denying thepublic access to the agreement requires special circumstances. Bank of AmericaNational Trust & Savings Association, 800 F.2d 339, 345 (3d Cir. 1986) (“Once a set-tlement is filed in the district court, it becomes a judicial record, and subject tothe access accorded such records.”); Herrnreiter v. Chicago Housing Authority, 281F.3d 634, 637 (7th Cir. 2002) (“[Defendant’s] desire to keep the amount of itspayment quiet (perhaps to avoid looking like an easy mark, and thus drawingmore suits) is not nearly on a par with national security and trade secret infor-mation. Now that the agreement itself has become a subject of litigation, it mustbe opened to the public just like other information (such as wages paid to an em-ployee, or the price for an architect’s services) that becomes the subject of litiga-tion.”); 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 negoti-ated settlement between the parties, even if the settlement comes with the court’sactive encouragement. Once a matter is brought before a court for resolution, it isno longer solely the parties’ case, but also the public’s case. Absent a showing ofextraordinary circumstances .!.!.!, the court file must remain accessible to thepublic.”).

Many appellate opinions have stressed the importance of the court’s statingspecific 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 ar-ticulated reasoning, are insufficient.”); Stone v. University of Maryland Medical Sys-tem Corp., 855 F.2d 178, 182 (4th Cir. 1988) (“the district court must provide aclear statement, supported by specific findings, of its reasons for sealing any rec-ords or documents, as well as its reasons for rejecting measures less drastic thansealing them”); Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1435 (9th Cir. 1995) (“becausethe 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 tosealed 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 theymay remain sealed, E.D. Mich. L.R. 5.4. Forty-nine districts (52%) have local rulespertaining to sealed documents generally. Fourteen districts (15%) have rulescovering only administrative mechanics (e.g., how sealed documents aremarked),2 thirty-two districts (34%) have rules covering how long a documentmay 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 com-piled in Appendix B.5

FindingsWe examined 288,846 civil cases that were filed in a sample of 52 districts. Wefound 1,270 cases with sealed settlement agreements (0.44%). That is one in ap-proximately 227 cases.

The sealed settlement rate for individual districts ranges from considerablyless than the national rate to considerably more than that rate. Figure 1 showssealed settlement rates for individual districts. Three districts (6%) had no sealedsettlement agreements—Indiana Northern, Iowa Southern, and South Dakota.Three districts (6%) had sealed settlement rates more than twice the nationalrate—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 adocument. The rate of sealed settlement agreements in those districts was 0.37%.The rate of sealed settlement agreements in the other districts was somewhathigher—0.45%—but the difference was not statistically significant.7

Sealed settlement agreements appear in cases of many different types. Table 1shows nature-of-suit frequencies. More than half of the cases with sealed settle-ment agreements are either personal injury cases (30%) or employment cases(27%). Another fifth are either contract cases (11%) or civil rights cases (10%). In-tellectual property cases account for 11% of civil cases with sealed settlementagreements, but the rate of sealed settlement agreements in such cases is rela-tively high (1.5%). Cases identified as Fair Labor Standards Act cases have aneven higher rate of sealed settlement agreements (2.6%), almost six times theoverall average. Because the court must approve settlement agreements in suchcases, they are frequently filed.

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

Illinois Northern, Iowa Northern and Southern, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan Eastern, MichiganWestern, Minnesota, Mississippi Northern and Southern, Missouri Eastern, New York Eastern,North Carolina Eastern, North Carolina Middle, North Carolina Western, North Dakota, OhioNorthern, Ohio Southern, Oregon, Pennsylvania Middle, Tennessee Eastern, Texas Eastern, TexasNorthern, Utah, Virginia Western, Washington Western.

4. California Northern, Illinois Northern, Maryland, Michigan Western, Mississippi Northernand 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 isnew (May 1, 2003).

5. In May 2003 we presented to the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules a compilation of bothfederal and state rules on sealed trial court documents, at the committee’s request. This compila-tion is available in our unpublished report, “Sealed Settlement Agreements in Federal DistrictCourt—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 thismultidistrict litigation. The sealed settlement agreement rate in Hawaii is relatively high in partbecause sealing the record of successful settlement conferences is a relatively frequent practicethere; approximately two-thirds of the cases we identified as containing sealed settlement agree-ments in Hawaii were so identified for this reason. The high rate of sealed settlement agreements inPuerto Rico appears to reflect a relatively more common practice of filing and sealing such agree-ments there.

7. p = 0.63.


4

Figure 1Rate of Sealed Settlement Agreements in Civil Cases

(With Number of Terminated Cases 2001–2002)

Darker bars are districts with local rulesrequiring 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%A

L-M

(3,2

37)

AL-

N (7

,042

)A

L-S

(2,0

15)

AZ

(6,6

04)

CA-N

(12,

140)

DE

(2,2

50)

DC

(5,3

68)

FL-M

(13,

678)

FL-N

(3,0

45)

FL-S

(15,

928)

GU

(130

)H

I (1,

752)

ID (1

,350

)IL

-N (1

9,37

8)IN

-N (4

,103

)IN

-S (5

,831

)IA

-N (1

,096

)IA

-S (1

,976

)M

E (1

,070

)M

D (7

,851

)M

I-E (9

,561

)M

I-W (2

,775

)M

N (4

,792

)M

S-N

(2,6

03)

MS-

S (5

,775

)M

O-E

(4,7

98)

MO

-W (4

,857

)N

H (1

,157

)N

M (3

,084

)N

Y-E

(16,

001)

NY-

N (3

,928

)N

Y-S

(20,

976)

NY-

W (3

,000

)N

C-E

(2,8

08)

NC-

M (2

,284

)N

C-W

(2,2

03)

ND

(574

)O

K-N

(1,9

54)

PA-E

(19,

520)

PA-M

(4,6

78)

PA-W

(6,2

18)

PR (3

,562

)SC

(8,1

26)

SD (8

20)

TN-E

(3,1

28)

TN-M

(3,1

62)

TN-W

(2,7

59)

UT

(2,3

87)

VA-E

(14,

448)

VA-W

(3,5

93)

WA

-E (1

,355

)W

A-W

(6,1

16)

ALL

(288

,846

)

The Report

5

Table 1. Types of Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

Nature of SuitNumberof Cases

Proportion AmongCases with Sealed

SettlementAgreements1

SealedSettlement

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 en-forcement. If they are filed with the court, the same judge who heard the case canenforce the agreement without a new action being filed, and the court can en-force the agreement with contempt powers. Often the agreement is filed so thatthe court can approve it. Among cases with sealed settlement agreements, almostone-quarter (22%) were actions typically requiring court approval of settlementagreements. This includes cases involving minors or other persons requiring spe-cial protection (13%), actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (7%), and classactions (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 LaborStandards Act claims had other nature-of-suit codes.


6

Sometimes the settlement agreement is not filed until one party believes it hasbeen breached, and then it is filed as a sealed exhibit in a motion to enforce it. Inapproximately 11% of the cases with sealed settlement agreements, this was howthe agreement came to be filed. In a few additional cases, there was a motion toenforce after the agreement was filed.

Occasionally the settlement agreement is not a sealed document filed with thecourt, but a part of a sealed or partially sealed proceeding or transcript. This wastrue for 13% of the cases we found with sealed settlement agreements.

In 97% of the cases with sealed settlement agreements, the complaint is notsealed. Almost the only time we encountered a sealed complaint was in cases inwhich the entire record is sealed. (Sometimes the docket sheet is sealed;9 some-times 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 Productsv. OM Group (AL-N 7:97-cv-01917 filed 07/25/1997) (fraud action dismissed as settled); Thomas-son Lumber Co. v. Cahaba Pressure-Treated Forest Products (AL-N 7:98-cv-00043 filed01/08/1998) (contract action dismissed as settled); Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insur-ance Co. v. Cahaba Pressure-Treated Forest Products (AL-N 2:98-cv-01261 filed 05/19/1998) (in-surance action dismissed as settled); Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant (CA-N 4:00-cv-02945 filed08/14/2000) (statutory action dismissed as settled); Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant (CA-N3:01-cv-01156 filed 03/21/2001) (statutory action dismissed as settled); Sealed Plaintiff v. SealedDefendant (CA-N 3:01-cv-02928 filed 07/27/2001) (contract action dismissed as settled); NickChorak Mowing v. United States (DC 1:99-cv-00587 filed 03/08/1999) (contract action dismissed assettled); Engel v. Equifax Inc. (DC 1:01-cv-00882 filed 04/17/2001) (statutory action dismissed assettled); United States v. Board of Regents (FL-N 4:93-cv-40226 filed 06/25/1993) (statutory actiondismissed 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 filed07/22/1999) (insurance action dismissed as settled); Kessler v. American Postal (MD 8:98-cv-03547filed 10/21/1998) (statutory action dismissed as settled); United States v. Frederick Memorial (MD1:01-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); SealedPlaintiff v. Sealed Defendant (MN 0:98-cv-02428 filed 11/10/1998) (fraud action dismissed as set-tled); Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant (MN 0:99-cv-00292 filed 02/18/1999) (fraud action dis-missed as settled); Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant (MN 0:02-cv-00369 filed 02/12/2002) (fraudaction dismissed as settled); Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant (MN 0:02-cv-04270 filed11/07/2002) (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. LambertFenchurch (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 actiondismissed 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 liabil-ity action brought by a minor, Farr v. Newell Rubbermaid Inc. (AL-N 5:00-cv-00997 filed04/18/2000); an employment action against the University of Michigan in which private medicalinformation was an issue, Baker v. Bollinger (MI-E 4:00-cv-40239 filed 06/26/2000); a civil rightsaction by a minor against a county, M.K. v. Pinnacle Programs Inc. (MN 0:98-cv-02440 filed11/13/1998); 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 broughton behalf of children, Rowe v. Boys and Girls Club of America (MN 0:01-cv-202269 filed12/10/2001); two consolidated foreclosure actions pertaining to gambling boat mortgages, CreditSuisse First Boston Mortgage Capital LLC v. Doris (MS-N 4:99-cv-00283 filed 11/22/1999), consoli-dated with Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Capital Inc. v. Bayou Caddy’s Jubilee Casino (MS-N 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 thesettlement conference report, except for the agreed judgment, which specifies theterms of settlement.11

We did not evaluate whether the sealing of documents complied with circuitlaw and local rules, but we did observe that the public record almost never in-cluded specific findings justifying sealing.

Some of the cases with sealed settlement agreements are likely to be of greaterpublic interest than others. Table 2 lists some types of cases that might be of spe-cial public interest. The table shows how many cases of each type had sealed set-tlement agreements and the proportion of sealed settlement agreements that arein cases of each type. Approximately two-fifths of the cases with sealed settle-ment agreements have at least one of the features in Table 2 that might makethem of special public interest. Appendix C contains case descriptions showingwhat the public record reveals about each of the 1,270 cases with sealed settle-ment agreements. Because the complaints are almost never sealed, the public rec-ord almost always identifies the defendants and reveals what the defendants arealleged to have done.

We had access to important terms of settlement in 18% of the cases withsealed settlement agreements. Occasionally this was because we had access tosealed documents. Sometimes sealed documents became unsealed. Sometimesdocuments that are not sealed disclose some or all terms of the settlementagreement. Analysis of information available in this way confirms that settle-ment 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 casesinvolving patents, the terms of settlement typically bind the parties to certain ac-tions 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 isthe amount of settlement.

nor plaintiff, Keyes v. Deere & Co. (PA-E 2:98-cv-00602 filed 02/06/1998); an insurance case in-volving a workers’ compensation claim, Slater v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. (PA-E 2:98-cv-01711filed 03/31/1998); a copyright case, Valitek Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-03024 filed06/15/1999); an insurance case against a church, Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. v. Church of theLord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith (PA-E 2:00-cv-03320 filed 06/29/2000); a patent case, Gra-ham Packaging Co. v. Mooney (PA-M 1:00-cv-02027 filed 11/20/2000); and a third product liabilitycase with a minor plaintiff, Angelo v. General Motors Corp. (PA-W 2:00-cv-00871 filed05/04/2000).

11. This was a civil rights action for failure to prevent disclosure of the plaintiff’s medical con-dition, Doe v. City of Tulsa (OK-N 4:00-cv-00896 filed 10/18/2000). We counted this as a case witha sealed settlement agreement, because although the agreed judgment was not sealed, other docu-ments containing terms of settlement were sealed.


8

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

Type of Case Number of Cases

Proportion AmongCases with Sealed

Settlement Agreements

Environmental 10 1%

Product Liability (includes caseswith other nature-of-suit codes)1 258 20%

Professional Malpractice 40 3%

Public Party Defendant 152 12%

Very Serious Injury (death orserious 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 KennedyAirport also accounted for a substantial fraction of these cases (31 cases in the Southern District of NewYork).

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

ConclusionSealed settlement agreements are rare in federal court. They occur in less thanone-half of one percent of civil cases. In 97% of these cases, the complaint is notsealed, so the public has access to information about the alleged wrongdoers andwrongdoings. Although the public record seldom contains specific findings justi-fying the sealing of settlement agreements, generally the only thing kept secretby the sealing is the amount of settlement.

A-1

Appendix A. Method

DistrictsWe looked for sealed settlement agreements in all 11 districts with local rules re-quiring good cause to seal a document and in a 50% random sample of the otherdistricts.12

We originally designed our method so that we might include all districts inthe study, but we studied the districts in a modified random order so that if weconcluded the research without studying all districts, we would have studied arandom sample. Because state court practices might influence federal practice,we decided to study districts in the same state together, and we decided that thesame researcher should study all districts in the same state. So we listed thestates (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 researchwith districts in North Carolina, which is home to the overseeing subcommittee’schair (the Honorable Brent McKnight, U.S. District Judge for the Western Districtof North Carolina), so that his additional knowledge about cases in his districtwould serve as a check on our work. We also put at the top of the list states withdistricts that have local rules specifically concerning sealed settlement agree-ments. The Eastern District of Michigan has a rule calling for the unsealing ofsettlement agreements after two years. E.D. Mich. L.R. 6.4. The District of SouthCarolina 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’sgroundbreaking “Sunshine in Litigation” law, Fla. Stat. §!69.081.

We decided that the first 47 districts in the list would provide a sample of suf-ficient size, taking into account an estimate that it would take approximately ayear and a half to study that many districts. We determined that our time framewould permit us to supplement the random sample with the five otherwise un-selected districts with local rules requiring good cause to seal a document. Ourstudy would then include all 11 districts with good-cause rules,14 permitting arough comparison between those districts and a sample of other districts, espe-cially 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 South-ern, 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; andWashington Western, W.D. Wash. L. Civ. R. 5. The Western District of New York adopted a good-cause 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 OklahomaNorthern—are in multidistrict states. We did not study the other districts in those states.


A-2

To test whether results from our modified random sample are likely to be dif-ferent from an unmodified random sample, we computed the overall rate ofsealed settlement agreements using a procedure somewhat different from justdividing the number of sealed settlements we found by the number of cases weexamined. Nine districts were selected before we started selecting districts atrandom—districts in Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Wecomputed an average by weighting each of these districts as 1. There are 85 otherdistricts. Not considering the five districts that were selected only because theyhave good-cause rules (California Northern, Illinois Northern, Maryland, Okla-homa Northern, and Utah), we selected 38 at random. So we weighted these dis-tricts 85/38 = 2.24 in computing an average. Using this weighting scheme, wecomputed a sealed settlement rate of 0.46%, which is almost identical to the un-weighted rate of 0.44%. We decided, therefore, to analyze our data as if our sam-ple were truly random.

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

years 2001 and 2002. Because we include all calendar months, there are unlikelyto be any hidden seasonal biases. Looking at two years of terminations ensuresthat our data will not be based only on an idiosyncratic year.

Finding Sealed Settlement AgreementsOur search for sealed settlement agreements was a process of step-by-step elimi-nation—upon closer and closer review—of cases that do not have sealed settle-ment agreements.

We rejected the idea of looking only at cases with disposition codes of “set-tled” or “consent judgment” in data reported to the Administrative Office be-cause that would have eliminated 37% of the cases we ultimately found.16 Even ifwe also looked at cases with disposition codes of “voluntary dismissal” and“other dismissal,” we would have eliminated 20% of the cases we ultimatelyfound.17

We attempted to download all 288,846 docket sheets for cases terminated in2001 or 2002 in the study districts. We found 138 of the docket sheets (0.05%) tobe sealed. We searched each unsealed docket sheet for the word “seal.”18 Thissearch found “seal,” “sealed,” “unseal,” etc., including “Seal,” “Seale,” etc., in aparty name. Docket entries (and headers) with the word “seal” in them were ex-tracted 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% werecoded 5!=!“judgment on consent.”

17. Eight percent of the cases we found were coded 12 = “dismissed: voluntarily” and 9% werecoded 14!=!“dismissed: other.”

18. Because the Northern District of Illinois has a procedure for restricting public access todocuments without actually sealing them (although they may also be sealed), for that district wealso 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 entrywith the word “seal” had a date within two weeks, for example, of either thetermination date or a docket entry with the word “settle.” Had we done this, wewould 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 casemight or did have a sealed settlement agreement, then we read the entire docketsheet for that case. Sometimes, for example, a docket entry merely says “sealeddocument,” and review of other docket entries is necessary to determine whatthe sealed document might be.20

This review of 2,262 docket sheets eliminated cases with sealed documentsfiled only at the beginning of qui tam actions or attached only to discovery mo-tions, 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 agree-ment. If so, then we identified which documents in the case file to review to learnwhat the case is about and to learn as much as possible about the sealed settle-ment agreement. We reviewed actual documents filed in 1,410 cases. Generallywe reviewed complaints, cross-claims and counterclaims, court opinions, anddocuments pertaining, or possibly pertaining, to the settlement.

We were not able to determine with very good precision whether cases withsealed docket sheets contained sealed settlement agreements, so we regardedcases with sealed docket sheets that were terminated by consent judgment orsettlement as containing sealed settlement agreements and cases terminated oth-erwise as not containing sealed settlement agreements.21

In this way we identified 1,270 cases among cases terminated over a two-yearperiod in 52 districts that appear to have sealed settlement agreements.22 Table Asummarizes the number of cases reviewed in each district. Descriptions of thesecases 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 approximatelyone 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, Mary-land, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Virginia, and Washington; Marie Leary revieweddocuments 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 presenceof a sealed settlement agreement was based on a review of the docket sheets rather than the lessprecise rule of thumb.

22. This includes 23 cases (2%) with sealed docket sheets terminated either by consent judgmentor settlement, according to data reported to the Administrative Office.


A-4

Table A. Number of Cases Examined in Each District

District Cas

esTe

rmin

ated

in20

01 o

r 200

2

Seal

ed D

ocke

tSh

eets

Doc

ket S

heet

sw

ith E

ntri

esEx

amin

ed

Doc

ket S

heet

sR

ead

Cas

e Fi

les

Exam

ined

Cas

es w

ithSe

aled

Settl

emen

tA

gree

men

ts

Alabama Middle 3,237 0 80 4 3 3Alabama Northern 7,042 3 745 26 24 26Alabama Southern 2,015 1 78 22 9 9Arizona 6,604 18 347 32 21 18California Northern1 12,140 11 635 146 82 70Delaware 2,250 0 213 13 9 9District of Columbia 5,368 5 469 39 35 28Florida Middle 13,678 17 529 103 43 36Florida Northern 3,045 2 160 11 5 5Florida Southern 15,928 16 669 260 128 111Guam 130 0 7 3 1 1Hawaii 1,752 2 458 42 40 38Idaho 1,350 6 440 10 5 4Illinois Northern1 19,378 0 649 99 80 72Indiana Northern 4,103 1 216 11 0 0Indiana Southern 5,831 0 200 60 13 9Iowa Northern 1,096 0 42 15 6 6Iowa Southern 1,976 0 69 9 0 0Maine 1,070 0 141 10 2 2Maryland1 7,851 8 232 20 15 15Michigan Eastern 9,561 0 351 52 19 16Michigan Western2 2,775 2 181 13 7 8Minnesota 4,792 13 300 31 27 27Mississippi Northern2 2,603 0 54 22 5 5Mississippi Southern2 5,775 11 211 38 18 14Missouri Eastern2 4,798 0 342 53 22 20Missouri Western 4,857 0 167 35 27 24New Hampshire 1,157 2 83 10 4 4New Mexico 3,084 3 86 23 19 19New York Eastern 16,001 0 495 88 59 53New 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 Cas

esTe

rmin

ated

in20

01 o

r 200

2

Seal

ed D

ocke

tSh

eets

Doc

ket S

heet

sw

ith E

ntri

esEx

amin

ed

Doc

ket S

heet

sR

ead

Cas

e Fi

les

Exam

ined

Cas

es w

ithSe

aled

Settl

emen

tA

gree

men

ts

New York Southern 20,976 0 948 130 95 89New York Western 3,000 12 106 20 12 11North Carolina Eastern 2,808 0 143 12 4 3North Carolina Middle 2,284 0 63 10 7 6North Carolina Western 2,203 2 101 27 14 11North Dakota 574 0 126 8 6 5Oklahoma Northern1 1,954 0 176 35 15 11Pennsylvania Eastern 19,520 0 655 208 192 183Pennsylvania Middle 4,678 0 520 25 12 10Pennsylvania Western 6,218 0 306 44 20 16Puerto Rico 3,562 0 223 159 120 117South Carolina 8,126 0 311 25 8 8South Dakota 820 0 40 6 0 0Tennessee Eastern2 3,128 0 249 15 11 8Tennessee Middle 3,162 0 581 39 24 18Tennessee Western 2,759 0 222 37 16 7Utah1 2,387 3 179 11 8 8Virginia Eastern 14,448 0 330 57 47 44Virginia Western 3,593 0 112 41 31 28Washington Eastern 1,355 0 70 3 2 2Washington Western2 6,116 0 741 23 16 12

Total Number ofCases 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.

B-1

Appendix BFederal District Court Local Rules on Sealed Records

This appendix is a compilation of federal district court local rules on sealed documents as ofJanuary 2004.23

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

Middle District of AlabamaNo relevant local rule.

Northern District of AlabamaNo relevant local rule.

Southern District of AlabamaNo relevant local rule.

District of AlaskaNo relevant local rule.

District of ArizonaAnalysis: No restriction on the court’s authority toseal a document. A sealed document may not re-main under seal indefinitely. A document filedunder seal in an action for which no trial com-menced will be unsealed and eligible for destruc-tion twenty-three years from the date final judg-ment or final disposition was entered. A docu-ment filed under seal in an action for which a trialcommenced or an action was consolidated pursu-ant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a) will be unsealedtwenty-three years from the date final judgmentor final disposition was entered and will remainstored as a permanent record. This rule does notapply to a document placed under seal in a case inwhich final judgment or final disposition occurredprior to 1990. Nor does it apply to sexual abusecases filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3509 and juve-nile cases, unless the record has been expunged.

District of Arizona Local Rule 1.3. Custody andDisposition of Exhibits and Sealed Documents.

(d) Sealed Documents—Generally. Unless other-wise ordered by the Court, any sealed document,paper, case file or thing in any action where finaljudgment or final disposition occurred in 1990 orthereafter, will be subject to the custody and dis-

position processes according to (e) or (f), below, asapplicable.

(e) Sealed Documents—Actions in Which No TrialCommenced . Unless otherwise ordered by theCourt, any document, paper, case file or thingfiled under seal in any action for which no trialcommenced shall be eligible for destruction noless than 23 years from the date of entry of finaljudgment or final disposition. The seal will be va-cated without further action by the Court at thetime of destruction.

(f) Sealed Documents—Actions in Which the CaseWas Terminated During or After Trial. Unless oth-erwise ordered by the Court, any document, pa-per, case file or thing filed under seal in any actionfor which a trial commenced shall be unsealedwithout further action by the Court 23 years fromthe date of entry of final judgment or final dispo-sition, and will remain stored as a permanent re-cord. This rule further applies to all cases consoli-dated pursuant to Rule 65 (a), Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure.

The following types of cases will be exemptfrom this practice:

• Sexual abuse cases filed pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 3509.

• Juvenile cases, unless the record has beenexpunged.

Eastern and Western Districts of ArkansasNo relevant local rule.

Central District of CaliforniaAnalysis: No restriction on the court’s authority toseal a document. A sealed document may remainsealed indefinitely; no durational limitations areimposed by this rule. Disclosure can only occurupon written order of the court.


B-2

Central District of California Local Rule 79-5.Confidential Court Records.

79-5.1. Filing Under Seal—Procedures. Nocase or document shall be filed under seal withoutprior approval by the Court. Where approval isrequired, a written application and a proposedorder shall be presented to the judge along withthe document submitted for filing under seal. Theproposed order shall address both the sealing ofthe application and order itself, if appropriate.The original and judge’s copy of the documentshall be sealed in separate envelopes with a copyof the title page attached to the front of each en-velope. Conformed copies need not be placed insealed envelopes. Where under-seal filings areauthorized by statute or rule, the authority there-for shall appear on the title page of the proposedfiling.

79-5.2. Confidential Court Records—Disclo-sure. No sealed or confidential record of the Courtmaintained by the Clerk shall be disclosed exceptupon written order of the Court.

79-5.3. Procedure for Disclosure of Confiden-tial Court Records. An application for disclosureof sealed or confidential court records shall bemade to the Court in writing and filed by the per-son seeking disclosure. The application shall setforth with particularity the need for specific in-formation in such records. The procedures of L.R.7-3 et seq. shall govern the hearing of any suchapplication.

Eastern District of CaliforniaAnalysis: No restriction on the court’s authority toseal a document. A sealed document may remainsealed indefinitely; no durational limitations areimposed by this rule. Unsealing of a documentmust be made by court order.

Eastern District of California General Local Rule39-138(b). Sealing of Documents.

Except as otherwise provided by statute orrule, documents may be sealed only upon writtenorder of a Judge or Magistrate Judge. Court or-ders sealing documents are filed and maintainedin the public case file and should not reveal thesealed information. A duplicate order is attachedto the envelope containing the sealed documents.The case file shall reflect the date a document isordered unsealed and by whom, and, if a docu-ment is resealed, the date and by whom.

Northern District of CaliforniaAnalysis: The court must find that good cause toseal has been established before ordering a docu-ment or portions thereof to be placed under seal.A sealed document may not remain under sealindefinitely. Unless the court orders otherwiseupon a showing of good cause at the conclusionof the case by a party that submitted the docu-ment that the court placed under seal, the docu-ment will be automatically unsealed and open topublic inspection ten years from the date the casewas transmitted to the National Archives and Re-cords Administration or other court-designateddepository.

Northern District of California Civil Local Rule79-5. Sealed or Confidential Documents.

(a) Applicability. When a statute, a federal or lo-cal rule or a Court order permits documents orthings to be filed under seal, i.e., not open to in-spection by the public, the procedures set forth inthis local rule apply.

(b) Lodging Matter with Request to File UnderSeal. A party authorized by statute, rule or Courtorder to file a document under seal must lodgethe document with the Clerk in accordance withthis rule. The Clerk shall refer the matter to theassigned Judge pursuant to Civil L.R. 79-5(d). Nodocument shall be filed under seal except pursu-ant to a Court order that authorizes the sealing ofthe particular document or portion thereof and isnarrowly tailored to seal only that material forwhich good cause to seal has been established.Any order sealing any documents shall direct thesealing of only those documents, pages or, ifpracticable, those portions of documents or pages,which contain the information requiring confi-dentiality. All other portions of such documentsshall be included in the public file.

Commentary: As a public forum, the Courtwill only entertain requests to seal that estab-lish good cause and are narrowly tailored toseal only the particular information that isgenuinely privileged or protectable as a tradesecret or otherwise has a compelling need forconfidentiality. Documents may not be filedunder seal pursuant to blanket protective or-ders covering multiple documents. Counselshould not attempt to seal entire pleadings ormemoranda required to be filed pursuant tothe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or theseLocal Rules.

Appendix B. Local Rules

B-3

(c) Format. The lodged document must becontained in an 8½ inch by 11 inch sealed envelopeor other suitable container. The party must affix acover sheet to the document and to its envelope orcontainer, which must:

(1) Set out the information required by CivilL.R. 3-4(a) and (b);

(2) Set forth the name, address and tele-phone number of the submitting party;

(3) If filed pursuant to a previous Court or-der, state the date and name of the Judge or-dering the matter filed under seal and attach acopy of the order; if filed pursuant to statute orrule, state the authorizing statute or rule andgood cause for filing the submitted matter un-der seal;

(4) Prominently display the notation:“DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL.” Whenpermitted by the Court order, the notation mayalso include: “NOT TO APPEAR ON THEPUBLIC DOCKET.”(d) Motion to File Under Seal. Counsel seeking to

file a document or thing under seal, which is notauthorized by statute or rule to be so filed, mayfile a motion under Civil L.R. 7-10 and lodge thedocument or thing with the Clerk in a mannerwhich conforms with Civil L.R. 79-5(c). If pursu-ant to referral by the Clerk or motion of a party,the Court orders that a lodged document be filedunder seal, the Clerk shall file the lodged docu-ment under seal. Otherwise, the lodged documentshall be returned to the submitting party and thedocument shall not be placed in the file.

Commentary. Upon receipt of an order to filea lodged document under seal, the Clerk shallfile-stamp the sealed envelope or containercontaining the document. Following receiptand away from public view, the clerk shall re-move the item from the envelope, place adated filed-stamp on the original document,enter it on the docket in a manner that ensuresconfidentiality consistent with this local rule,and place the document in a sealed folderwhich shall be maintained in a secure locationat the courthouse of the assigned Judge or atthe national Archives and Records Admini-stration or other Court-designated depository.(e) Effect of Seal. Unless otherwise ordered by

the Court, any document, paper or thing filed un-der seal shall be kept from public inspection, in-cluding inspection by attorneys and parties to theaction during the pendency of the case. Once acase is closed, any document, paper or thing filedunder seal in a case shall be open to public in-spection without further action by the Court 10

years from the date the case is transmitted to theNational Archives and Records Administration orother Court-designated depository. However, aparty that submitted documents, papers or otherthings which the Court placed under seal in a casemay, upon showing good cause at the conclusionof the case, seek an order which would continuethe seal until a specific date beyond the 10 yearsprovided by this rule. Nothing in this rule is in-tended to affect the normal records destructionpolicy of the United States Courts.

Southern District of CaliforniaAnalysis: No restriction on the court’s authority toseal a document. A sealed document may not re-main sealed indefinitely. Unless otherwise or-dered by the court, a sealed document will be re-turned to the party that submitted it upon entry ofthe final judgment or termination of the appeal, ifany.

Southern District of California Local Civil Rule79.2. Books and Records of the Clerk.

b. Sealed Documents. Documents filed underseal in civil actions will be returned to the partysubmitting them upon entry of the final judgmentor termination of the appeal, if any, unless other-wise ordered by the court.

c. Sealing Orders. Documents that are to be filedunder seal must be accompanied by an ordersealing them. If the order is also to be filed underseal, it shall so state.

District of ColoradoAnalysis: No restriction on the court’s authority toseal a document. A sealed document may remainsealed indefinitely; no durational limitations areimposed by this rule.

District of Colorado Local Civil Rule 7.2.Motions to Seal; Motions to Close CourtProceedings.

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

1. All or a portion of papers and documentsfiled in a case shall be sealed; or

2. All or a portion of court proceedings shallbe closed to the public.B. Motion Open to Public Inspection. A motion to

seal or close court proceedings will be placed inthe case file and open to public inspection.


B-4

C. Proposed Filing. A proposed filing of papersor documents will be submitted under seal untilthe motion to seal is decided by a judicial officer.

D. Public Notice; Objections. On the businessday after the filing of a motion to seal or motion toclose court proceedings, a public notice will beposted in the clerk’s office and on the court’s website. The public notice will advise of such motionand state that any person or entity may file objec-tions to the motion on or before the date set forthin such public notice. The date will be not lessthan three business days after the public notice isposted.

E. Order. No order to seal or close court pro-ceedings will be entered before the date set forthin the public notice for filing objections, except inemergency circumstances shown or referred to inthe motion.

District of Colorado Local Civil Rule 7.3.Procedures for Filing Papers and DocumentsUnder Seal.

A. Manner of Filing. The following papers ordocuments must be placed unfolded in a sealedenvelope with a copy of a cover page (see sectionB. of this rule) affixed to the outside of the enve-lope:

1. papers or documents ordered sealed bythe court;

2. proposed filings of papers or documentssubmitted under seal with a motion requestingthat 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 num-

ber of the attorney or pro se party filing thepaper or document;

4. a notation that the paper or document isfiled under seal;

5. the title and date of the court order pur-suant to which the paper or document issealed, if applicable; or

6. the citation of the statute or otherauthority pursuant to which the paper ordocument is sealed, if applicable.C. Copies. Copies of the papers or documents in

sealed envelopes shall be filed in accordance withD.C. Colo. L. Civ. R. 10.1.L.

District of ConnecticutAnalysis: No restriction on the court’s authority toseal a document. A sealed document may not re-main sealed indefinitely. If counsel did not file amotion for return of the sealed document, ninetydays after final determination of the action theclerk may destroy the sealed document or send itwith other parts of the file to the Federal RecordsCenter, whereupon the document will be auto-matically 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 underseal shall file a motion to seal and shall attach tothe motion the document to be sealed. The docu-ment 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. TheClerk of the Court shall file-stamp the motion toseal and the document to be sealed, shall docketthe motion and document and shall forward themotion to seal and the document to be sealed tothe Court for consideration. If ordered sealed bythe Court, the Clerk shall seal the document in theenvelope provided by counsel, shall note the dateof the sealing order on the envelope and docketsheet. Until such document is ordered sealed, thedocument shall be treated as a public documentsubject to public inspection. In the alternative,counsel can seek advance permission of the Courtto file a document under seal without submittingthe document to be sealed.

2. Counsel filing documents which are, or maybe claimed to be, subject to any protective or im-pounding order previously entered shall file withthe documents, and serve on all parties, a noticethat the documents are, or are claimed to be, sub-ject to such order or orders, identifying the par-ticular order or orders by date, and shall submitsuch documents to the Clerk under seal.

3. Any file or document ordered sealed by theCourt upon motion of the parties, by stipulationor by the Court, sua sponte, shall remain sealedpending further order of this Court, or any Courtsitting in review. Upon final determination of theaction, as defined in Rule 14 of the Local Rules ofCivil Procedure, counsel shall have ninety (90)days to file a motion pursuant to Rule 14 for thereturn of the sealed documents. Any sealeddocument thereafter remaining may be destroyedby the Clerk pursuant to Rule 14 or retired by theClerk with other parts of the file to the Federal


B-5

Records Center, whereupon they shall be auto-matically unsealed without notice to counsel.

District of DelawareAnalysis: No restriction on the court’s authority toseal a document. A sealed document may remainsealed indefinitely; no durational limitations areimposed by this rule.

District of Delaware Local Rule 5.3. Number ofCopies.

The original and one copy of pleadings, stipu-lations, motions, responses to motions, briefs,memoranda of points and authorities, appendicesand any papers filed under seal shall be filed withthe Clerk of Court. Any party filing papers underseal shall distinguish the original on the cover ofthe paper. The original of all other papers re-quired to be filed shall be filed with the Clerk.Two copies of each paper filed with the Courtshall be served on local counsel for each of theother parties. Whenever papers are captioned inmore than one action, sufficient copies shall befurnished to permit the Clerk to file one copy ineach action.

District of the District of ColumbiaAnalysis: No restriction on the court’s authority toseal a document. A sealed document may remainsealed indefinitely; no durational limitations areimposed by this rule.

District of Columbia Federal District CourtLocal Civil Rule 5.1(j). Form and Filing ofPleadings and Other Papers. Sealed orConfidential Documents.

(1) Absent statutory authority, no cases ordocuments may be sealed without an order fromthe Court. Any pleading filed with the intentionof being sealed shall be accompanied by a motionto 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 thepleading being placed in the public record.

(2) Unless otherwise ordered or otherwise spe-cifically provided in these Local Rules, all docu-ments submitted for a confidential in camera in-spection by the Court, which are the subject of aProtective Order, which are subject to an existingorder that they be sealed, or which are the subjectof a motion for such orders, shall be submitted tothe Clerk securely sealed in an envelope/boxneeded to accommodate the documents. The en-velope/box containing such documents shall

contain a conspicuous notation that carries“DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL” or “DOCUMENTSSUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER,” or theequivalent.

(3) The face of the envelope/box shall alsocontain the case number, the title of the Court, adescriptive title of the document and the casecaption unless such information is to be, or hasbeen, included among the information orderedsealed. The face of the envelope/box shall alsocontain the date of any order, or the reference toany statute permitting the item sealed.

(4) Filings of sealed materials must be made inthe Clerk’s Office during the business hours of9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. daily except Saturdays,Sundays and legal holidays. Filings at the securitydesk are prohibited because the Security Officersare not authorized to accept this material.

Middle District of FloridaNo relevant local rule.

Northern District of FloridaNo relevant local rule.

Southern District of FloridaAnalysis: No specific restriction on the court’sauthority to seal a document; the party seeking tofile a document under seal must set forth a rea-sonable basis for departing from the court’s gen-eral policy of public filings. A sealed documentmay not remain sealed indefinitely unless thecourt’s sealing order specifically provides forpermanent sealing of the matter. A sealed docu-ment will be unsealed, destroyed, or returned tothe filing party upon expiration of the time speci-fied in the court’s sealing order, which may notexceed five years from the date of filing absentextraordinary circumstances.

Southern District of Florida General Local Rule5.4. Filings Under Seal; Disposal of SealedMaterials.

A. General Policy. Unless otherwise providedby law, Court rule or Court order, proceedings inthe United States District Court are public andCourt filings are matters of public record. Wherenot so provided, a party seeking to file mattersunder seal shall follow the procedures prescribedby this rule.

B. Procedure for Filings Under Seal. A partyseeking to make a filing under seal shall:


B-6

1. Deliver to the Clerk’s Office an originaland one copy of the proposed filing, each con-tained in a separate plain envelope clearlymarked as “sealed document” with the casenumber and style of the action noted on theoutside. The Clerk’s Office shall note on eachenvelope the date of filing and docket entrynumber.

2. File an original and a copy of the motionto seal with self-addressed postage-paid enve-lopes, setting forth a reasonable basis for de-parting from the general policy of a public fil-ing, and generally describing the matter con-tained in the envelope. The motion shall spe-cifically state the period of time that the partyseeks to have the matter maintained under sealby the Clerk’s Office. Unless permanent seal-ing is sought, the motion shall set forth howthe matter is to be handled upon expiration ofthe time specified in the Court’s sealing order.Absent extraordinary circumstances, no mattersealed pursuant to this rule may remain sealedfor longer than five (5) years from the date offiling.

3. File an “ORDER RE: SEALED FILING” inthe form set forth at the end of this rule. Theform is available at the Clerk’s Office. Thebottom portion should be left blank for theJudge’s ruling.C. Court Ruling. If the Court grants the motion

to seal, the Clerk’s Office shall maintain the mat-ter under seal as specified in the court order. If theCourt denies the motion to seal, the original andcopy of the proposed filing shall be returned tothe party in its original envelope.

D. Disposition of Sealed Matter. Unless theCourt’s sealing order permits the matter to remainsealed permanently, the Clerk will dispose of thesealed matter upon expiration of the time speci-fied in the Court’s sealing order by unsealing, de-stroying, or returning the matter to the filingparty.

Comment (2001): The current amendmentsare intended to reflect more accurately existingprocedures, and to assist the court in themaintenance and ultimate disposition of sealedrecords by creating a form order which speci-fies how long the matter is to be kept underseal and how it is to be disposed of after theexpiration of that time. By its terms, this ruledoes not apply to materials covered by specificstatutes, rules or court orders authorizing, pre-scribing or requiring secrecy. However, liti-gants 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 sealafter the entry of, and pursuant to, a protectiveorder governing the use of and disclosure ofconfidential information.

Middle District of GeorgiaNo relevant local rule.

Northern District of GeorgiaNo relevant local rule.

Southern District of GeorgiaAnalysis: No restriction on the court’s authority toseal a document. A sealed document may remainsealed indefinitely; no durational limitations areimposed by this rule.

Southern District of Georgia Local Rule 79.7.Records and Documents. Sealed Documents.

(a) Papers submitted for filing with the Clerkmay be placed under seal only where required byoperation of law, these rules, or order of a judicialofficer.

(b) Any person desiring to have any matterplaced under seal shall present a motion statinggrounds why a document filed with the Clerkshould not be available for public inspection. TheClerk shall: (i) docket the motion as a Motion toSeal; (ii) refrain from labeling the filing as“sealed” or identifying the person seeking thesealing order unless the person consents; (iii)designate any accompanying papers as “sealedmatter”; and (iv) maintain the motion and accom-panying papers in a secure file pending a rulingon the Motion to Seal.

(c) If the Motion to Seal is denied, any paperswhich the person sought to have sealed, andwhich were submitted to the Clerk with the mo-tion, shall be returned to the person, who shallthen have the option of filing the papers in thenormal course.

(d) Motions to Seal may extend to three layersof information: (1)!the name of the movant; (2)!thetitle of the filing sought to be sealed; and (3)!thecontents of the filing itself. In most cases, only thecontents of the filing itself (e.g., proprietary dataembodied within an in limine motion) will war-rant sealing, not the title of the filing (e.g., Motionin Limine) or the identity of the movant (e.g., XYZTire Company). Therefore, unless the Court speci-fied otherwise, the Clerk shall construe all sealingorders to extend only to the contents of the un-


B-7

derlying filing. The burden rests upon the movingparty to justify all three sealing levels.

Southern District of Georgia Local Rule 83.28.Attorneys, Court Facilities, and Business.Release of Information by CourthousePersonnel.

All courthouse supporting personnel, includ-ing but not limited to the United States Marshaland his deputies, the Clerk and his deputies, theProbation Officer and probation clerks, bailiffs,court reporters, and any employees or subcon-tractors retained by the official court reporters, areprohibited from disclosing to any person, withoutauthorization from the Court, any informationrelating to a pending grand jury proceeding,criminal case, or civil case that is not part of thepublic record of the Court. The public record ofeach case shall be those materials which are con-tained in the court’s official file as maintained bythe Clerk except such parts thereto as may besealed, secret, impounded or specially set asidefor in camera inspection. . . .

District of GuamNo relevant local rule.

District of HawaiiNo relevant local rule.

District of IdahoAnalysis: No restriction on the court’s authority toseal a document. A sealed document may not re-main sealed indefinitely. Unless the court ordersotherwise, after the case is closed and the appealtime has expired, or if the case is appealed, afterthe conclusion of all appeals, the sealed documentwill be returned to the submitting party.

District of Idaho Local Rule 5.3. SealedDocuments and Public Access.

(a) Motion to File Under Seal. Counsel seeking tofile a document under seal shall file an ex partemotion to seal, along with supporting memoran-dum and proposed order, and lodge the docu-ment with the Clerk of Court. Said motion mustcontain “MOTION TO SEAL” in bold letters inthe caption of the pleading.

(b) Motion to Seal Existing Documents. Counselseeking to place a pending case or filed documentunder seal shall file an ex parte motion to seal,along with supporting memorandum and a pro-posed order with the court. Said motion must

contain “MOTION TO SEAL” in bold letters inthe caption of the pleading. Portions of a docu-ment cannot be placed under seal. Instead, theentire document must be placed under seal in or-der to protect confidential information.

(c) Public Information. The Clerk of Court shallfile and docket the motion to seal in the publicrecord of the court. All lodged documents underseal will not be docketed, scanned or available forpublic inspection unless otherwise ordered by thecourt.

(d) Format of Lodged Documents Under Seal.Counsel lodging the material to be sealed shallsubmit the material in an UNSEALED 8½ x 11 inchmanila envelope. The envelope shall contain thetitle of the court, the case caption, and case num-ber.

(e) Procedures. The Clerk of Court will forwardthe lodged documents to the assigned judge forconsideration. The assigned judge will direct theclerk to:

(1) File the documents under seal with anyfurther specific instructions; or

(2) Return the documents to the offeringparty with appropriate instructions; or

(3) File the documents or materials in thepublic record.(f) Return of Sealed Documents to Public Record.

Because the Federal Records Center prohibits thestorage of sealed records or documents, the clerkmust unseal all documents and cases prior toshipment of any record to the Federal RecordsCenter. Absent any other court order, the sealeddocuments will be returned to the submittingparty after the case is closed and the appeal timehas expired, or if appealed, after the conclusion ofall appeals.

Central District of IllinoisNo relevant local rule.

Northern District of IllinoisAnalysis: The court must find that good cause hasbeen shown before ordering a document to befiled as a restricted or sealed document. A re-stricted or sealed document may not remain re-stricted or under seal indefinitely. Except wherethe court, in response to a request of a party or onits own motion, orders otherwise, the clerk willplace the restricted document in the public filesixty-three days following final disposition, in-cluding appeals of the case. If on written motionfiled not more than sixty-three days following the


B-8

closing of the case period a party requests to havethe restricted document turned over, the courtmay authorize the clerk to turn over the docu-ment to the party, destroy it, or retain the docu-ment as a restricted document no longer thantwenty 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 orsealed document as defined by L.R. 26.2 must beaccompanied by a cover sheet which shall includethe following:

(A) the caption of the case, including thecase number;

(B) the title “Restricted Document Pursuantto L.R. 26.2”;

(C) a statement indicating that the docu-ment is filed as restricted in accordance withan order of court and the date of that order;and

(D) the signature of the attorney of recordor unrepresented party filing the document.Any document purporting to be a restricted or

sealed document as defined in L.R. 26.2 that ispresented for filing without the cover page orcopy of the order shall not be treated as a re-stricted or sealed document, but shall be proc-essed like any other document. In such instancesthe clerk is authorized to open the sealed enve-lope 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 re-stricted either by a written order or by a rule;

“Sealed document” means a restricteddocument which the court has directed bemaintained within a sealed enclosure such thataccess to the document requires breaking theseal of the enclosure;

“Document awaiting expunction” means adocument or an exhibit which the court hasordered held for possible expunction pursuantto 21 U.S.C. §!844(b)(2) but for which the pe-riod for holding prior to final destruction hasyet to pass; and

“Protective order” means any protectiveorder 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 thecourt.(b) Restricting Order. The court may on written

motion and for good cause shown enter an orderdirecting that one or more documents be re-stricted. The order shall also specify the persons,if any, who are to have access to the documentswithout further order of court. The minute orderaccompanying the order shall specify any qualifi-cations as to access and disposition of the docu-ments contained in the order.

(c) Docket Entries. The court may on writtenmotion and for good cause shown enter an orderdirecting that the docket entry for a restricteddocument show only that a restricted documentwas filed without any notation indicating its na-ture. Absent such an order a restricted documentshall be docketed in the same manner as anotherdocument except that the entry will indicate thatthe document is restricted.

(d) Inspection of Restricted Documents. The clerkshall maintain a record in a manner provided forinternal operating procedures approved by theCourt of persons permitted access to restricteddocuments. Such procedures may require anyoneseeking access to show identification and to sign astatement to the effect that they have beenauthorized to examine the restricted document.

(e) Disposition of Restricted Documents. When acase is closed in which an order was entered pur-suant to section (b) of this rule, the clerk shallmaintain the documents as restricted documentsfor a period of 63 days following the final dispo-sition including appeals. Except where the courtin response to a request of a party made pursuantto this section or on its own motion orders other-wise, at the end of the 63 day period the clerkshall place the restricted documents in the publicfile.

Any party may on written motion request thatone or more of the restricted documents be turnedover to that party. Such motions shall be filed notmore than 63 days following the closing of thecase period.

In ruling on a motion filed pursuant to thissection or on its own motion, the court mayauthorize the clerk to do one of the following forany 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 docu-

ment for a period not to exceed 20 years andthereafter destroy it.


B-9

Northern District of Illinois Internal OperatingProcedure 30. Restricted Documents.

(a) Separate Filing Area for Restricted Documents.The clerk shall maintain restricted documents,sealed documents, and documents awaiting ex-punction as defined by L.R. 26.2(a) separatelyfrom the files of documents to which access hasnot been restricted. Any area used to store docu-ments to which access has been restricted shall besecure from entry by any persons other than theclerk or those designated in writing by the clerk asauthorized to have access. The clerk shall desig-nate in writing deputies authorized to accept re-stricted documents either from chambers or forfiling pursuant to protective orders. Materials ac-cepted for filing as restricted shall be maintainedin a secure area until collected by one of the des-ignated deputies. Where the materials so acceptedare being filed pursuant to a protective order, thedeputy accepting them will stamp the cover of thedocument with a FILED stamp indicating the dateof filing.

(b) Handling Sealed Documents. Where a docu-ment is ordered to be sealed, it is to be deliveredfor filing pursuant to L.R. 5.9 with the seal on theenclosure intact. If the document is sent fromchambers or returned from an appellate courtwith the seal broken, one of the deputies author-ized to handle restricted materials pursuant tosection (a) will forthwith deliver the document tothe courtroom deputy assigned to the judicial of-ficer to whose calendar the proceedings to whichthe sealed document was filed is assigned. If thatjudicial officer is no longer sitting, the deputy willforthwith deliver the document to the courtroomdeputy assigned to the emergency judge. Thecourtroom deputy will promptly bring the docu-ment to the attention of the judge. The judicialofficer will either order that the document be re-sealed, or order that it continue to be handled as arestricted document, but not as a sealed docu-ment, or enter such other order as required to in-dicate the status of the document. Where thedocument is to be resealed, the judicial officer orcourtroom deputy will reseal the document andtransmit it to the appropriate deputy in the clerk’soffice. Where under the terms of a protective or-der a party is permitted to inspect a sealed docu-ment and that party appears in the clerk’s officeand requests the document, one of the deputiesauthorized to handle restricted materials pursuantto section (a) will obtain the document and pro-vide an area where the person may inspect thedocument other than in the public area of theclerk’s office. The deputy will complete a form

showing the date, description of the document,the name of the person requesting access to thedocument, a statement indicating that the deputyhas checked the protective order and it does in-deed authorize the person to inspect the docu-ment, and a statement that the deputy requestedof and was shown identification by the personrequesting access to the document. Any personwishing to break the seal and inspect the docu-ment must sign the form completed by the deputyto indicate that they are authorized to inspect thedocument and have broken the seal. After theperson has completed the inspection, the deputywill follow the procedures set out in the previousparagraph for handling the resealing of thedocument. . . .

Southern District of IllinoisNo relevant local rule.

Northern District of IndianaNo relevant local rule.

Southern District of IndianaAnalysis: No restriction on the court’s authority toseal a document. A sealed document may remainsealed indefinitely; no durational limitations areimposed by this rule.

Southern District of Indiana Local Rule 5.3.Filing of Documents Under Seal.

(a) General Rule. No document will be main-tained under seal in the absence of an authorizingstatute, Court rule, or Court order.

(b) Filing of Cases Under Seal. Any new casesubmitted for filing under seal must be accompa-nied by a motion to seal and proposed order. Anycase presented in this manner will be assigned anew case number, District Judge and MagistrateJudge. The Clerk will maintain the case under sealuntil a ruling granting the motion to seal is en-tered by the assigned District Judge. If the motionto seal is denied, the case will be immediately un-sealed with or without prior notice to the filingparty.

(c) Filing of Documents Under Seal. Materialspresented as sealed documents shall be inside anenvelope which allows them to remain flat. Af-fixed to the exterior of the envelope shall be an 8½x 11” cover sheet containing:

i. the case caption;ii. the name of the document if it can be dis-

closed publicly, otherwise an appropriate title


B-10

by which the document may be identified onthe public docket;

iii. the name, address and telephone num-ber of the person filing the document; and

iv. in the event the motion requesting thedocument be filed under seal does not accom-pany the document, the cover sheet must setforth the citation of the statute or rule or thedate of the Court order authorizing filing un-der seal.(d) Prohibition of Electronic Filing of Sealed

Documents. Sealed documents will not be filedelectronically, but rather manually on paper. Theparty filing a sealed document shall file electroni-cally a Notice of Manual Filing (see Form in Elec-tronic Case Filing Administrative Policies andProcedures Manual for the Southern District ofIndiana). The courtroom deputy to the District orMagistrate Judge should be contacted for instruc-tions when filing certain ex parte documentswhich could not be disclosed by the electronicNotice of Manual Filing.

Northern and Southern Districts of IowaAnalysis: No restriction on the court’s authority toseal a document. A sealed document may not re-main sealed indefinitely. Thirty days after ajudgment has become final (sixty days if theUnited States is a party), or, if an appeal from thejudgment is filed, thirty days after the issuance ofthe mandate by the circuit court, the clerk of courtmay unseal a document not claimed and with-drawn after (1) the clerk gives notice to the attor-neys of record in the case and to any pro se partiesof the clerk’s intention to unseal the document;and (2) no response to the notice is filed withinthirty days after the notice was sent. If a timelyobjection is filed, the document will be unsealedonly upon an order of the court.

Northern and Southern Districts of Iowa LocalRule 1.1(k). General Provisions; Effective Date;Scope. Public Records.

All filings with the Clerk of Court’s Office arepublic records and are available for public in-spection unless otherwise ordered by the court orprovided by a Local Rule or a statute of theUnited States. Materials may be filed under sealwith the Clerk of Court, but only in accordancewith the procedures prescribed in L.R. 5.1(e).

Northern and Southern Districts of Iowa LocalRule 5.1(e). Service, Filing of Papers, and Proofof Service. Sealed Documents and Exhibits.

A party seeking to file under seal a pleading,motion, document, or exhibit first must file awritten request for leave to do so. The pleading,motion, document, or exhibit thereafter may befiled under seal only if the court so orders. If thecourt enters an order permitting or directing theparties to file certain designated materials underseal, the parties thereafter must file all such mate-rials under seal without filing a further request todo so.

A request for leave to file materials under sealmay be filed under seal ex parte and without priorcourt order. The request must be delivered by theClerk of Court in a sealed envelope marked withthe caption of the case and the notation, “FILEDUNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO L.R. 5.1(e).”

Materials to be filed under seal must be filed ina sealed envelope marked with the caption of thecase and the notation, “SEALED PURSUANT TOCOURT ORDER ENTERED [DATE].”

All materials filed in response to or in connec-tion with other materials filed under seal alsomust be filed in a sealed envelope marked withthe caption of the case and the notation, “SEALEDPURSUANT TO COURT ORDER ENTERED[DATE].”

Envelopes containing materials filed underseal may be opened only by the Clerk of Court,deputy clerks, federal judges, and their staffmembers.

Thirty days after a judgment has become final(60 days if the United States is a party), or, if anappeal from the judgment is filed, 30 days afterthe issuance of the mandate by the circuit court,sealed materials not claimed and withdrawn pur-suant to L.R. 83.7(e) may be unsealed by the Clerkof Court after the following occurs:

1. The Clerk of Court gives notice to the at-torneys of record in the case and to any pro separties of the Clerk of Court’s intention to un-seal the materials; and

2. No response to the notice is filed within30 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 thecourt.

A party intending to object to a notice of inten-tion to unseal a document must, before filing theobjection, confer with opposing counsel and any


B-11

pro se parties and attempt to reach an agreementon the disposition of the exhibit pursuant to L.R.83.7(e) in lieu of the unsealing of the exhibit. Anobjection to a notice of intention to unseal mustcontain a statement describing the results of theseefforts.

The procedures in this section do not apply topreindictment ex parte filings by the governmentin criminal cases or to cases where other proce-dures are required by statute.

District of KansasAnalysis: No restriction on the court’s authority toseal a document. A sealed document may not re-main sealed indefinitely. A document placed un-der seal after October 22, 1998, will be unsealedten years after a final judgment or dismissal wasentered in the case, unless the court ordered oth-erwise at the time of entry of such judgment ordismissal. If a document placed under seal beforeOctober 22, 1998, is contained in a case that hasbeen closed by entry of final judgment or order ofdismissal for ten years or more, the clerk will liftthe seal on the document after notifying the par-ties by written notice, unless a motion to extendthe seal, served on all parties to the action, is filedwithin six months.

District of Kansas Local Rule 5.4.6. In reProcedural Rules for Electronic Case Filing.Sealed Documents.

Until the Electronic Filing System has adequateconfidentiality procedures for sealed documents,documents ordered to be placed under seal mustbe filed conventionally and not electronically un-less specifically authorized by the court. A motionto file documents under seal may be filed elec-tronically unless prohibited by law. The order ofthe court authorizing the filing of documents un-der seal may be filed electronically unless prohib-ited by law. A paper copy of the order must beattached to the documents to be filed under sealand be delivered to the clerk.

District of Kansas Local Rule 79.4. Sealed Filesand Documents in Civil Cases.

(a) Documents/files sealed after the effective date ofthis rule. Any file, pleading, motion, memoran-dum, order or other document placed under sealby order of this court in any civil action shall beunsealed by operation of this rule ten years afterentry of a final judgment or dismissal unless oth-erwise ordered by the court at the time of entry ofsuch judgment or dismissal. Any party, upon

motion filed no more than six months before theseal is to be lifted, with notice to the remainingparties, may seek to renew the seal for an addi-tional period of time not to exceed ten years.There shall be a rebuttable presumption that theseal shall not be renewed, and the burden shall beon the moving party to establish an appropriatebasis for renewing the seal.

(b) Documents/files under seal before the effectivedate of this rule. On an ongoing basis, for a term often years from the effective date of the adoptionof this rule, the clerk of the court will identify allcivil files which have been sealed, or civil files inwhich sealed pleadings, motions, memoranda,orders or other documents are contained, andwhich files have been closed by entry of finaljudgment or order of dismissal, for a term of tenyears or more, and at that time shall notify theparties, by written notice mailed to the last knownaddress of counsel representing each party to theaction, that:

(1) unless a motion to extend the seal,served on all parties to the action, is filedwithin six months, the seal will be lifted; and

(2) if a motion to extend the seal is filed, theburden shall be on the moving party to over-come a rebuttable presumption that the sealshall not be renewed and to establish an ap-propriate basis for renewing the seal.In the event of a pro-se litigant all notices re-

quired by this rule shall be mailed to the lastknown mailing address of such litigant as re-flected in the records of the Clerk of the Districtcourt in the file in issue.

(c) By its terms, this rule applies only to civilactions and does not apply to sealed files, docu-ments, records, transcripts, or any other mattersealed in criminal cases.

Eastern and Western Districts of KentuckyNo relevant local rule.

Eastern District of LouisianaNo relevant local rule.

Middle District of LouisianaNo relevant local rule.

Western District of LouisianaNo relevant local rule.


B-12

District of MaineNo relevant local rule.

District of MarylandAnalysis: To file a document under seal, the courtmust consider the parties’ joint motion to sealportions of the court record and any oppositionthereto, refrain from ruling on the joint motion forat least fourteen days to permit interested partiesto file objections, and consider any objections byinterested parties. Then, the court must find andhold that alternatives to sealing would not pro-vide sufficient protection and that sealing of thespecified portion of the record would be appro-priate. A sealed document may not remain underseal indefinitely. Upon final termination of an ac-tion, if any counsel fails to remove from the rec-ord the sealed document within thirty days ofreceiving notice from the clerk, the clerk may re-turn the document to the parties, destroy it, orotherwise 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 theCourt record shall include (a) proposed reasonssupported by specific factual representations tojustify the sealing and (b) an explanation why al-ternatives to sealing would not provide sufficientprotection. The Court will not rule upon the mo-tion until at least 14 days after it is entered on thepublic docket to permit the filing of objections byinterested parties. Materials that are the subject ofthe motion shall remain temporarily sealedpending a ruling by the Court. If the motion isdenied, the party making the filing will be givenan opportunity to withdraw the materials.

Authors’ Note: The district’s form “Order Seal-ing Portions of the Court Record (Local Rule105.11)” includes provisions not stated in LocalRule 105.11:

2. That the Sealed Record (as definedabove) be, and hereby is, PLACED UNDERSEAL by the Clerk of the Court and that theSealed Record shall be placed in an envelopeor other container which is marked ‘SEALED,SUBJECT TO ORDER OF COURT DATED___________.’

3. A copy of this Order shall be mailed to allcounsel of record and to any other person en-titled to notice hereof, and shall be docketed inthe Court file.

District of Maryland Local Rule 113.2.Disposition of Exhibits. Upon Final Terminationof Action.

Upon the final termination of an action, theClerk shall send a notice to counsel advising themto remove from the record within thirty days ofthe notice all trial and hearing exhibits and allsealed materials which they presented at any timeduring the pendency of the action. If any counselfails to do so, the clerk may return the materials tothe parties, destroy the materials, or otherwisedispose of them.

District of MassachusettsNo relevant local rule.

Eastern District of MichiganAnalysis: No restriction on the court’s authority toseal a document. A sealed document may not re-main sealed indefinitely. Unless the court ordersotherwise, a sealed settlement agreement will beunsealed and placed in the case file two years af-ter the date on which it was sealed. The time limitfor other sealed documents is sixty days from en-try of final judgment and appellate mandate, ifappealed.

Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 5.3.Civil Discovery Material Sealed UnderProtective Orders.

(a) Filing. Documents subject to a protectiveorder must be filed pursuant to L.R. 5.1. In addi-tion, each document subject to a protective ordermust be placed in a separate 9½ x 12 inch envelopeand sealed closed. Each envelope must plainlystate the full case caption, title of the documentenclosed and the text, “FILED UNDER SEALPUSUANT TO A PROTECTIVE ORDER” in bold,capital letters not less than one inch high.

(b) Disposition. Sixty days after the entry of afinal judgment and an appellate mandate, if ap-pealed, attorneys must present to the court a pro-posed order specifying whether the materialsealed with protective order is (a) to be returnedto the parties or (b) unsealed and placed in thecase file. Failure to present the order will result inthe court ordering the clerk to unseal the materialand place it in the case file.

Comment: L.R. 5.3 makes attorneys respon-sible for material sealed with a protective or-der. Upon receipt of sealed material, theClerk’s Office will provide copies of this Ruleto the submitting party.


B-13

Attorneys are cautioned to seal only thosedocuments specifically referenced in the pro-tective order. If the sealed documents are ex-hibits to a motion, only the exhibits are to befiled under seal. Attorneys are instructed not tofasten, staple or bind sealed and public docu-ments together.

Sealed settlement agreements or other ma-terial 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 settle-ment agreements will remain sealed for two yearsafter the date of sealing, after which time they willbe 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 submittedto chambers for filing, the judge’s courtroomdeputy clerk will provide a copy of this Rule tothe attorneys of record.

Western District of MichiganAnalysis: The court must find that there was goodcause shown in order to seal a document. A sealeddocument may not remain sealed indefinitely.Unless the court orders otherwise, a sealed docu-ment will be unsealed thirty days after the case isterminated or any appeal is terminated, which-ever is later.

Western District of Michigan Local Civil Rule5.7(d)(ii). Service and Filing of Pleadings andOther Papers. Filing and Service by ElectronicMeans. Electronic Filing. Papers That May NotBe Filed Electronically.

The following documents may not be filedelectronically, but must be submitted in paperform:

a. Documents filed under seal pursuant toW.D. Mich. L. Civ. R. 10.6;

. . . .

Western District of Michigan Local Civil Rule10.6. Form of Pleadings and Other Papers; FilingRequirements. Filing Under Seal.

(a) Request to Seal. Requests to seal a documentmust be made by motion and will be granted onlyupon good cause shown. If the document accom-panies the motion, it shall be clearly labeled “Pro-posed Sealed Document” and shall include anenvelope suitable for sealing the document. The

envelope shall have the caption of the case, casenumber, title of document, and the words “Con-tains Sealed Documents” prominently written onthe outside. The document shall not be consideredsealed until so ordered by the Court.

(b) Documents Submitted Pursuant to Court Or-der. A document submitted pursuant to a previ-ous order by the Court authorizing the documentto be filed under seal shall be clearly labeled“Sealed Document,” shall be submitted in an en-velope suitable for sealing the document, andidentify the order or other authority allowing fil-ing under seal. The caption of the case, case num-ber, title of document, and the words “ContainsSealed Documents” shall be prominently writtenon the outside of the envelope.

(c) Expiration of Seal. Unless otherwise orderedby the Court, thirty days after the termination of acase or any appeal, whichever is later, sealeddocuments and cases will be unsealed by theCourt.

District of MinnesotaAnalysis: No restriction on the court’s authority toseal a document. A sealed document may not re-main sealed indefinitely. Four months after a caseis closed, or if the case is appealed, thirty daysafter the filing and recording of the mandate ofthe appellate court disposing of the case, the par-ties must take away a sealed document in theclerk’s custody, unless the court orders otherwiseon its own motion or on the motion of any partyor nonparty. If the document remains in theclerk’s custody after the expiration of the timeperiods mentioned above, the clerk shall destroythe sealed document thirty days after the clerknotifies counsel in the case by mail, unless thecourt orders otherwise.

District of Minnesota Local Rule 79.1.Custody and Disposition of Records, Exhibitsand Documents Under Seal.

(c) Documents Subject to a Protective or Confiden-tiality Order. Original documents filed subject to aprotective or confidentiality order shall be sepa-rately stored and maintained by the Clerk andshall not be disclosed or otherwise made availableto any person except as provided by the termsand conditions of the relevant order.

(d) Removal of Models, Diagrams, Exhibits andDocuments under Seal. All models, diagrams, ex-hibits and documents subject to a protective orconfidentiality order remaining in the custody ofthe Clerk shall be taken away by the parties


B-14

within four months after the case is finally de-cided unless an appeal is taken. In all cases inwhich an appeal is taken, they shall be takenaway within 30 days after the filing and recordingof the mandate of the Appellate Court finally dis-posing of the cause. On motion of any party, or onthe request of any nonparty, or on the court’s owninitiative, the court may order that any model,diagram, exhibit or document shall be retained bythe Clerk for such longer period of time as may bedetermined by the court, notwithstanding any ofthe foregoing requirements of this paragraph (d).

(e) Other Disposition by the Clerk. When models,diagrams, exhibits and documents subject to aprotective or confidentiality order in the custodyof the Clerk are not taken away within the timespecified in the preceding paragraph of this rule,it shall be the duty of the Clerk to notify counselin the case, by mail, of the requirements of thisrule. Any articles, including documents subject toa protective or confidentiality order, which arenot removed within 30 days after such notice isgiven shall be destroyed by the Clerk, unless oth-erwise ordered by the Court.

Northern and Southern Districtsof Mississippi

Analysis: In order to seal a document the courtmust find good cause for placing the documentunder seal. A sealed document cannot remainsealed indefinitely. A sealed document will beunsealed and placed in the case file thirty daysfollowing final disposition (including direct ap-peal) of the action, unless the court (upon motion)orders otherwise. Any order permitting a docu-ment to be maintained under seal longer thanthirty days must set a date for unsealing.

Northern and Southern Districts of MississippiLocal Rule 83.6. Sealing of Court Records.

(A) Court Records Presumptively in Public Do-main. Except as otherwise provided by statute,rule, or order, all pleadings and other materialsfiled with the court (“court records”) shall becomea part of the public record of the court.

(B) When and How Sealed; Redactions. Court re-cords or portions thereof shall not be placed un-der seal unless and except to the extent that theperson seeking the sealing thereof shall have firstobtained, for good cause shown, an order of thecourt specifying those court records, categories ofcourt records, or portions thereof, which shall beplaced under seal. The court may, in its discretion,

receive and review any document in camerawithout public disclosure thereof and, in connec-tion with any such review, determine whethergood cause exists for the sealing of the document.Unless the court orders otherwise, the partyseeking sealing shall file with the court redactedversions of court records when only a portionthereof is to be sealed.

(C) Criminal Matters; Unsealing. The Office ofthe United States Attorney shall present to thecourt a proposed order in connection with anyindictment, complaint, or bill of information thatthe United States Attorney wishes to file underseal. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, in-dictments, complaints, and bills of informationfiled under seal shall be unsealed after all defen-dants have made an appearance before the court.

(D) Duration of Sealing. Court records filed un-der seal in civil and criminal actions shall bemaintained under seal for thirty days followingfinal disposition (including direct appeal) of theaction. After that time, all sealed court recordsshall be unsealed and placed in the case file unlessthe court, upon motion, orders that the court re-cords be maintained under seal beyond the thirty-day period. All such orders shall set a date forunsealing of the court records.

Eastern District of MissouriAnalysis: The court must find that good cause ex-ists before ordering a document to be placed un-der seal. A sealed document may not remain un-der seal indefinitely. Unless the court orders oth-erwise, a document filed under seal will be placedin the public file thirty days after a final order orother disposition has been issued in a civil actionin the district court, or thirty days after the receiptof a mandate from the court of appeals in a case inwhich an appeal has been taken. Prior to the expi-ration of the thirty-day period following the ter-mination of a case, a party may move for an orderof the court either extending the seal for a speci-fied additional time period or returning the sealeddocument to the filing party upon a showing ofgood cause.

Eastern District of Missouri Local Rule83-13.05(A). Pleadings and Documents FiledUnder Seal. Pleadings and Documents in CivilCases.

(1) Upon a showing of good cause in a writtenmotion of any party, the court may order that a


B-15

document or series of documents filed in a civilcase be received and maintained by the clerk un-der seal. The clerk of court shall maintain suchdocuments in a restricted area apart from the casefile to which the public has access. Unless thedocket reflects prior entry of an order to file underseal or the party offering a pleading or documentpresents the clerk with an order of the courtauthorizing a filing under seal or a motion forsuch order, all pleadings and documents receivedin the office of the clerk shall be filed in the publicrecord of a civil case, except as otherwise requiredby law.

(2) Not less than thirty (30) days after a finalorder or other disposition has been issued in acivil action in the district court, or thirty (30) daysafter the receipt of a mandate from the court ofappeals in a case in which an appeal has beentaken, the clerk shall place in the public file alldocuments previously filed under seal, unlessotherwise ordered by the court. Prior to the expi-ration of the thirty day period following the ter-mination of a case, a party may move for an orderof the court either extending the seal for a speci-fied additional time period or returning sealeddocuments to the filing party upon a showing ofgood cause.

Western District of MissouriNo relevant local rule.

District of MontanaAnalysis: No restriction on the court’s authority toseal a document. A sealed document may remainsealed indefinitely; no durational limitations areimposed by this rule.

District of Montana Local Rule 77.6. FilingUnder Seal.

Unless otherwise provided by statute or rule,no case or document shall be filed under sealwithout prior approval by the Court. If a filingunder seal is requested, a written application anda proposed order shall be presented to the judgealong with the document submitted for filing un-der seal. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court,the application and proposed order and docu-ment shall not be served on opposing parties. Theoriginal and judge’s copy of the document shallbe sealed in separate envelopes with a copy of thetitle page attached to the front of each envelope.Conformed copies need not be placed in sealedenvelopes.

District of NebraskaNo relevant local rule.

District of NevadaNo relevant local rule.

District of New HampshireAnalysis: No restriction on the court’s authority toseal a document. A sealed document may remainsealed indefinitely; no durational limitations areimposed by this rule. The court may specify theduration of the sealing order in the court’s ordersealing 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 besealed pursuant to state law, federal law, theFederal Rules of Criminal or Civil Procedure,or these rules;

(2) a filing, order, or docket entry has beensealed 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 En-

tries.(1) Level I. Filings, orders, and docket en-

tries sealed at Level I may be reviewed by anyattorney appearing in the action without priorleave of court.

(2) Level II. Filings, orders, and docket en-tries sealed at Level II may be reviewed onlyby the filer or, in the case of an order, the per-son to whom the order is directed withoutprior 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 ten-dered with the motion and both will be acceptedprovisionally under seal, subject to the court’ssubsequent ruling on the motion. The motionmust explain the basis for sealing, specify theproposed duration of the sealing order, and des-ignate whether the material is to be sealed atLevel I or Level II. Any motion to seal, upon spe-cific request, may also be sealed if it contains adiscussion of the confidential material. If the courtdenies the motion to seal, any materials tenderedunder provisional seal will be returned to themovant.


B-16

(d) Filing Procedures. All material submitted bya party either under seal or requesting sealedstatus, provisionally or otherwise, shall be placedin a sealed envelope with a copy of the docu-ment’s cover page affixed to the outside of theenvelope. The party shall designate the envelopewith a conspicuous notation such as “DOCU-MENTS UNDER SEAL,” “DOCUMENTS SUB-JECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER,” or the equiva-lent. If the basis for the document’s sealed statusis not apparent, an explanatory cover letter shouldalso be attached to alert the clerk’s staff of its spe-cial status.

Parties cannot seal otherwise public docu-ments merely be agreement or by labeling them“sealed.”

District of New JerseyNo relevant local rule.

District of New MexicoNo relevant local rule.

Eastern District of New YorkAnalysis: No restriction on the court’s authority toseal a document. A sealed document may not re-main sealed indefinitely. Following the issuanceof an administrative order on February 21, 2001,all sealed records in civil and criminal cases thathave been closed through calendar year 1995 wereindexed and archived at the Federal RecordsCenter, where they will remain sealed for twentyyears, and then they will be destroyed after noticeis given to the court. The court will periodicallyreview sealed records in civil and criminal cases,and sealed records in cases that have been closedfor at least five years also will be indexed and ar-chived at the Federal Records Center.

Eastern District of New York AdministrativeOrder 2001-02. In re Sealed Records (E.D.N.Y.February 21, 2001).

Whereas the Clerk of Court has within his pos-session in the Clerk’s Office vault scores of boxesof sealed records in civil and criminal cases thathave been closed for at least five (5) years;

it is ORDERED that all sealed records in civiland criminal cases that have been closed throughcalendar year 1995 be indexed and archived at theFederal Records Center, and remain sealed, withdisposition within prescribed guidelines, aftertwenty years’ time and upon prior notice to theCourt,

and it is further ORDERED that records sealedin civil and criminal cases after the effective dateof this Order be reviewed periodically and whenclosed for at least five (5) years, also shall be in-dexed and archived at the Federal Records Center.

SO ORDERED.

Northern District of New YorkAnalysis: No restriction on the court’s authority toseal a document. A sealed document may remainsealed indefinitely; no durational requirementsare imposed by this rule. A document sealed bycourt order will remain under seal until the courtenters a subsequent order unsealing the docu-ment, either on its own motion or in response to amotion of a party.

Northern District of New York Local Rule 83.13.Sealed Matters.

Cases may be sealed in their entirety, or onlyas to certain parties or documents, when they areinitiated, or at various stages of the proceedings.The court may on its own motion enter an orderdirecting that a document, party or entire case besealed. A party seeking to have a document, partyor entire case sealed shall submit an application,under seal, setting forth the reason(s) why thedocument, party or entire case should be sealed,together with a proposed order for approval bythe assigned judge. The proposed order shall in-clude language in the “ORDERED” paragraphstating the referenced document(s) to be sealedand should include the phrase “including thissealing order.” Upon approval of the sealing or-der by the assigned judge, the clerk shall seal thedocument(s) and the sealing order. A complaintpresented for filing with a motion to seal and aproposed order shall be treated as a sealed case,pending approval of the order. Once a documentor case is sealed by court order, it shall remainunder seal until subsequent order, upon thecourt’s own motion or in response to the motionof a party, is entered directing that the documentor case be unsealed.

Southern District of New YorkNo relevant local rule.

Western District of New YorkAnalysis: A party must demonstrate a substantialshowing for the court to place a document underseal. The party must submit an application underseal which sets forth the reasons for sealing the


B-17

document. A sealed document may remain sealedindefinitely unless the court orders otherwise. Aparty must obtain a court order in order to unsealthe document.

Western District of New York Local Rule 5.4.Sealing of Complaints and Documents in CivilCases.

(a) Except when otherwise required by statuteor rule, there is a presumption that Court docu-ments are accessible to the public and that a sub-stantial showing is necessary to restrict access.

(b) Upon the proper showing, cases may besealed in their entirety, or only as to certain par-ties or documents, when they are initiated, or atvarious stages of the proceedings. The Court may,on its own motion, enter an order directing that adocument, party or entire case be sealed. A partyseeking to have a document, party or entire casesealed shall submit an application, under seal,setting forth the reasons for sealing, together witha proposed order for approval by the assignedJudge. The proposed order shall include languagein the “ORDERED” paragraph stating the refer-enced document(s) to be sealed. Upon approval ofthe sealing order by the assigned Judge, the Clerkshall seal the document(s). Upon denial of a seal-ing application, the Clerk shall notify the party ofsuch decision. The party shall have five businessdays from the date of the notice to withdraw thedocument(s) submitted for sealing or appeal thedecision denying the sealing request. If the partyfails to withdraw the document(s) or otherwiseappeal after the expiration of five business days,the document(s) shall be filed by the Clerk andmade a part of the public record.

(c) When the sealing of a civil complaint is ap-propriate under either statute or this rule, theClerk shall inscribe in the public records of theCourt only the case number, the fact that a com-plaint was filed under seal, the name of the Dis-trict Judge or Magistrate Judge who ordered theseal, and (after assignment of the case to a DistrictJudge and a Magistrate Judge in the normal fash-ion) the names of the assigned District Judge andthe assigned Magistrate Judge.

(d) A complaint presented for filing with amotion to seal and a proposed order shall betreated as a sealed case, pending approval of theorder.

(e) Documents authorized to be filed underseal or pursuant to a protective order must bepresented to the Clerk in envelopes bearing suffi-cient identification. The envelopes shall not be

sealed until the documents inside have been filedand docketed by the Clerk’s office.

(f) Unless an order of the court otherwise di-rects, all sealed documents will remain sealed af-ter final disposition of the case. The party desiringthat a sealed document be unsealed after disposi-tion of the case must seek such relief by motion onnotice.

Eastern District of North CarolinaAnalysis: No restriction on the court’s authority toseal a document. A sealed document may not re-main sealed indefinitely. If counsel fails to retrievethe sealed document after the action concludesand all appeals are completed, within thirty daysof final disposition the court may order thedocument to be unsealed upon ten days’ notice bymail to counsel for all parties.

Eastern District of North Carolina Local CivilRule 79.2. Sealed Documents.

(a) Filing Sealed Documents. Absent statutoryauthority, no cases or documents may be sealedwithout an order from the court. A party desiringto file material under seal must first file a motionseeking leave to file the information under seal, orhave a court-approved protective order in place.

(b) Proposed Sealed Documents. All proposed,sealed material which accompanies a Motion toSeal shall be received by the clerk and temporarilysealed, pending a ruling on the motion to seal.The filing of a Motion to Seal documents will tollthe time for filing the material. If the Motion toSeal is allowed, the sealed material shall be filedon the same date as the order allowing the filingunder seal. If the motion to file the material underseal is denied, the movant will be given an optionof retrieving the material or having it filed thesame date as the order denying the filing underseal.

(c) Docketing Sealed Documents. When materialis filed under seal, the docket will indicate generi-cally the type of document filed under seal, but itwill not contain a description that would discloseits identity.

(d) Return of Sealed Materials. After the actionconcludes and all appeals have been completed,counsel is charged with the responsibility of re-trieving and maintaining all sealed documents.Upon 10 days notice by mail to counsel for allparties, and within 30 days after final disposition,the court may order the documents to be unsealedand they will thereafter be available for publicinspection.


B-18

(e) Form. All under seal or potentially underseal documents shall be delivered to the clerk’soffice enclosed in a red envelope, marked with thecase caption, case number, and a descriptive titleof the document, unless such information is to be,or has been, among the information orderedsealed. Additionally, the following informationwill be prominently displayed:

SEALED PURSUANT TO THEPROTECTIVE ORDER

ENTERED ON ___/___/98or

PROPOSED SEALED MATERIAL:SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO MOTION

TO SEAL FILED ON __/__/98

Middle District of North CarolinaAnalysis: No restriction on the court’s authority toseal a document. A sealed document may not re-main sealed indefinitely. Within thirty days afterthe time for appeal has expired or thirty days afteran appeal has been decided, the clerk may returna sealed document to the parties or destroy it. Ifthe case file is transferred to the GSA for recordsholding, the court cannot ensure the confidential-ity of a sealed document.

Middle District of North Carolina Local Rule83.5(c). Custody and Disposition of TrialExhibits, Sealed Documents, and FiledDepositions. Disposition of Exhibits, SealedDocuments, and Filed Depositions by Clerk.

Any exhibit, sealed document, disk, or fileddeposition in the clerk’s custody more than 30days after the time for appeal, if any, has expired,or an appeal had been decided and mandate re-ceived, may be returned to the parties or de-stroyed by the clerk. Complaints, answers, mo-tions, responses and replies, whether sealed ornot, must be forwarded to the General ServicesAdministration for permanent storage. The confi-dentiality of sealed documents cannot be assuredafter the case file is transferred to the GeneralServices Administration for records holding.

Western District of North CarolinaAnalysis: No restriction on the court’s authority toseal a document. At final disposition of the case, asealed document will be unsealed unless the courtorders otherwise.

Western District of North Carolina Local Rule5.1(D). Filing of Papers, Presenting Judgments,Orders, and Communications to Judge andSealed Records. Sealed Matters.

(1) New Civil Cases. A civil complaint may besealed at the time the case is filed if the complaintis accompanied by an ex parte motion of theplaintiff/petitioner accompanied by an ordersealing the case. The case will be listed on theclerk’s index as Sealed Plaintiff vs. Sealed Defen-dant.

(2) Pending Cases. A pending case may besealed at any time upon motion of either partyand execution by the court of a written order.Unless otherwise specified in the order, neitherthe clerk’s case index nor the existing case docketwill be modified.

(3) Documents. Documents ordered sealed bythe court or otherwise required to be sealed bystatute shall be marked as such within the docu-ment caption and submitted together with thejudge’s copy prepared in the same manner. If thedocument is sealed pursuant to a prior order ofthe court, the pleading caption shall include anotation that the document is being filed undercourt seal and include the order’s entry date.

No document shall be designated by any partyas “filed under seal” or “confidential” unless:

(a) it is accompanied by an order sealing thedocument;

(b) it is being filed in a case that the courthas ordered sealed; or

(c) it contains material that is the subject ofa protective order entered by the court.(4) Case Closing. Unless otherwise ordered by a

court, any case file or documents under court sealthat have not previously been unsealed by thecourt order shall be unsealed at the time of finaldisposition of the case.

(5) Access to Sealed Documents. Unless otherwiseordered by the court, access to documents andcases under court seal shall be provided by theclerk only pursuant to court order. Unless other-wise ordered by the court, the clerk shall make nocopies of sealed case files or documents.

District of North DakotaAnalysis: No restriction on the court’s authority toseal a document. A sealed document in a civil ac-tion may not remain sealed indefinitely. Unlessotherwise ordered by the court, the clerk mustreturn a document filed under seal in a civil action


B-19

to the submitting party upon entry of a finaljudgment 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 un-der seal in civil actions to the party submittingthem, upon entry of a final judgment or termina-tion of appeal, if any, unless otherwise ordered bythe court.

(2) The clerk must retain custody of documentsfiled under seal in criminal cases, unless other-wise ordered by the court.

(3) The clerk must retain custody of entire fileswhich are permanently sealed by statute or courtorder.

District Court for the NorthernMariana Islands

No relevant local rule.

Northern District of OhioAnalysis: No restriction on the court’s authority toseal a document. A sealed document may not re-main sealed indefinitely. Unless the court ordersto continue the seal for a specified period, thecourt will order the document to be unsealedthirty days after the termination of the case or anyappeal, whichever is later.

Northern District of Ohio Local Civil Rule 5.2.Filing Documents Under Seal.

No document will be accepted for filing underseal unless a statute, court rule, or prior court or-der authorizes the filing of sealed documents. Ifno statute, rule, or prior order authorizes filingunder seal, the document will not be filed underseal.

Materials presented as sealed documents shallbe in an envelope which shows the citation of thestatute or rule or the filing date of the court orderauthorizing the sealing, and the name, address,and telephone number of the person filing thedocuments.

If the sealing of the document purports to beauthorized by court order, the person filing thedocuments shall include a copy of the order in theenvelope. If the order does not authorize the filingunder seal, or if no order is provided, the Clerkwill unseal the documents before filing them. Be-fore unsealing the documents, the Clerk will no-tify the person whose name and telephone num-ber 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 before4:00 p.m. the day the Clerk notifies him or her ofthe defect. If not withdrawn, the documents willbe unsealed and filed.

New cases submitted for filing without asigned sealing order will be assigned a new casenumber, District Judge and Magistrate Judge. TheClerk, without further processing, will send thefile to the assigned District Judge for a sealingorder. If a sealing order is signed, the Clerk willenter as much information as is permitted by thesealing order into the system to open and identifythe case.

Thirty days after the termination of the case orany appeal, whichever is later, sealed documentsand cases will be unsealed pursuant to court or-der, unless either a motion to continue the seal fora specified period of time or a motion to with-draw the document is filed and granted by theCourt.

Southern District of OhioAnalysis: No restriction on the court’s authority toseal a document. A sealed document may not re-main sealed indefinitely. Unless the court ordersotherwise, counsel must withdraw the sealeddocument within six months after final termina-tion of the action; if the document is not with-drawn by counsel, the clerk will dispose of it afterthe 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, dia-grams, depositions, photographs, x-rays and otherexhibits and materials filed in an action or offeredin evidence shall not be considered part of thepleadings in the action and, unless otherwise or-dered by the Court, shall be withdrawn by coun-sel without further Order within six (6) monthsafter final termination of the action.

(b) Disposal By The Clerk. All models, diagrams,depositions, x-rays and other exhibits and materi-als not withdrawn by counsel shall be disposed ofby the Clerk as waste at the expiration of thewithdrawal period.

Southern District of Ohio Local Rule 79.3.Sealed, or Confidential Documents.

(a) Unless otherwise ordered or otherwise spe-cifically provided in these Rules, all documentssubmitted for a confidential in camera inspection


B-20

by the court, which are the subject of a ProtectiveOrder, which are subject to an existing order thatthey be sealed, or which are the subject of a mo-tion for such orders, shall be submitted to theClerk securely sealed in an envelope approxi-mately 9” x 12” in size, or of such larger size asneeded to accommodate the documents.

(b) The envelope containing such documentsshall contain a conspicuous notation that it carries“DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL,” “DOCUMENTSSUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER,” or theequivalent.

(c) The face of the envelope shall also containthe case number, the title of the court, a descrip-tive title of the document and the case caption,unless such information is to be, or has been, in-cluded among the information ordered sealed.The face of the envelope shall also contain thedate of any order, or the reference to any statutepermitting the item to be sealed. The date of filingof an order formally sealing documents, submit-ted in anticipation of such an order, shall beadded by the Clerk when determined.

(d) The Clerk’s file stamp and appropriate re-lated information or markings shall be made onthe face of the envelope. Should the document beordered opened and maintained in that manner inthe case records, the actual date of filing will benoted on the face of the document by the Clerkand the envelope retained therewith.

(e) Sealed or confidential documents shall bedisposed of in accordance with Rule 79.2.

Eastern District of OklahomaNo relevant local rule.

Northern District of OklahomaAnalysis: The court must find that good cause ex-ists before ordering that a document be placedunder seal. A sealed document may remain underseal indefinitely; no durational limitations are im-posed by this rule. Only the court or a court ordercan unseal the document.

Northern District of Oklahoma Local Rule79.1(D). Records Kept by the Court Clerk.Sealing of Records.

No pleading, document, or record shall beplaced under seal without a prior, specific orderof the court finding good cause to do so. No sealshall be lifted, except by the court, or by court or-der.

Western District of OklahomaAnalysis: No restriction on the court’s authority toseal a document. A sealed document may remainsealed indefinitely; no durational limitations areimposed by this rule.

Frequently Asked Questions(www.okwd.uscourts.gov/faq). FilingDocuments.

What is the procedure for filing a motion/documentunder 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 per-

mission to file your motion/documentunder seal.

• Attach the cover motion by stapling itoutside the envelope containing the mo-tion/document to be sealed.

• File the motion/document to be sealed atthe intake counter. The intake clerk willstamp both the documents and will im-mediately give it to the Chief DeputyClerk or the Operations Manager fordocketing and delivery to the presidingjudge or magistrate judge.

• Once the judge or magistrate judge hasruled upon the cover motion to seal, thesealed motion/document will be sealedand placed in the vault or, in the case ofdenial of the motion, will be placed in thecase file.

District of OregonAnalysis: No restriction on the court’s authority toseal a document. A sealed document may not re-main sealed indefinitely. Unless a party submitsto the clerk a motion to return the sealed docu-ment within sixty days after a case is closed orsixty days after an appeal is concluded, thedocument will be unsealed before it is sent to theFederal Records Center.

District of Oregon Local Rule 3.8. Sealed Cases.(a) New Action. At the time a complaint is pre-

sented for filing, any party seeking to file the caseunder seal, must either:

(1) File a motion and supporting memo-randa requesting the court to seal the file.Pending the court’s ruling on the motion to


B-21

seal, the case file and records will be withheldfrom the public record; or

(2) Provide a citation to the authorizinglegislation (if any). Upon verification of thelegislation, the case file and associated recordswill be sealed and withheld from the public re-cord.(b) Pending Action. A party seeking to place a

pending case under seal must file an appropriatemotion requesting the court to seal the file and allassociated electronic records.

(c) Court’s Responsibility. After reviewing themotion and supporting materials, the court willeither:

(1) Grant the motion and direct the clerk tofile the case and all subsequent papers andelectronic records under seal, and to limit fu-ture access to the sealed case to those indi-viduals included in the order; or

(2) Deny the motion and direct the clerk tofile the case in the public records of the court.(d) Access to Sealed Cases. Subsequent access to

the sealed case will be regulated by controllingstatute or court order.

District of Oregon Local Rule 3.9. SealedDocuments.

(a) Sealed Documents Generally. Portions of adocument cannot be placed under seal. Instead,the entire document must be placed under seal inorder to protect confidential information.

(b) Filing a Document Sealed by Previous CourtOrder. When a previous court order authorizes thefiling of a document or other materials under seal,the filing party must present the clerk with a copyof the court order and submit the materials in anenvelope provided by the clerk’s office marked“SEALED MATERIALS”. In addition, all docu-ments authorized to be filed under seal must havethe words “AUTHORIZED TO BE FILED UNDERSEAL” typed directly below the document title.

(c) Motions to File a New Document Under Seal.Motions to file a new document under seal—eventhose offered by stipulation of the parties—will behandled as in camera submissions pursuant toL.R. 3.10.

(d) Motion to Seal Previously Filed Documents. Aparty seeking to place under seal a document thatis currently in the public record, must file andserve a motion and proposed order pursuant toL.R. 3.9(e). Unless requested, the motion will betreated as a discovery motion pursuant to L.R.26.5.

(e) Order to Seal Documents and/or Cases. (SeeL.R. 79.2.) A proposed order to seal a document orcase must include language that:

(1) Identifies the persons authorized to re-view, copy, photograph, and/or inspect thesealed materials; and

(2) Instructs the clerk whether the docu-ment should be excluded from the electronicdocket 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 sealmay file an unredacted document which will beretained by the court as part of the official record.At the court’s direction, the filing party may alsobe required to file a redacted copy of the sealeddocument for inclusion in the public case file. (SeeL.R. 10.3).

District of Oregon Local Rule 3.10. In CameraSubmissions.

(a) During Court Proceedings. Documents orother materials offered and accepted for in camerainspection during a court proceeding will be han-dled in accordance with L.R. 3.10(c).

(b) Tendered to the Clerk’s Office. Documentstendered ex parte to the clerk’s office for trans-mission to the court and subsequent in camerainspection, must be:

(1) Accompanied by a transmittal letter ormotion to the assigned judge requesting thatthe materials be reviewed in camera; and

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

SEALED MATERIALSFor in Camera Inspection

(c) Court Responsibility. After completing the incamera inspection, the court will direct the clerk’soffice to:

(1) File the documents or materials in thepublic record; or

(2) File the documents under seal with ap-propriate disclosure instructions to the clerk;or

(3) Direct that the documents should bereturned to the offering party with appropriateinstructions.(d) Order Regulating Subsequent Disclosure. See

L.R. 3.9(e).


B-22

District of Oregon Local Rule 3.11. Return ofSealed Documents to the Public Record.

(a) Unsealing Documents and Cases. Because theFederal Records Center prohibits storage of sealedrecords or documents, the clerk must unseal alldocuments and cases prior to shipment of anyrecord to the Federal Records Center.

(b) Application to Return Sealed Documents.Therefore, not later than sixty (60) days after acase is closed, or within sixty (60) days after theconclusion of any appeal, any party may file andserve a motion to have the clerk return a sealeddocument.

(c) Authorization to Unseal Documents or Cases.Unless otherwise restricted by federal law, andabsent an application pursuant to L.R. 3.11(b), theclerk is authorized to unseal all previously sealedcivil documents and cases before a record isshipped to the Federal Records Center.

District of Oregon Local Rule 100.17(c). PublicAccess to Electronic Records. Sealed Documents.

(See also L.R. 3.9.) A motion to file documentsunder seal may be filed electronically unless pro-hibited by law or otherwise ordered by the court.The order of the court authorizing the filing ofdocuments under seal may be filed electronicallyunless prohibited by law. Documents ordered tobe placed under seal must be filed conventionallyand not electronically. A paper copy of the ordermust be attached to the documents filed underseal and delivered to the clerk.

Eastern District of PennsylvaniaNo relevant local rule.

Middle District of PennsylvaniaAnalysis: No restriction on the court’s authority toseal a document. A sealed document may not re-main sealed indefinitely. Unless good cause isshown, for all documents that are still under sealafter the case is terminated, the court will unsealthem no later than two years after the final judg-ment 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 casesand/or documents in those cases which still re-main under seal after the case is terminated willbe unsealed by the court no later than two (2)years after the final judgment and/or the exhaus-tion of all appeals.

Western District of PennsylvaniaNo relevant local rule.

District of Puerto RicoNo relevant local rule.

District of Rhode IslandAnalysis: No restriction on the court’s authority toseal a document. A sealed document may remainsealed indefinitely; no durational limitations areimposed by this rule. The document will remainunder seal until the court vacates or amends theorder to seal.

District of Rhode Island Amended GeneralOrder 2002-01 (January 31, 2003). Motions toSeal.

A motion to seal shall be accompanied by thedocument(s) sought to be sealed and a writtenmemorandum not exceeding 5 pages which setsforth the basis for seeking an order to seal. Uponreceipt of a motion to seal and the supportingmemorandum, the clerk shall docket the itemsreceived and transmit them immediately to thechambers of the judge to whom the case has beenassigned. Any opposition to the motion to seallikewise shall be docketed and transmitted to thejudge to whom the case has been assigned.

If the Court grants the motion to seal, alldocuments sealed shall be placed in an envelopeand a copy of the Court’s order shall be affixedthereto. The sealed envelope and its contents shallbe retained by the clerk in a secure location untilsuch time as the Court vacates or amends the or-der to seal. If the Court denies the motion to seal,the document shall be placed in the Court file inaccordance with this Order and the Local Rules.

District of South CarolinaAnalysis: Local rules prohibit the sealing of a set-tlement agreement, but local rules can be sus-pended for good cause.

District of South Carolina Local Civil Rule 1.02.Suspension or Modification.

For good cause shown in a particular case, theCourt may suspend or modify any Local CivilRule.


B-23

District of South Carolina Local Civil Rule 5.03.Filing Documents Under Seal.

Absent a requirement to seal in the governingrule, statute, or order, any party seeking to filedocuments under seal shall follow the mandatoryprocedure described below. Failure to obtain priorapproval as required by this Rule shall result insummary denial of any request or attempt to sealfiled documents. Nothing in this Rule limits theability of the parties, by agreement, to restrict ac-cess to documents which are not filed with theCourt. See Local Civil Rule 26.08.

(A) A party seeking to file documents underseal shall file and serve a “Motion to Seal” accom-panied by a memorandum. See Local Civil Rule7.04. The memorandum shall:

(1) identify, with specificity, the documentsor portions thereof for which sealing is re-quested;

(2) state the reasons why sealing is neces-sary;

(3) explain (for each document or group ofdocuments) why less drastic alternatives tosealing will not afford adequate protection;and

(4) address the factors governing sealing ofdocuments reflected in controlling case law.E.g., Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288 (4thCir. 2000); and In re Knight Publishing Co., 743F.2d 231 (4th Cir. 1984). A non-confidential de-scriptive index of the documents at issue shallbe attached to the motion. A separately sealedattachment labeled “Confidential Informationto be Submitted to Court in Connection withMotion to Seal” shall be submitted with themotion. This attachment shall contain thedocuments at issue for the Court’s in camerareview and shall not be filed. The Court’sdocket shall reflect that the motion and memo-randum were filed and were supported by asealed attachment submitted for in camera re-view.(B) The Clerk shall provide public notice of the

Motion to Seal in the manner directed by theCourt. Absent direction to the contrary, this maybe accomplished by docketing the motion in amanner that discloses its nature as a motion toseal.

(C) No settlement agreement filed with thecourt shall be sealed pursuant to the terms of thisRule.

District of South DakotaNo relevant local rule.

Eastern District of TennesseeAnalysis: The court must find that good cause ex-ists before ordering a document to be placed un-der seal. Unless the court, upon motion, ordersotherwise, a document filed under seal will beunsealed and placed in the case file thirty daysfollowing final disposition (including direct ap-peal) of the action. If the court orders that adocument is to be maintained under seal longerthan thirty days, the court order must set a datefor unsealing the document.

Eastern District of Tennessee Local Rule 26.2.Sealing of Court Records.

(a) Public Record. Except as otherwise providedby statute, rule or order, all pleadings and otherpapers of any nature filed with the Court (“CourtRecords”) shall become a part of the public recordof this court.

(b) Procedure . Court Records or portionsthereof shall not be placed under seal unless andexcept to the extent that the person seeking thesealing thereof shall have first obtained, for goodcause shown, an order of the Court specifyingthose Court Records, categories of Court Records,or portions thereof which shall be placed underseal. The Court may, in its discretion, receive andreview any document in camera without publicdisclosure thereof and, in connection with anysuch review, determine whether good cause existsfor the sealing of the document. Unless the Courtorders otherwise, the parties shall file with theCourt redacted versions of any Court Recordwhere only a portion thereof is to be placed underseal.

(c) Criminal Matters. . . .(d) Expiration of Order. Court Records filed un-

der seal in civil and criminal actions shall bemaintained under seal for thirty (30) days fol-lowing final disposition (including direct appeal)of the action. After that time, all sealed court re-cords shall be unsealed and placed in the case fileunless the Court, upon motion, orders that theCourt Records be maintained under seal beyondthe thirty (30) days. All such orders shall set adate for the unsealing of the Court Records.

Middle District of TennesseeNo relevant local rule.

Western District of TennesseeNo relevant local rule.


B-24

Eastern District of TexasAnalysis: No restriction on the court’s authority toseal a document. A sealed document may not re-main sealed indefinitely. Thirty days after the civilaction has been finally disposed of by the appel-late courts or thirty days from the date the appealtime lapsed, the clerk may destroy the paperoriginal of the document after scanning. The clerkwill maintain the database and prevent unau-thorized access to the scanned document for theforeseeable future.

Eastern District of Texas Local Rule CV-79(a).Books and Records Kept by the Clerk.Disposition of Exhibits and/or SealedDocuments by the Clerk.

Thirty days after a civil action has been finallydisposed of by the appellate courts or from thedate the appeal time lapsed, the clerk is author-ized to take the following actions:

(1) Exhibits. . . .(2) Sealed documents. Scan the original

documents into electronic images that arestored on the court’s computer system in lieuof maintaining the original paper copies. Theclerk shall ensure that the database of scannedimages is maintained for the foreseeable fu-ture, and that no unauthorized access of thestored images occurs. Once a document hasbeen scanned, the paper original will be de-stroyed.

Northern District of TexasAnalysis: No restriction on the court’s authority toseal a document. A sealed document may not re-main sealed indefinitely. Unless the court ordersotherwise, a sealed document will be unsealedsixty 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 thisrule—

(1) An ex parte document, or a documentthat a party desires to be filed under seal, shallnot be filed by the clerk under seal absent anorder of a judge of the court directing the clerkto file the document under seal. The term“document,” as used in this rule, means anypleading, motion, other paper, or physical itemthat the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure per-mit or require to be filed.

(2) A party who desires to file a documentunder seal must at the time the document ispresented to the clerk for filing either present amotion to file the document under seal ordemonstrate that a judge has ordered that thedocument be filed under seal. If no judge hasbeen assigned to a case in which a motion isfiled, the clerk may direct the motion to theduty judge or to another judge of the court forconsideration.

(3) The clerk of court shall defer filing an exparte document, or document that a party de-sires to be filed under seal, until a judge of thecourt has ruled on the motion to file the docu-ment under seal.(b) The clerk shall file under seal any docu-

ment that a statute or rule requires or permits tobe 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 60days after final disposition of a case. A party whodesires that such a document remain sealed mustmove for this relief before the expiration of the 60-day period. The clerk may store, transfer, or oth-erwise dispose of unsealed documents accordingto the procedure that governs publicly availablecourt records.

Southern District of TexasNo relevant local rule.

Western District of TexasNo relevant local rule.

District of UtahAnalysis: The court must find that good cause hasbeen shown before ordering a document to besealed. A sealed document may not remain underseal indefinitely. Unless otherwise ordered by thecourt, a sealed document will be unsealed uponfinal disposition of the case.

District of Utah Local Civil Rule 5–2. FilingCases and Documents Under Court Seal.

(a) General Rule. On motion of one or moreparties and a showing of good cause, the court or,upon referral, a magistrate judge may order all ora portion of the documents filed in a civil case tobe sealed.

(b) Sealing of New Cases.


B-25

(1) On Ex Parte Motion. A case may besealed at the time it is filed upon ex parte mo-tion of the plaintiff or petitioner and executionby the court of a written order. The case will belisted on the clerk’s case index as Sealed Plaintiffvs. Sealed Defendant.

(2) Civil Actions for False Claims. When anindividual files a civil action on behalf of theindividual and the government alleging a vio-lation of 31 U.S.C. §!3729, the clerk will seal thecomplaint for a minimum of sixty (60) days.Extensions may be approved by the court onmotion of the government.(c) Sealing of Pending Cases. A pending case

may be sealed at any time upon motion of eitherparty and execution by the court of a written or-der. Unless the court otherwise orders, neither theclerk’s automated case index nor the existing casedocket will be modified.

(d) Procedure for Filing Documents Under Seal.Documents ordered sealed by the court or other-wise required to be sealed by statute must beplaced unfolded in an envelope with a copy of thecover page of the document affixed to the outsideof the envelope. The pleading caption on thecover page must include a notation that thedocument is being filed under court seal. Thesealed document, together with a judge’s copyprepared in the same manner, must be filed withthe clerk. No document may be designated by anyparty as Filed under Seal or Confidential unless:

(1) it is accompanied by a court order seal-ing the document;

(2) it is being filed in a case that the courthas ordered sealed; or

(3) it contains material that is the subject ofa protective order entered by the court.(e) Access to Sealed Cases and Documents. Unless

otherwise ordered by the court, the clerk will pro-vide access to cases and document under courtseal only on court order. Unless otherwise or-dered by the court, the clerk will make no copiesof sealed case files or documents.

(f) Disposition of Sealed Documents. Unless oth-erwise ordered by the court, any case file ordocuments under court seal that have not previ-ously been unsealed by court order will be un-sealed at the time of final disposition of the case.

District of VermontAnalysis: No restriction on the court’s authority toseal a document. A sealed document may remainsealed indefinitely; no durational limitations areimposed by this rule.

District of Vermont Local Rule 83.8. SealedDocuments.

(a) Order Required. All official files in the pos-session of the court are considered to be publicdocuments available for inspection unless other-wise ordered. Cases or documents cannot besealed without an order from the court.

(b) Filing Procedure. To request that a filing besealed, a separate Motion to Seal must accompanythe specific item to be sealed.

(c) Documents Filed Under Protective Order. Anyparty filing a prospectively sealed document mustplace the document in a sealed envelope and affixa copy of the document’s cover page (with confi-dential information deleted) to the outside of theenvelope. The party must designate the envelopewith a conspicuous notation such as “DOCU-MENTS SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER,” orthe equivalent.

District Court for the Virgin IslandsNo relevant local rule.

Eastern District of VirginiaNo relevant local rule.

Western District of VirginiaAnalysis: No restriction on the court’s authority toseal a document. A sealed document may not re-main sealed indefinitely. Unless a district judge ormagistrate judge expressly orders otherwise, asealed document will be unsealed within thirtydays of the date that it was ordered sealed.

Western District of Virginia Local Rules,Part XIII.A. Standing Order in re Unsealing ofDocuments Placed Under Seal with the Court.

This Standing Order governs the unsealing ofdocuments, pleadings and files (except presen-tence reports, pretrial service reports, psychiatricand psychological reports and any other matterrequired by statute or rule of court to be sealed)placed under seal with the Court in criminal, civilor miscellaneous matters unless the provisions ofthis Order are expressly countermanded by aDistrict Judge or Magistrate Judge in a matterpending before him or her. Nothing in thisStanding Order shall be construed to prevent aDistrict Judge or Magistrate Judge from expresslyexcepting a document, pleading or file pendingbefore him or her from this Standing Order. ThisStanding Order is not retroactive.


B-26

Unless a District Judge or Magistrate Judge ofthis Court expressly orders to the contrary in amatter pending before him or her, it is herebyORDERED as follows as to documents, pleadingsand files that have been ordered sealed:

(1) search warrants are to be unsealedwithin twenty-four (24) hours of execution;

(2) arrest warrants are to be unsealed afterexecution;

(3) indictments are to be unsealed withinthirty (30) days of return of the indictment orwhen all defendants are in custody or sum-moned, whichever is sooner;

(4) criminal complaints are to be unsealedwithin thirty (30) days of issuance or when alldefendants are in custody or summoned,whichever is sooner;

(5) motions to seal shall be unsealed whenthe documents, pleadings or files to which theypertain are unsealed;

(6) all other documents, pleadings and filesare to be unsealed within thirty (30) days fromthe date of the order to seal; and

(7) each defendant shall be provided an un-redacted copy of the charges against him or hereven if the matter is otherwise sealed.Unless a District Judge or Magistrate Judge ex-

pressly orders to the contrary in a matter pendingbefore him or her, the sealing of any document,pleading or file shall be considered only uponwritten motion.

It is further ORDERED that the Clerk of theCourt shall maintain a list of sealed matters as-signed to each District Judge and MagistrateJudge for that Judge’s review.

The Clerk is directed to enter this order in theorder books for each division of this Court and tosend certified copies to the District Judges, Mag-istrate Judges and United States Attorney for thisDistrict.

ENTERED this 19th day of December 1997.

Eastern District of WashingtonNo relevant local rule.

Western District of WashingtonAnalysis: In order to seal a document, the courtmust find that the strong presumption in favor ofpublic access to the court’s files and records hasbeen overcome by a compelling showing that theinterests of the public and the parties in protectingthe document from public review outweigh this

presumption. A sealed document may not remainsealed indefinitely. If the court has ordered onlythe document in a civil action to be placed underseal, the court will return the sealed document tothe submitting counsel or party after the case hasterminated and the time for appeal has run. Incivil actions in which the court ordered that theentire case file, including the document, be placedunder seal, the court will destroy the sealed casefile after the case has terminated, the time for ap-peal has run, and the parties have been givensixty days’ notice.

Western District of Washington Local Civil Rule5(g). Service and Filing of Pleadings and OtherPapers. Sealing of Court Records.

(1) This rule sets forth a uniform procedure forsealing court files, cases, records, exhibits, speci-fied documents, or materials in a court file or re-cord. There is a strong presumption of public ac-cess to the court’s files and records which may beovercome only on a compelling showing that thepublic’s right of access is outweighed by the inter-ests of the public and the parties in protectingfiles, records, or documents from public review.Nothing in this rule shall be construed to expandor restrict statutory provisions for the sealing offiles, records, or documents.

(2) The court may order the sealing of any filesand records on motion of any party, on stipula-tion and order, or on the court’s own motion. If nodefendant has appeared in the case, the motion toseal may be presented ex parte. The law requires,and the motion and the proposed order shall in-clude, a clear statement of the facts justifying aseal and overcoming the strong presumption infavor of public access.

(3) Each document to be filed under seal mustbe submitted in a separate envelope, clearly iden-tifying the enclosed document and stating that thedocument is “FILED UNDER SEAL.” For exam-ple, if both the motion and the accompanying af-fidavit should be filed under seal, the two docu-ments must be submitted in separate, clearlymarked envelopes so that each may be entered onthe docket. If only one exhibit or document needsto be filed under seal, only that exhibit or docu-ment should be submitted in an envelope.

(4) Sealed files and records, or any part thereof,shall remain sealed until the court orders unseal-ing on stipulation of the parties, motion by anyparty or intervenor, or the court’s own motion.Any party opposing the unsealing must make acompelling showing that the interests of the par-ties in protecting files, records, or documents from


B-27

public review continue to outweigh the public’sright of access.

(5) If the court orders the sealing of any files ordocuments pursuant to the above provisions, theclerk shall:

(A) file the order to seal;(B) seal the file, record, or documents des-

ignated in the order to seal and secure it frompublic access;

(C) in civil actions in which only portions ofthe file have been placed under seal, returnsealed documents to the submitting counsel orparty after the case has concluded and the timefor appeal has run;

(D) in civil actions in which the entire filehas been placed under seal, destroy the sealedfile after the case has concluded, the time forappeal has run, and the parties have beengiven sixty days’ notice of the proposed de-struction.

Northern District of West VirginiaNo relevant local rule.

Southern District of West VirginiaNo relevant local rule.

Eastern District of WisconsinAnalysis: No restriction on the court’s authority toseal a document. A sealed document may remainsealed indefinitely; no durational limitations areimposed by this rule.

Eastern District of Wisconsin General LocalRule 79.4. Confidential Matters.

(a) Grand Jury Proceedings. . . .(b) All documents which a judge or magistrate

judge has ordered to be treated as confidentialmust be filed in a sealed envelope conspicuouslymarked “SEALED”.

(c) Subject to General L.R. 83.9(c) and Civil L.R.26.4, the Court will consider all documents tohave been filed publicly unless they are accompa-nied by a separate motion requesting that thedocuments, or portions thereof, be sealed by theCourt.

(d) All documents which a party seeks to havetreated as confidential, but as to which no sealingorder has been entered, must be filed in a sealedenvelope conspicuously marked “Request forConfidentiality Pending,” together with a motionrequesting an appropriate order. The separatemotion for sealing must be publicly filed andmust generally identify the documents containedin the sealed envelope. The documents must betransmitted by the Clerk of Court in a sealed en-velope to the judge or magistrate judge, togetherwith the moving papers. If the motion is denied,the documents must be filed by the Clerk of Courtin an open file, unless otherwise ordered by thejudge or magistrate judge assigned to the case.

Western District of WisconsinNo relevant local rule.

District of WyomingNo relevant local rule.

C-1

Appendix CDescriptions of Cases with Sealed Settlement Agreements

An examination of 288,846 federal civil cases terminated in 2001 and 2002 in 52 districts re-vealed 1,270 cases with sealed settlement agreements, a rate of 0.44%. Descriptions of thesecases follow.24 For each district we briefly summarize local rules and practices and provide sta-tistics on how many cases we searched to find sealed settlement agreements. Districts are pre-sented in alphabetical order; cases are presented within a district in order of filing date. Con-solidated 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 theconclusion of the study.

Middle District of AlabamaNo relevant local rule.

Statistics: 3,237 cases in termination cohort; 80docket sheets (2.5%) have the word “seal” inthem; 4 complete docket sheets (0.12%) were re-viewed; actual documents were examined for 3cases (0.09%); 3 cases (0.09%) appear to havesealed settlement agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement AgreementsPrincipal Financial Group v. Principal EquityMortgage Inc. (AL-M 2:00-cv-00326 filed03/16/2000).Action seeking injunctive and monetary relief fortrademark infringement, dilution, unfair compe-tition, and counterfeiting. After the parties agreedto settle and submit a final judgment and perma-nent injunction by consent to the court, the courtordered the parties to submit a joint stipulation ofdismissal. The plaintiffs requested more time tofinalize the settlement terms and inadvertentlyattached exhibits containing draft settlement pa-pers, which were filed with the court. Because thedraft settlement papers contained confidentialinformation, the plaintiffs moved to have themsealed. The court granted the motion, and theparties filed under seal the settlement documentsand the final judgment and permanent injunctionby consent. The court approved the judgment andpermanent injunction, ordered the clerk to ensurethat they remain sealed, and retained jurisdictionover the case as needed to enforce the settlement.The case was closed but remains on the court’sadministrative docket.

Robson v. Dale County Board of Education (AL-M1:00-cv-01037 filed 08/02/2000).Civil rights action by a substitute teacher for re-taliation for exercising her First Amendment free-dom of speech. The parties settled, and the courtgranted the parties’ joint stipulation to dismisswith prejudice the individual defendants (theprincipal and the school superintendent). The set-tlement agreement with the remaining defendantschool board apparently was filed under seal, be-cause the docket sheet indicates that after thecourt granted the parties’ sealed joint motion toseal, the case was closed pursuant to a sealed or-der and a document was filed under seal the sameday.

Johnson v. Dothan Coca Cola Bottling Enterprises(AL-M 1:01-cv-00901 filed 07/20/2001).Employment civil rights action by a black em-ployee against a bottling company for race dis-crimination and retaliation. The parties settled,the court ordered costs to be taxed against thedefendant, and the case was dismissed withprejudice. The defendant contested the bill of costfiled by the plaintiff and moved to file the parties’confidential settlement agreement under seal toshow that the parties had an agreement with re-spect to the payment of costs. The court grantedthe motion, and the defendant filed a copy of theconfidential settlement agreement for in camerareview by the court. Prior to an evidentiary hear-ing, the parties agreed to split payment of thecosts, and the court closed the case.


C-2

Northern District of AlabamaNo relevant local rule.

Statistics: 7,042 cases in termination cohort; 3docket sheets are sealed (0.04%)—all of thesecases’ disposition codes suggest sealed settlementagreements;25 745 unsealed docket sheets (11%)have the word “seal” in them; 26 complete docketsheets (0.37%) were reviewed; actual documentswere examined for 24 cases (0.34%); 26 cases(0.37%) appear to have sealed settlement agree-ments.

Cases with Sealed Settlement AgreementsWoodruff v. City of Birmingham (AL-N 2:96-cv-02196 filed 08/21/1996).Employment civil rights action for sex discrimi-nation and retaliation by a female buildings in-spector employed by the city. Pursuant to a sealedcourt order, judgment was entered for the plain-tiff and the defendant was ordered to complywith the terms contained in the sealed order. Be-cause no motion preceded the order, the sealedorder probably incorporated the terms of a set-tlement agreement reached by the parties. Fouryears later, the plaintiff brought a motion to en-force the court order still under seal and a motionfor contempt against the defendant. The court de-nied the plaintiff’s motions and the case wasclosed.

Robinson v. Boohaker Schillaci (AL-N 2:96-cv-03198filed 12/09/1996).Contract action by a former shareholder/direc-tor/employee for breach of several agreementsmade with the defendant accounting corporation,including a buy–sell agreement. The defendantfiled a counterclaim alleging that the plaintiff’sbreach of a non-compete provision was the reasonfor its refusal to honor the terms of its agreement.After a jury trial had commenced, the parties set-tled. Settlement terms were stated on the record,and the transcript was sealed. The case was dis-missed.

Cahaba Pressure-Treated Forest Products v. OMGroup (AL-N 7:97-cv-01917 filed 07/25/1997).Fraud action. The docket sheet is sealed. The casewas dismissed as settled.

25. Three cases settled.

Thomasson Lumber Co. v. Cahaba Pressure-TreatedForest Products (AL-N 7:98-cv-00043 filed01/08/1998).Contract action. The docket sheet is sealed. Thecase was dismissed as settled.

Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty InsuranceCo. v. Cahaba Pressure-Treated Forest Products (AL-N 2:98-cv-01261 filed 05/19/1998).Insurance action. The docket sheet is sealed. Thecase was dismissed as settled.

Jones v. Samford University (AL-N 2:98-cv-02530filed 10/06/1998).Employment civil rights class action by femalefaculty and staff members alleging sex discrimi-nation by the defendant university in compensa-tion, tenure, hiring, and promotion. The court de-nied certification of the case as a class action. Theparties settled, and the court dismissed the casewith prejudice. The court sealed the transcript ofthe settlement proceedings.

Faddis v. Roehuf Restaurants Inc. (AL-N 2:99-cv-01214 filed 05/13/1999).Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Actalleging that the defendant restaurant discrimi-nated against female employees regarding wages.In addition, allegations of race and age discrimi-nation, retaliation, and failure to pay overtimewages were brought by named plaintiffs. Thecourt denied class certification. A settlement ap-parently was reached, because two weeks afterthe court dismissed the case with prejudice, thedefendant moved to enforce the settlement andfor sanctions. The court denied the defendant’smotions and ordered the clerk to place the defen-dant’s motion to enforce the settlement underseal. 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 motherfor molestation of the minor by the defendantpastor. The parties settled, and the case was dis-missed without prejudice. Less than a month laterthe parties moved to reopen the case to accept theparties’ petition for pro ami settlement to effectu-ate the settlement that involves the minor. Pro amiproceedings were held. The court filed its orderregarding the proposed settlement and finaljudgment under seal.

Appendix C. Case Descriptions

C-3

Smith v. Cohen (AL-N 5:99-cv-02907 filed10/29/1999).Employment civil rights action against the De-partment of Defense for sex and race discrimina-tion against a black female employee and retalia-tion for participation in the EEO process. Theparties reached a confidential settlement agree-ment, which was sealed. The case was dismissedwithout prejudice.

Hawkins v. Electronic Data Systems Corp. (AL-N2:99-cv-03451 filed 12/30/1999).Employment discrimination action by black em-ployees. The plaintiffs also brought claims underthe Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtimecompensation. The parties negotiated a settlementagreement at a mediation session. Two weekslater the defendant moved to enforce the settle-ment agreement. Attached exhibits that containedthe terms of the settlement agreement were filedunder seal. The court granted the defendant’smotion and the parties’ stipulation to dismiss thecase with prejudice.

IMI International Medical Innovations Inc. v. MQSInc. (AL-N 2:00-cv-00131 filed 01/14/2000).Contract action for incomplete performance. Thecase settled, and the court granted the plaintiff’smotion to place the confidential settlementagreement under seal. The court also sealed aconsent judgment.

DeSanto v. Howard (AL-N 2:00-cv-00171 filed01/20/2000).Personal injury action on behalf of a minor forinappropriate contact by an intoxicated passengerduring a flight on the defendant airline. The par-ties settled. The court granted the defendant’smotion to allow the filing of all future pleadingsunder seal until a proposed settlement was ap-proved by the court, because the claims were filedon behalf of a minor. In support of its motion, thedefendant disclosed that confidentiality of thesettlement amount was a material element uponwhich it relied. The plaintiff’s motion to approvethe proposed settlement and the report of theguardian ad litem were filed under seal. The courtapproved the pro ami settlement and dismissedthe case.

McWhorter v. Lawson State Community College (AL-N 2:00-cv-00401 filed 02/17/2000).Employment action by a female professor againstthe defendant university for sex discrimination

and retaliation. The parties settled during court-ordered mediation, and the court dismissed thecase without prejudice, retaining jurisdiction toenforce the parties’ settlement agreement. Thecourt ordered the mediation agreement, whichwas filed with the court, to be placed under seal.

Farr v. Newell Rubbermaid Inc. (AL-N 5:00-cv-00997filed 04/18/2000).Product liability action by a minor. The specificallegations of this case are not known because, asthe assigned judge’s docket clerk confirmed, theentire case file is sealed. The docket sheet indi-cates that the parties settled and that the settle-ment agreement was sealed. In addition, follow-ing a pro ami hearing, the court filed under seal aconfidential order and approval of the minor’ssettlement. The court ordered the contents of thefile sealed to preserve confidentiality. The casewas closed.

Shrader v. Mallard (AL-N 4:00-cv-01050 filed04/21/2000).Civil rights action for sexual abuse by city jail em-ployees while the plaintiff was detained followingarrest. The parties settled, and the case was dis-missed without prejudice. Four months later theparties filed a joint motion to seal the settlementagreement to maintain its confidentiality for thebenefit of the parties’ reputations. The courtgranted the joint motion, and the settlementagreement was sealed, with the exception that itcould be produced to plaintiff’s counsel in a sepa-rate suit against the same defendant.

Livingston v. City of Attalla (AL-N 4:00-cv-01989filed 07/18/2000).Personal injury action for sexual abuse by city jailemployees. The parties settled and the case wasdismissed without prejudice. Four months laterthe parties filed a joint motion to seal the settle-ment agreement to maintain its confidentiality forthe benefit of the parties’ reputations. The courtgranted the joint motion and filed the settlementagreement under seal.

Bell v. Jacksonville City Board of Education (AL-N1:00-cv-02035 filed 07/21/2000).Employment action by a female teacher againstthe board of education for sex and age discrimi-nation in repeatedly denying the plaintiff promo-tions. Prior to opening statements at a jury trial,the parties announced settlement of all pendingclaims and issues. The terms of settlement were


C-4

read into the record, and the settlement portion ofthe transcript was sealed. The case was dismissed,and the court reserved jurisdiction for thirty daysfor the filing of motions to enforce the settlement.

Jordan v. API Outdoors Inc. (AL-N 2:00-cv-02059filed 07/24/2000).Product liability action for serious injuries sus-tained in a fall when a climbing belt designed andmanufactured by the defendant suddenly failed.The parties settled, and the court ordered the casedismissed without prejudice, retaining jurisdic-tion over the parties to enforce their settlementagreement. The court ordered that the parties’stipulation regarding the settlement agreement befiled under seal. The court granted the parties’stipulation to dismiss the case with prejudice.

EEOC v. Employers Mutual Casualty Co. (AL-N2:00-cv-02605 filed 09/15/2000).Employment action on behalf of a female em-ployee of the defendant insurance company forfailure to promote her because of her sex. Theparties settled, and the defendant moved to allowthe parties to file under seal the settlement agree-ment and the general release that was referencedin the proposed consent decree filed with thecourt. The court granted the defendant’s motion.The court ordered the clerk to close the file, butthe court retained jurisdiction either for the nextfour months to resolve any dispute that mightarise out of administration of the consent decree,or until the defendant certified that the paymentand training required under the consent decreewere completed, whichever occurred first.

Brockway v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (AL-N 5:00-cv-02970 filed 10/19/2000).Employment action by a female employee for sexdiscrimination and sexual harassment. The de-fendant filed a motion to enforce a settlementagreement. Exhibits and a brief in support of themotion were filed under seal. The plaintiff’s re-sponse to the motion also was filed under seal.The court denied the motion after an evidentiaryhearing. All claims against the defendant weredismissed 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 tomake timely payments for tires and not to selltires to certain countries. The parties settled, andthe court granted their request to enter judgment

against the defendant under seal and for thejudgment to remain under seal until the defen-dant defaulted in payment. The case was dis-missed with prejudice. Seven months later thecourt granted the plaintiff’s motion to unseal thejudgment because the defendant failed to makethe second installment payment.

Hill v. CVS Rx Services Inc. (AL-N 2:00-cv-03355filed 11/21/2000).Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Actby CVS pharmacists for failure to pay overtimewages. The parties settled and filed their confi-dential settlement and release agreement underseal with the court. The court also sealed the tran-script of the fairness hearing and settlement con-ference. The court approved the settlement ofclass claims and dismissed the case with preju-dice.

Wilson v. Saks Inc. (AL-N 2:01-cv-00237 filed01/24/2001).Employment action by a black employee for racediscrimination and retaliatory discharge. Theparties agreed on a confidential settlementagreement. Six days later the defendant moved toenforce the settlement agreement with sealed ex-hibits attached (letters confirming the settlement).The court granted the motion and dismissed thecase.

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 adriver (father) and a passenger (daughter), andfor severe injuries sustained by another minorpassenger (another daughter) when a tractor-trailer collided head on with the plaintiffs’ vehi-cle. The parties settled. The plaintiffs filed underseal a motion for an order approving the pro amisettlement pertaining to the minor plaintiff. Thecourt approved the terms of the pro ami settlementand granted the parties’ stipulation and order ofdismissal with prejudice.

Holcombe v. Therapeutic Programs Inc. (AL-N 2:01-cv-00918 filed 04/13/2001).Employment action for racial discrimination andwrongful termination by a black employee of acorporation providing foster care services to thestate of Alabama. The parties apparently settled,because the defendant moved to enforce the set-tlement. The court sealed the transcript of thehearing on the motion to enforce the settlement


C-5

agreement. The court’s order dismissing the casewith prejudice also was sealed.

EMCO Building Products Inc. v. ARES Corp. (AL-N5:01-cv-01226 filed 05/14/2001).Contract action for failure to pay a balance due forgoods. After a jury trial had commenced, the casesettled, and the settlement agreement as dictatedinto the court record was sealed. The court filedunder seal a judgment by agreement of the partiesterminating the case. The court granted the plain-tiff’s request to unseal the agreed order andjudgment for the limited purpose of allowing it tobe registered and recorded in another judicialdistrict.

Southern District of AlabamaNo relevant local rule.

Statistics: 2,015 cases in termination cohort; 1docket sheet is sealed (0.05%)—this case’s dispo-sition code suggests no sealed settlement agree-ment;26 78 unsealed docket sheets (3.9%) have theword “seal” in them; 22 complete docket sheets(1.1%) were reviewed; actual documents wereexamined for 9 cases (0.45%); 9 cases (0.45%) ap-pear to have sealed settlement agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement AgreementsIn re Amtrak “Sunset Limited” Train Crash (AL-S1:94-cv-05000, MDL 1003 filed 03/02/1994),multidistrict litigation including Schmidt v. CSXTransportation Inc. (AL-S 1:94-cv-05015 filed03/02/1994) and Procaccini v. CSX TransportationCo. (AL-S 1:94-cv-05017 filed 03/03/1994).Personal injury and wrongful death actions aris-ing from the “Sunset Limited” passenger trainderailment and crash into Big Bayou Canot onSeptember 22, 1993. The train struck a bridgegirder displaced by the collision of a towboat andbarges with the railroad bridge over Big BayouCanot in Alabama. Cases filed by or on behalf ofinjured or deceased passengers or crew memberswere transferred by the MDL panel to the South-ern District of Alabama and consolidated for pre-trial purposes. A master file was created for allpretrial proceedings and assigned docket num-bers MDL 1003 and AL-S 94-05000.

The defendants were ordered to submit underseal lists of all settlements, and each settlementagreement was to be disclosed only if all parties toit agreed. In December 1998, a global settlement

26. One voluntary dismissal.

was reached in the remaining 42 wrongful deathactions, but it was contingent upon all of thewrongful death plaintiffs’ approving the settle-ment. Each plaintiff’s attorney previously settlinga wrongful death case with one of the defendantswas ordered to complete a “confidential case set-tlement questionnaire” and file it under seal withthe court, after which the plaintiff’s attorneywould receive the terms of the proposed confi-dential global settlement and other necessary set-tlement documents. After all plaintiffs executedthe appropriate releases, and the defendants fileda notice of their receipt, the plaintiff steeringcommittee filed under seal a request for dis-bursement of the settlement funds. All forty-tworemaining wrongful death actions were dismissedin March 1999.

Case 94-05015 was brought by a minor, andcase 94-05017 was brought by the minor’s mother.One of the defendants filed a motion to enforce asettlement in these two cases, which was laterplaced under seal by the court; the court deniedthe motion, and a jury trial was held in these twocases. In both cases final judgment was enteredfor the plaintiffs against one defendant and in fa-vor of another defendant who had been grantedsummary judgment. The court dismissed the re-maining claims in both cases pursuant to a sealedsettlement agreement.

Strong v. City of Selma (AL-S 2:98-cv-00191 filed02/27/1998).Civil rights class action for police brutality againstblack men. The court dismissed the case as settled.Three days later the case was reopened, and thecourt gave the parties twenty days to file underseal a jointly proposed consent order embodyingthe terms of the confidential settlement agree-ment. The case was closed upon entry of thesealed consent order.

O’Gwynn v. Foley Police Department (AL-S 1:00-cv-00273 filed 03/31/2000).Action by a mentally ill plaintiff for civil rightsviolations during her detention at the city jail.After summary judgment for the city, the plaintiffand the police officer entered into a confidentialsettlement agreement. Because the plaintiff wascommitted and found to be incompetent, a pro amihearing was required under state law to deter-mine the fairness of the settlement. The courtgranted the guardian ad litem’s request to seal themotion to approve the settlement agreement. Thecourt approved the settlement agreement anddismissed the case.


C-6

Huber v. Tillman (AL-S 1:01-cv-00019 filed01/05/2001).Employment action by a female police officer forsex discrimination and retaliation, including re-taliation for a previous religious discriminationcharge. After summary judgment for the defen-dant on the retaliation claim, the parties reached aconfidential settlement agreement. The plaintifffiled a motion to enforce it. Because the terms ofthe settlement were confidential, the court or-dered the plaintiff to file under seal a supple-mental motion setting forth the terms of the set-tlement agreement and the basis for her claim. Anotice of voluntary dismissal was filed before thecourt ruled on the motion to enforce the settle-ment agreement.

Curry v. Kimberly Clark Paper Co. (AL-S 1:01-cv-00445 filed 06/20/2001).Action under the National Labor Relations Actand the Labor and Management Relations Actarising out of theft of property from the plaintiff’splace of employment. The court dismissed thecase as settled and gave the parties thirty days toperfect their agreement. The plaintiff moved toenforce the settlement agreement after refusing tosign the general release. The defendants moved toenforce the settlement agreement and the generalrelease. The motions were filed under seal pursu-ant to a confidentiality provision of the proposedsettlement agreement. The parties agreed that thecourt’s resolution of the settlement dispute wouldend the case. The court denied both motions. Pur-suant to inherent authority to enforce settlements,the court ordered the plaintiff to sign a releaseand the defendants to pay the undisputed settle-ment amount.

EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (AL-S 1:01-cv-00522filed 07/19/2001).Employment action on behalf of female Wal-Martemployees for sexual harassment and retaliationfor reporting the harassment to supervisory em-ployees. In July 2002, the parties notified the courtthat the action had settled, and the court dis-missed the case with prejudice. The settlementagreement included a confidential release. Thetranscript of the settlement agreement apparentlywas sealed, because in January 2003, the courtgranted the defendant’s motion to unseal it.

Williams v. Davis & Feder PA (AL-S 1:02-cv-00188filed 03/21/2002).Legal malpractice action concerning the plaintiff’sclaim for medical complications caused by a dietdrug. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants’false representations induced her to accept an in-adequate settlement that did not compensate herfor an undiscovered serious heart condition. Fol-lowing settlement and a voluntary dismissal, thedefendants moved for relief from judgment and tosubmit evidence under seal. The court orderedsealed all documents related to the defendants’motion. The court granted the defendants’ motionfor relief from judgment and ordered the partiesto conform to the terms of the settlement agree-ment and release. The parties agreed that thecourt should have continuing jurisdiction overany alleged breach of the settlement agreement orviolation of its terms. The case was dismissedwith prejudice.

District of ArizonaDocuments may remain sealed for no more than23 years. D. Ariz. L.R. 1.3(d)-(f).

Statistics: 6,604 cases in termination cohort; 18docket sheets are sealed (0.27%)—all of thesecases’ disposition codes suggest no sealed settle-ment agreements;27 347 unsealed docket sheets(5.3%) have the word “seal” in them; 32 completedocket sheets (0.48%) were reviewed; actualdocuments were examined for 21 cases (0.32%); 18cases (0.27%) appear to have sealed settlementagreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement AgreementsGrimes v. Golden Eagle Distributors Inc. (AZ 4:96-cv-00689 filed 11/26/1996).Employment discrimination action by current andformer employees for age discrimination, wrong-ful termination, and retaliation in violation of theAge Discrimination in Employment Act. Threeplaintiffs agreed to dismiss their claims withprejudice in consideration of a confidential set-tlement agreement reached by each plaintiff withthe defendant. One of the three plaintiffs filed amotion to enforce the agreement. The courtgranted the defendant’s unopposed request to filethe plaintiff’s motion under seal as well as anyfuture pleadings or papers containing confidential

27. One case remanded to state court, 10 cases dis-missed for want of prosecution, 5 cases with judgmentson motions before trial, 1 multidistrict litigation trans-fer, 1 “other” judgment.


C-7

data regarding the settlement agreement and/ornegotiations. The parties stipulated to withdrawall pending motions, except for motions for attor-ney fees filed on behalf of two of the plaintiffs.

Morton v. United Parcel Service Inc. (AZ 2:96-cv-02813 filed 12/23/1996).Employment discrimination action under theAmericans with Disabilities Act for refusal to con-sider the plaintiff for a driver position because ofher hearing disability and for failure to accommo-date her disability, which resulted in a construc-tive discharge. The parties settled eight monthsafter the case was reopened following the court ofappeals’ reversal of summary judgment for thedefendant. The court ordered the record of thetelephonic settlement agreement sealed. The par-ties stipulated to a court order providing for con-fidentiality of the settlement agreement and fordismissal of the case with prejudice.

Unisys Corp. v. Varilease Technology Group (AZ2:98-cv-02251 filed 12/17/1998).Copyright and trade secret action concerningmaintenance and product support materials anddiagnostic software. All parties to the casereached a confidential settlement agreement. Be-cause of delay by one of the defendants in signingthe stipulation for dismissal, the plaintiff filedunder seal a motion to enforce the settlementagreement. Before the motion was considered, thenecessary signatures were obtained, and the casewas dismissed upon the filing of the stipulation toenter a permanent injunction and dismiss theclaims with prejudice.

Progressive Electronics Inc. v. Aines ManufacturingCorp. (AZ 2:99-cv-01184 filed 06/30/1999).Patent infringement action concerning an induc-tive amplifier used in the telephone service in-dustries. The parties settled and filed a proposedconsent judgment under seal. The court approvedthe sealed consent judgment.

Ransom v. Arizona (AZ 2:99-cv-01962 filed11/02/1999).Employment action by an African-American secu-rity officer for race discrimination and for retalia-tion for filing an internal complaint alleging a ra-cially biased internal affairs investigation of theplaintiff. The case settled, and the court orderedthe record of the terms of the settlement to besealed.

Southwest Gas Corp. v. ONEOK Inc. (AZ 2:00-cv-00119 filed 01/24/2000), consolidated withSouthwest Gas Corp. v. Southern Union Co. (AZ2:00-cv-00452 filed 03/13/2000).This is a consolidation of three cases, two ofwhich were identified by our search. The leadcase was not included because it has not beenterminated. The two cases listed above are con-tract actions also alleging fraud regarding amerger agreement and a confidentiality agree-ment. These two cases settled. The court sealedthe transcript of the settlement hearing. The set-tlement agreement subsequently was unsealed bystipulation, except for attachments to an exhibit.

Borenstein v. Finova Group (AZ 2:00-cv-00619 filed04/06/2000).Securities class action alleging false financialstatements. A court-approved settlement agree-ment was filed unsealed, but a “supplementalagreement” was filed under seal and the courtsealed the portion of the transcript of a telephonicsettlement hearing pertaining to the supplementalagreement.

M&I Heat Transfer Products Ltd. v. VAW SystemsLtd. (AZ 2:00-cv-00908 filed 05/15/2000).Patent infringement action. The plaintiff acceptedthe defendant’s offer of judgment, which the courtordered 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 mentalinjuries, including a stroke, because of negligentcare by a nursing home. The court permitted theparties to file their “Joint Motion for ExpeditedApproval of Settlement and Stipulation to Dismisswith Prejudice” and all exhibits under seal; on thesame day the court approved the parties’ settle-ment agreement and dismissed the action withprejudice.

Ritchie v. Yanchunis (AZ 2:00-cv-01533 filed08/09/2000).Personal injury action for legal malpractice in al-lowing the statute of limitation on an action forwrongful termination to lapse. The parties agreedto a confidential settlement agreement, and thecourt ordered the transcript of the settlementagreement filed under seal.


C-8

Noriega v. City of Scottsdale (AZ 2:00-cv-01646 filed08/28/2000).Employment discrimination action by ten currentor former Hispanic employees, alleging retaliationfor filing complaints with the EEOC. The courtsealed a joint notice regarding the status of set-tlement discussions reached by the parties. Thecourt granted the parties’ stipulation to dismissthe case with prejudice.

FTC v. RJB Telcom Inc. (AZ 2:00-cv-02017 filed10/25/2000).Action under the Federal Trade Commission Actfor an injunction to halt defendants’ unauthorizedbilling for access to sexually explicit Web pagesand Web sites. The court filed under seal two ap-pendices to the stipulated final injunction. Theseappendices apparently “contain details on theefforts that will be made to eliminate or at leastminimize potential for fraud and would be dam-aging if made available to those wishing to per-petrate a fraud.”

Cieslinski v. Taurus International Manufacturing Inc.(AZ 4:00-cv-00712 filed 12/18/2000).Personal injury action against the manufacturer ofan allegedly defective firearm for serious physicalinjury suffered by the plaintiff when the firearmmisfired, striking the plaintiff in the abdomen.The court sealed the record of the settlement con-ference. The court retained jurisdiction to enforceany settlement.

Biesiada v. American Financial Resources Inc. (AZ2:01-cv-00511 filed 03/19/2001).Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act by twoformer bank employees for unpaid wages. Thecase was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settle-ment agreement.

Hannan v. Pacific Indemnity Co. (AZ 4:01-cv-00471filed 09/14/2001).Insurance contract action for bad faith in handlingthe plaintiff’s claim for a fire that partially de-stroyed her home. Apparently the parties settledtheir claims, because five months after the casewas filed the court found good cause to file underseal the defendant’s motion to enforce the settle-ment agreement. The case was dismissed withprejudice shortly thereafter.

Stephens v. Arizona Association of Community HealthCenters (AZ 2:01-cv-01936 filed 10/10/2001).Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act by aformer employee of the Arizona Association ofCommunity Health Centers for unpaid overtimewages. The case settled, and the court ordered theterms of the settlement to be sealed.

Ishmail v. Honeywell Inc. (AZ 2:01-cv-02355 filed12/03/2001).Employment action involving a machinist of Ma-cedonian descent suing his former employer forrace and age discrimination and wrongful termi-nation. The case settled, and the court ordered thesettlement agreement to be sealed.

Northern District of California28

“No document shall be filed under seal exceptpursuant to a Court order that authorizes thesealing of the particular document or portionthereof and is narrowly tailored to seal only thatmaterial for which good cause to seal has beenestablished.” N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). “Docu-ments may not be filed under seal pursuant toblanket protective orders covering multipledocuments. Counsel should not attempt to sealentire pleadings or memoranda required to befiled pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Proce-dure or these Local Rules.” Id. (commentary). Ab-sent an order to the contrary, sealed documentsare unsealed ten years after being sent to the rec-ords center. Id. R. 79-5(e).

Statistics: 12,140 cases in termination cohort; 11docket sheets are sealed (0.09%)—the dispositioncodes for 8 of these cases suggest no sealed set-tlement agreements29 and the disposition codesfor 3 of these cases suggest sealed settlementagreements;30 635 unsealed docket sheets (5.2%)have the word “seal” in them; 146 completedocket sheets (1.2%) were reviewed; actual docu-ments were examined for 82 cases (0.68%); 70cases (0.58%) appear to have sealed settlementagreements.

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 dismiss-als, 1 “other” dismissal, 1 “other” judgment.

30. Three cases settled.


C-9

Cases with Sealed Settlement AgreementsSelby v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. (CA-N4:93-cv-04160 filed 11/23/1993).Employment action by a female road foreman ofengines for sex discrimination and sexual harass-ment. The jury returned a verdict for the defen-dant and the plaintiff appealed. The court of ap-peals found two errors in the judgment. The caseultimately settled. The settlement agreement wasput on the record at a settlement conference, thetranscript of which was filed under seal. An un-satisfied execution of judgment showed$20,765.98 due, but the case subsequently wasdismissed.

Margetis v. Avant! Corp. (CA-N 5:96-cv-20132 filed12/15/1995).Securities class action by investors, alleging thatdefendants’ software products were based onmisappropriated computer code. The court ap-proved a $35 million settlement and sealed a“supplemental agreement regarding requests forexclusion.” The supplemental agreement, how-ever, 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 memorymodules. A settlement agreement was put on therecord at a settlement conference before a magis-trate judge. One month later, the defendantmoved ex parte to preempt the plaintiff’s plannedmotion before the district judge to enforce the set-tlement agreement, arguing that the district judgeshould be shielded from matters of settlementnegotiations. The magistrate judge recused herselfbecause she had become “too close to the partiesand the issues in this case,” and the motion to en-force was filed under seal and heard by a secondmagistrate judge. He denied the motion to enforceby sealed order. After three more months of liti-gation, the case was dismissed by stipulatedsealed order. A year and a half later the defendantfiled a sealed motion to enforce a settlementagreement. Six months later the case again wasdismissed 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 todevelop computer-controlled desktop hot stamp-ing machines for personalizing folders, binders,etc. The case settled at a settlement conference.

The court sealed a stipulation to dismiss andagreement to transfer intellectual property.

Media Financial Group v. W Publishing Group (CA-N 3:97-cv-02343 filed 06/23/1997).Fraud action alleging business reorganization toavoid $1,251,883 in judgments from a New Jerseycourt for tortious interference with magazine ac-counts receivable. At a settlement conference,some defendants entered into a confidential set-tlement agreement with the plaintiffs and thenmoved for a determination of good-faith settle-ment. The motion was granted, and the actionagainst the settling defendants was dismissed.The agreement was filed under seal. The courtthereafter signed a stipulated judgment againstthe 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 al-leges various forms of unfair competition arisingfrom possession and sale of unlicensed copies ofthe plaintiff’s software. The case was dismissedpursuant to a consent decree that provided in-junctive relief but did not specify any recovery ofdamages. The plaintiff filed an ex parte motion toreopen the case, alleging violations of the agree-ment. A declaration supporting the motion wassealed. The defendant’s opposition also wassealed. The matter ultimately was resolved.

Xecom Inc. v. Xecom Corp. (CA-N 5:97-cv-21099filed 11/24/1997).Trademark action by a manufacturer of telecom-munications equipment. The court awarded theplaintiff a default judgment and permanent in-junction. The defendant’s motion to set aside thejudgment was denied. Before the plaintiff filed amotion for fees and damages, the case settled at asettlement conference, and the agreement was puton the record under seal. The following month theaction was stayed by the defendant’s bankruptcy.Three years later the court ordered the parties toshow cause why the dormant case should not bedismissed and then dismissed it.

Lawrence v. Cessna Aircraft Co. (CA-N 3:98-cv-02837 filed 07/17/1998).Airplane action alleging severe burns because theplaintiff was unable to escape from a crashedplane manufactured by the defendant. The casesettled. The court sealed the minutes of the hear-ing on settlement approval.


C-10

Amersham Pharmacia Biotech Inc. v. Perkin-ElmerCorp. (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 tech-niques. The actions apparently were dismissedpursuant to sealed settlement agreements.

Berarducci v. General Electric Co. (CA-N 3:98-cv-03448 filed 09/09/1998).Labor litigation for wrongful termination and agediscrimination. The case settled pursuant to a set-tlement agreement, which was filed under seal.

EEOC v. C. & M. Packing Inc. (CA-N 5:98-cv-20975filed 09/24/1998).Employment action for sex discrimination andretaliation on behalf of two named employees anda class. The case settled pursuant to a consent de-cree. Two exhibits to the decree were filed underseal. One was a written reprimand for a namedmale employee. The second exhibit specified howmuch of the $90,000 settlement each of fourwomen would get.

Affymetrix Inc. v. Synteni Inc. (CA-N 5:99-cv-21164filed 11/24/1998).Patent action concerning “high density arraytechnology for gene expression monitoring.” Thecase apparently settled, and the plaintiff wasgranted a motion to file under seal a motion forentry of final judgment.

Za-Za Inc. v. Eastman Chemical Co. (CA-N 3:98-cv-04886 filed 12/22/1998).Antitrust consolidated class action alleging aninternational conspiracy to fix prices on food pre-servatives known as sorbates. (The consolidatedaction is titled In re Sorbates Direct Purchaser Anti-trust Litigation.) The Justice Department pursuedcriminal actions separately. Over the course oflitigation, all defendants settled; settlements to-taled $96,478,000. The court sealed a “side letter tosettlement agreement” with one defendant.

Marketel International Inc. v. Priceline.com (CA-N3:99-cv-00161 filed 01/19/1999).Designated a copyright action, this is an action forunfair competition and misappropriation of tradesecrets in electronic travel auctions. The partiesengaged in settlement negotiations. The plaintiffbelieved that an agreement was reached, but thedefendant did not. The plaintiff sought permis-

sion to file under seal an amended complaintpleading existence of the agreement. Theamended complaint was filed under seal, and theparties litigated under seal a restraining order onthe defendant’s issuing an initial public offeringas a violation of the settlement agreement. Theplaintiff subsequently withdrew its claim of set-tlement and filed an unsealed second amendedcomplaint. A third amended complaint was filedlater, and the court granted the defendant sum-mary judgment on many of the claims. The plain-tiff agreed to dismiss the remaining claims so thatit 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 PlayStationagainst the makers of the Virtual Game Station,which was designed to emulate the PlayStation onApple computers. On the morning of trial theparties settled. “The parties submitted to the courta sealed Order of Intent which will be lodgedwith” the judge. The transcript of proceedingsdiscloses that the plaintiff decided to buy certainintellectual property rights from the defendant.The minutes for a subsequent settlement confer-ence state that the case did not settle. The defen-dant filed under seal a motion to enforce the set-tlement agreement. Opposition and reply papersalso were filed under seal. The court granted themotion. The case was dismissed by stipulation.

Arlow v. Novato Police Department (CA-N 3:99-cv-02272 filed 05/18/1999).Designated a prison-conditions action, this is anaction by a prisoner for an illegal arrest and beat-ing by police officers prior to confinement. Thecase settled. The court granted the parties’ requestto file the settlement agreement under seal. Thecase was dismissed by stipulation.

Insituform Technologies Inc. v. Ultraliner Inc. (CA-N5:01-cv-20599 filed 05/21/1999), consolidatedwith Ultraliner Inc. v. Nupipe Inc. (CA-N 5:01-cv-20601 filed 09/08/1999).Patent actions concerning PVC pipe liners. Theactions were resolved by consent judgment andpermanent injunction, and a stipulation of factsand conclusions of law were filed under seal.


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 bene-fits paid upon discovery that the defendant wasunable to work because of a suspended medicallicense, not because of disability. The case settledat a settlement conference, but the followingmonth the plaintiff filed a sealed motion to en-force the settlement agreement. The court grantedthe motion and sanctioned the defendant $720. Amagistrate judge’s report and recommendationdiscloses that the settlement agreement essentiallyentailed a payment of $450,000 to the defendant inexchange for her surrendering the insurance pol-icy.

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 fe-male law student against her law school, allegingvarious forms of mistreatment. The case was dis-missed pursuant to a sealed settlement agree-ment.

Guy F. Atkinson Co. of California v. PriceWaterhouse-Coopers LLP (CA-N 3:99-cv-04334 filed09/23/1999).Bankruptcy withdrawal alleging negligence infinancial management and monitoring. Theplaintiffs settled with some defendants, and amotion for good-faith settlement was litigatedunder seal and apparently granted by sealed or-der. The following year the action against the re-maining defendant was dismissed as settled.

Sanchez v. Safeway Inc. (CA-N 4:99-cv-05035 filed11/22/1999).Civil rights action by a customer against a super-market for sexual assault by an employee. Theplaintiff alleged that the employee grabbed herbreast and buttock and asked her to feel his erec-tion. The defendant claimed the employee, whohad earlier refused the plaintiff’s invitation for adate, merely engaged in verbal pleasantries andrefused the plaintiff’s hug. During discovery, theplaintiff revealed that her minor daughter mayhave claims against the defendants as well. Theplaintiff was appointed guardian ad litem for herdaughter, and the case was dismissed pursuant toa 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 companyagainst another, alleging that the defendant wasliable for two payments of $2 million instead ofone. The terms of settlement were put on the rec-ord at a settlement conference, the transcript ofwhich 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 aback injury. The plaintiff alleged that she was in-jured while working for the defendant as a ra-diological technologist and was not hired forother hospital openings that would accommodateher injury. The terms of settlement were put onthe record at a settlement conference, and the tapeof the conference was ordered sealed.

Adobe Systems Inc. v. Dallas Computer Inc. (CA-N5:00-cv-20236 filed 03/02/2000).Copyright action for sale of unauthorized copiesof software. The case was dismissed upon astipulated permanent injunction and a judgmentof $2,433,386.05 in favor of the plaintiff. The courtgranted the plaintiff’s request to file the injunctionand judgment under seal, but several unsealedcopies are in the court’s file and the docket sheetdiscloses 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 underseal an amended answer with counterclaims and amotion to enforce a settlement agreement. Oppo-sition and reply papers on the motion to enforcealso were filed under seal. The motion was de-nied. The court subsequently granted the plaintiffa preliminary injunction, and the defendant ap-pealed. The case settled while on appeal.

Adobe Systems Inc. v. Publitek Inc. (CA-N 5:00-cv-20375 filed 04/05/2000).Copyright action for unauthorized distribution ofthe plaintiff’s software. The action was dismissedpursuant to a sealed stipulated injunction. Corre-spondence in the file refers to settlement pay-ments as well.


C-12

American Motorists Insurance Co. v. Neighbor (CA-N3:00-cv-01321 filed 04/14/2000).Contract action by the issuer of a performancebond for indemnity of liability resulting from adeveloper’s bankruptcy. The defendant filed athird-party complaint against the city. The casewas dismissed pursuant to a confidential settle-ment agreement, which was filed under seal.

Hardy v. Alaska Air Group (CA-N 3:00-cv-01878filed 05/24/2000); Estate of Choate v. Alaska AirlinesInc. (CA-N 3:00-cv-02737 filed 08/01/2000); Estateof Lake v. Alaska Airlines Inc. (CA-N 3:00-cv-03127filed 08/29/2000); Estate of Forshee v. Alaska AirGroup (CA-N 3:00-cv-03332 filed 09/14/2000).Airplane wrongful death actions against the air-line, the airplane’s manufacturers, and manufac-turers of the airplane’s parts. The case was con-solidated with others as part of a multidistrict liti-gation, In re Air Crash Off Point Mugu (MDL 1343).The cases were dismissed pursuant to sealed set-tlement agreements approved by the court.

Perkins v. Sortwell (CA-N 4:00-cv-01920 filed05/26/2000).Shareholders’ derivative action alleging improperhiding of financial difficulties. The case was con-solidated with Steiner v. Aurora Foods Inc. (CA-N4:00-cv-00602 filed 02/22/2000), a class action onbehalf of more than 3,000 shareholders. A filedstipulation of settlement specified changes in cor-porate governance, former officers’ surrender of$12.6 to $15.0 million in shares, recovery of $26million from their insurance policies, and $350,000in fees and expenses for plaintiffs’ attorneys. Morespecific details were spelled out in “definitiveagreements” with individual defendants, whichwere filed under seal, because the defendants re-lied upon that level of confidentiality in reachingthe agreements.

Penley v. Vales (CA-N 3:00-cv-02147 filed06/16/2000).Civil rights action for conspiracy to prevent theplaintiff’s observation of protests against NeimanMarcus for selling clothes made from animals“killed through gassing, trapping, and anal elec-trocution.” The case settled, and the settlementagreement was put on the record of a settlementconference. The transcript of the conference wasfiled under seal.

Marques v. North Beach Pizza Inc. (CA-N 3:00-cv-02200 filed 06/21/2000).Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act by twopizza delivery drivers, alleging that their compen-sation by commission, although they were notresponsible for sales, deprived them of overtimecompensation. The case was consolidated with anaction by a third driver, and the actions settled for$45,000. The plaintiffs were awarded $78,649 infees and $1,538.02 in costs. A dispute arose over apayment plan, and a letter from the defendantwas construed as a motion to enforce the settle-ment agreement, sealed, and denied. The courtsubsequently ordered a specific payment plan.

Bravo Corp. v. Concept Designs Inc. (CA-N 3:00-cv-02285 filed 06/28/2000).Trademark action challenging the defendant’s useof the plaintiff’s Kryptonics trademark in mar-keting the defendant’s wheel spinner. Kryptonicsis a trademark for skateboard and in-line skatewheels. The action was dismissed pursuant to asealed 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 forfailure to pay an immigrant residential mainte-nance and renovation laborer minimum wage andovertime. A confidential settlement was reachedat a settlement conference, and a conference ex-hibit—presumably the settlement agree-ment—was filed under seal. The transcript of theconference also was filed under seal.

Oracle Corp. v. Moellhoff (CA-N 3:00-cv-02789 filed08/04/2000).Statutory action for judicial determination of re-sponsibilities under a long-term equity incentiveplan for a terminated vice president. The case set-tled at a settlement conference, and the confiden-tial terms were put on the record. Subsequentlythe plaintiff filed a sealed motion to resolve a set-tlement dispute, but the matter was resolvedwithout court action and the case was dismissed.

Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant (CA-N 4:00-cv-02945 filed 08/14/2000).Statutory action. The docket sheet is sealed. Thecase was dismissed as settled.


C-13

Vallis v. CNF Transportation Inc. (CA-N 4:00-cv-04226 filed 11/14/2000).Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Acton behalf of freight operations supervisors forunpaid overtime compensation. The class claimswere dismissed by stipulation, and the individualclaims were dismissed pursuant to a sealed set-tlement agreement.

Choi v. Doctor’s Associates (CA-N 5:00-cv-21173filed 11/17/2000); Ounniyom v. Doctor’s Associates(CA-N 5:00-cv-21174 filed 11/17/2000).Civil rights actions claiming barriers to personswith disabilities in Subway restaurants violatedthe Americans with Disabilities Act. The casessettled, and the settlement agreement, whichspecified changes to the defendants’ restaurants,was filed. The amounts of recovery by twenty in-dividuals were filed under seal.

Cerpas v. University of California, San Francisco (CA-N 3:00-cv-04505 filed 12/01/2000).Employment action by a customer service repre-sentative claiming that her supervisor coerced herinto accompanying him to a motel room for sex.The case settled at a settlement conference, andthe confidential settlement agreement was placedon the record. The reporter’s transcript was filedunder seal.

Jones v. National Association of Letter Carriers (CA-N3:00-cv-04637 filed 12/11/2000).Civil rights action for failure to accommodate dis-abilities in union activities. The case was dis-missed pursuant to a confidential settlementagreement. The court retained jurisdiction forninety days to enforce the agreement. Nearlyeight months after the dismissal, the plaintiff sentthe court a letter asking for help in resolving set-tlement issues. The court filed the letter under sealand determined it no longer had jurisdiction overthe case.

Hornes v. County of Alameda (CA-N 3:01-cv-00914filed 03/05/2001); Hornes v. City of Oakland (CA-N3:01-cv-01998 filed 05/22/2001).Civil rights actions for wrongful killing by a po-lice officer. One action was by the decedent’smother, and the other was by his wife and chil-dren. The actions were dismissed pursuant to asealed minor’s settlement agreement, approvedby the court. An unsealed stipulation stated thatthe plaintiffs would recover nothing from thecounty.

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 be-cause of a disagreement over whether the plaintiffsuffered from depression or chronic fatigue syn-drome. A settlement was placed on the record at asettlement conference, and the reporter’s tran-script was sealed.

Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant (CA-N 3:01-cv-01156 filed 03/21/2001).Statutory action. The docket sheet is sealed. Thecase was dismissed as settled.

RCN Telecom Services Inc. v. David (CA-N 3:01-cv-01181 filed 03/22/2001).Rent, lease, and ejectment action involving a dis-pute as to whether commercial tenants were oc-cupying more space than leased, especially on theroof. The parties filed a joint motion to approve asettlement agreement, which was filed under seal“so as to protect their privacy interests and tradesecrets.” The court approved the settlement, andthe case was dismissed. Six months later it wasreopened and the case continues.

Folkens v. Wyland (CA-N 3:01-cv-01241 filed03/27/2001).Copyright action by a pen-and-ink illustrator formisappropriation of his work. The parties filed asealed settlement agreement, but the case contin-ued and went to trial. It appears that the settle-ment agreement resolved some issues of liability,and the trial was over damages.

Food.com Inc. v. QuikOrder Inc. (CA-N 3:01-cv-01251 filed 03/27/2001).Patent action concerning a method for orderingproducts on-line. The case was dismissed pursu-ant to a sealed settlement agreement.

Buffo v. Henkel Corp. (CA-N 3:01-cv-01442 filed04/12/2001).Employment action for insufficient payment ofretirement benefits upon employment termina-tion. A certification of early neutral evaluationwas filed under seal, and an order dismissing thecase was filed under seal the following day. Twomonths later an unsealed order dismissing thecase was filed.


C-14

SanDisk Corp. v. Viking Components Inc. (CA-N3:01-cv-01816 filed 05/01/2001).Patent infringement action concerning electronicflash memory cards. The parties stipulated to aninjunction preventing the defendant from sellingflash memory cards that include any of enumer-ated models of flash memory controllers. Thestipulated injunction states that the court will re-tain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreementto be filed under seal and incorporated by refer-ence into the injunction. The day after the judgesigned the stipulated injunction, a settlementagreement was filed under seal pursuant to anorder 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 washinglettuce. The case was consolidated with Fresh Ex-press Inc. v. Elioco Produce Inc. (CA-N 5:01-cv-20747). The original action was dismissed pursu-ant to “a confidential Settlement and LicenseAgreement which contains information that is notgenerally known to the public and which FreshExpress and Bravo would, in the ordinary courseof business, not disclose to competitors or otherthird parties. The confidentiality of the informa-tion contained in the Settlement and LicenseAgreement cannot adequately be maintained so asto protect the interests of Fresh Express and Bravoin maintaining its confidentiality unless this in-formation is kept from public disclosure.” There-after the consolidated action similarly was dis-missed, and the sealed settlement agreement wasfiled in the lead case’s file.

Bruntjen v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. (CA-N4:01-cv-01982 filed 05/21/2001).RICO action for fraudulent solicitation of a$500,000 investment in a scheme to develop en-ergy-related business interests in the Far East. Alldefendants except a law firm allegedly involvedin the scheme were voluntarily dismissed pursu-ant to a confidential settlement agreement. Set-tling defendants sought a bar order protectingthem from liability to the remaining law firm de-fendant. The law firm complained that the fair-ness of the settlement could not be evaluated un-less presented to the court. Settling defendants’reply brief specified terms of settlement, whichwere redacted from the public file copy. A sealed,presumably unredacted, version of the brief alsowas filed. The court granted the bar order anddismissed 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-cv-02131 filed 05/31/2001).Trademark infringement action. According to thecomplaint, the defendant liked the plaintiff’sCaymus wine so much, she named her dog Cay-mus, and used her dog Caymus to market “Cay-mus” toys and related products for children. Thecase was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settle-ment agreement.

Pickern v. Best Western Inn at the Square (CA-N4:01-cv-02202 filed 06/06/2001).Civil rights action for failure to remove architec-tural barriers to persons with physical disabilitiesat the defendants’ hotel. The case was dismissedpursuant to a sealed settlement agreement.

Bryant v. Rich (CA-N 3:01-cv-02613 filed07/09/2001).Personal injury action for unauthorized and un-true statements about the plaintiff in the defen-dants’ advertising materials extolling the healthbenefits of their methylsulfonylmethane products.The parties reached a confidential settlementagreement during trial, and the agreement wasfiled under seal. The plaintiff paid jury costs of$2,403.11.

Lawton v. Prison Health Services (CA-N 4:01-cv-02761 filed 07/19/2001).Designated a labor and management relationsaction, this is an employment action alleging raceand age discrimination in failure to promote anAfrican-American woman. An oral settlement wasreached and the case was provisionally dismissed,but the plaintiff repudiated her oral settlementand the court agreed to vacate the dismissal. Thecase subsequently settled at a settlement confer-ence, the minutes for which read, “Case settled.Court’s Exhibit A received into evidence and issealed. Settlement placed on the record and isconfidential.” Exhibit A was filed under seal thesame day.

Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant (CA-N 3:01-cv-02928 filed 07/27/2001).Contract action. The docket sheet is sealed. Thecase was dismissed as settled.


C-15

Unobskey v. Taubman (CA-N 3:01-cv-03171 filed08/17/2001).Contract action for indemnification of tax liability.The complaint alleges that the indicted formerchair of Sotheby’s had participated in a real estatescheme a decade previously that the IRS nowclaims involved almost $1 billion in underre-ported income to a partnership. The complaintalleges that he agreed to indemnify the plaintiffpartner for such circumstances, but now repudi-ates that agreement. The case settled. The plaintiffasked the court to sign a stipulated order direct-ing the defendant not to dispose of property se-curing the agreement. Thereafter the court or-dered that a letter from the plaintiff be construedas a motion to interpret the settlement agreement.The court ordered the letter sealed. Subsequentletters were construed as opposition and replybriefs, and they also were sealed. At a sealed tele-phonic hearing, the court denied the motion. Asubsequent letter from the plaintiff asked for as-sistance in enforcing the settlement agreement.This letter was not sealed, and it includes a copyof the agreement. The letter states that the defen-dant agreed to post art worth $19.5 million to se-cure his indemnification responsibilities, but hadso far designated art worth only $11.56 million.

Kent v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (CA-N 3:01-cv-03293filed 08/28/2001).Class action under the Magnuson-Moss WarrantyAct alleging that the Jeep’s automatic transmis-sion has “an unreasonably dangerous propensityto self shift from park into reverse.” The actionwas dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlementagreement approved by the court.

Peninsula Creamery v. Fischer (CA-N 5:01-cv-20887filed 09/20/2001).Trademark action alleging that the defendant,Peninsula Fountain and Grill, which was licensedby the plaintiff to operate a downtown Palo Altorestaurant, opened up a similarly named StanfordShopping Center restaurant without a license. Thecase settled, and the transcript for the successfulsettlement conference was filed under seal.

Christopher S. v. Orchard Union School District (CA-N 5:01-cv-21197 filed 09/20/2001).Designated a statutory action for civil rights of ahandicapped child, this is a suit for $39,416.30 inattorney fees and costs in an administrative ac-tion. (The parties settled the case for $28,000.) The

case was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settle-ment agreement approved by the court.

Arrow Electronics Inc. v. Redback Networks Inc. (CA-N 5:01-cv-20918 filed 09/28/2001).Contract action for amounts due on electroniccomponents. The action was dismissed pursuantto a sealed joint stipulation.

EEOC v. Coastal Valley Management Inc. (CA-N5:01-cv-21105 filed 11/28/2001).Employment action on behalf of four women forsexual harassment, including unwanted sexualadvances. The women intervened on behalf of aclass. The case settled, and the court issued a con-sent decree stating the defendant’s denial of theallegations but reciting the defendant’s agreementto pay the plaintiffs $200,000. The court retainedjurisdiction to enforce the decree for two years.The allocation of the settlement to the four womenand their attorneys is stated in a sealed attach-ment. In addition, the sealed attachment stateswhat other class members would receive.

Cooper v. UNUM Life Insurance Co. (CA-N 3:02-cv-01478 filed 03/26/2002).Insurance action for denial of long-term disabilitybenefits for Parkinson’s disease. The case settledat a settlement conference. The settlement agree-ment was designated confidential, and the tran-script of the conference was filed under seal.

Brooke v. Sydran Services Inc. (CA-N 3:02-cv-02151filed 05/02/2002).Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act by aBurger King assistant manager for unpaid over-time wages. The action was dismissed pursuant toa sealed consent decree.

Moore v. Yeast (CA-N 5:02-cv-02297 filed05/13/2002).Copyright action concerning ownership of com-puter software code. This case illustrates an inter-esting interplay among the parties and the courtover what should be sealed and how to accom-plish that.

Three months after the case was dismissed assettled, the plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce thesettlement agreement, alleging that the defen-dants failed to properly notify a third party of theterms of the intellectual property agreement. Theplaintiffs moved to attach a copy of the settlementagreement without seal, because “disclosure ofthe terms of the Settlement Agreement would not


C-16

release confidential trade secrets or compromisenational security.” The defendants responded thatthe plaintiffs’ “attempt to file the SettlementAgreement without Seal is in violation of the con-fidentiality provision of the Settlement Agree-ment.” The court ordered the defendants to “file adeclaration from a competent witness setting forththe specific facts that justify protection under Fed-eral Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c),” admonishingthat “[b]road allegations of harm, however, un-substantiated by specific examples or articulatedreasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test”(quoting Beckman Industries Inc. v. InternationalInsurance Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992)).

The court said that the plaintiffs should havelodged the settlement agreement with the courtwith a request to file it under seal pursuant to Lo-cal Rule 79-5, stating that the request was basedsolely on the opponents’ claim of confidentiality.The docket sheet shows that five days later thecourt received a request to file the settlementagreement under seal and a notice of lodgment ofthe settlement agreement. The docket sheet entrystates that the latter document was filed underseal, although there does not appear to be adocument number for the filing.

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to en-force the agreement on the merits and also on ju-risdictional grounds. Because the original casewas over and the court did not retain jurisdictionto enforce the agreement, and there did not ap-pear to be independent jurisdiction over the en-forcement action, the court lacked subject-matterjurisdiction over the motion.

District of DelawareThe court’s local rule on sealing pertains only toadministrative details. See D. Del. L.R. 5.3.


Cases with Sealed Settlement AgreementsInteractive Channel Technologies Inc. v. WorldgateCommunications Inc. (DE 1:98-cv-00257 filed05/11/1998).Patent infringement action for selling a productthat permits cable television providers to offerInternet access to their subscribers over existingcable infrastructure. The parties informed thecourt in September of a settlement, but betweenSeptember and February the parties reached three

different settlement agreements. In March the de-fendants filed a motion under seal to enforce oneof these agreements. The court agreed to enforcethe second settlement agreement. The parties filedthe second settlement agreement under seal, andthe court dismissed the action with prejudice inaccordance with the terms of the stipulation ofdismissal 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 con-version products for plasma-based thin film proc-ess technologies. After the parties settled, but be-fore they filed a stipulation of dismissal, the courtdismissed the case with leave to reopen. Prior tofinalizing their settlement, the parties’ requestedreopening of the case. Two weeks later the partiessigned a settlement agreement that included aprovision requiring the parties to submit the set-tlement agreement and proposed consent judg-ment to the court under seal. The court approvedthe consent judgment and closed the case.

Elonex IP Holdings Ltd. v. MAG Technology Co. (DE1:99-cv-00338 filed 05/28/1999).One of several consolidated patent infringementactions concerning methods of reducing powerconsumption in computer systems and monitors.In this case, the parties agreed to a consent judg-ment in favor of the plaintiffs. The court closedthe case but retained jurisdiction to enforce thesettlement agreement. Four months later theplaintiffs filed a brief under seal in support of amotion to enforce the settlement agreement andhold the defendants in contempt. The court ap-proved a supplemental consent judgment re-tained under seal by the court and dismissed theplaintiffs’ motion to enforce the settlement asmoot.

Barnes v. Town of Elsmere (DE 1:99-cv-00472 filed07/23/1999).Civil rights action against a fire company for in-definitely suspending the plaintiff firefighter forhis membership in the Pagan Motorcycle Club.The parties settled and filed their settlementagreement and proposed order governing confi-dentiality with the court under seal. The courtsigned the order and dismissed the case withprejudice.


C-17

National Office Partners Ltd. Partnership v. HyattCorp. (DE 1:00-cv-00478 filed 05/12/2000).Antitrust litigation concerning management of theplaintiffs’ hotel. The plaintiffs alleged that the de-fendant received undisclosed kickbacks fromvendors. The parties settled and submitted a con-sent order of dismissal to the court incorporatingby reference the settlement agreement. The courtsealed the settlement agreement, granted the con-sent order of dismissal, and closed the case, re-taining jurisdiction to enforce the terms and pro-visions of the settlement agreement.

France Telecom v. Compaq Computer Corp. (DE 1:00-cv-00967 filed 11/16/2000).Patent infringement action concerning MPEG-2video compression. During a teleconference theparties informed the court that they reached asettlement in principle but wanted to stay the caseinstead of entering a stipulated dismissal. Thecourt stayed the case, sealed the transcript of theteleconference, and ordered the parties to submitbiweekly status reports of their settlement nego-tiations. These status reports on settlement nego-tiations were placed under seal when received bythe court. Eight months later the court entered theparties’ stipulation of dismissal with prejudiceand ordered the case closed.

Housey Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Boehringer-IngelheimPharmaceuticals Inc. (DE 1:00-cv-01002 filed11/30/2000).Patent infringement action concerning cell-basedtechnology. The court granted the parties’ stipu-lation of dismissal with prejudice and placed itunder seal.

Jupiter Media Metrix Inc. v. NetRatings Inc. (DE1:01-cv-00193 filed 03/27/2001).Patent infringement action concerning a methodfor logging and reporting on-line activity of com-puter users in the United States. Five months aftertwo of the defendants were dismissed withoutprejudice pursuant to a joint stipulation, the re-maining parties settled and agreed to dismiss thecase with prejudice. The parties filed a copy of thesettlement agreement under seal and consented toallow the court to reserve jurisdiction over thecase in order to enforce the terms of the settlementagreement. The case was closed.

Oratec Interventions Inc. v. Radionics Inc. (DE 1:01-cv-00558 filed 08/15/2001).Patent infringement action concerning an appa-ratus for treating annular fissures of intervertebraldisks. Seven months after one of the two defen-dants was voluntarily dismissed, the plaintiff in-formed the court that an oral settlement agree-ment had been reached with the remaining de-fendant. Pursuant to an order marked “confiden-tial filed under seal,” the court agreed to stay thecase for sixty days to permit the parties to finalizenegotiations. One month later the plaintiff filed amotion under seal to enforce the settlementagreement. Before the motion was decided, thecourt granted the parties’ stipulation and dis-missal with prejudice, and closed the case.

District of the District of Columbia“Absent statutory authority, no cases or docu-ments may be sealed without an order from theCourt.” D.D.C. L. Civ. R. 5.1(j)(1).

Statistics: 5,368 cases in termination cohort; 5docket sheets are sealed (0.09%)—the dispositioncodes for 3 of these cases suggest no sealed set-tlement agreements31 and the disposition codesfor 2 of these cases suggest sealed settlementagreements;32 469 unsealed docket sheets (8.7%)have the word “seal” in them; 39 complete docketsheets (0.73%) were reviewed; actual documentswere examined for 35 cases (0.65%); 28 cases(0.52%) appear to have sealed settlement agree-ments.

Cases with Sealed Settlement AgreementsSharma v. Washington Metropolitan Area TransitAuthority (DC 1:94-cv-00305 filed 02/16/1994).Employment discrimination action for failure topromote, harassment, and retaliation. The partiessubmitted their settlement agreement with thecourt to be incorporated into a dismissal withprejudice, but asked that the agreement be sealedto preserve confidentiality. The court complied.

Kolstad v. American Dental Association (DC 1:94-cv-01578 filed 07/19/1994); Kolstad v. AmericanDental Association (DC 1:97-cv-00306 filed02/14/1997).Employment actions for sex discrimination. Thefirst suit alleged a discriminatory failure to pro-

31. Two judgments on motions before trial, 1“other” dismissal.

32. Two cases settled.


C-18

mote. The second suit alleged constructive termi-nation in retaliation for the first suit. It appearsthat the parties reached a global settlement.Stipulated dismissals with unspecified attach-ments were filed under seal on the same day inboth cases.

Sims v. Browner (DC 1:97-cv-00570 filed03/21/1997).Employment action against the EnvironmentalProtection Agency for sex, age, and disability dis-crimination. The plaintiff filed a motion to enforcean alleged settlement agreement. A letter pur-porting to set forth the terms of settle-ment—which primarily provided for reassign-ment, work-at-home privileges, and retraction ofdiscipline from her personnel file—was attachedto the motion. Subsequently, the court grantedmotions to seal several related documents, in-cluding a brief in opposition to the motion to en-force and a motion for a protective order.

Scott v. District of Columbia (DC 1:98-cv-01645 filed06/29/1998).Civil rights action against the District of Columbiaand its Department of Corrections for a prisonmurder brought by the decedent’s estate and onlychild. The complaint alleged that the departmentknew or should have known that the victim wasin danger from another inmate but failed to pre-vent his murder. The parties settled and submit-ted the settlement agreement under seal for thecourt’s approval, specifically citing D.C. Code§!21-120(a), which requires court approval of set-tlements in suits brought on behalf of minors. Thecourt approved it.

BMC – Benchmark Management Co. v. MeristarHospitality Corp. (DC 1:98-cv-02394 filed10/05/1998).Contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud actionarising out of a failed commercial relationshipbetween a real estate holding company and aproperty management firm. The parties settledafter a jury trial. The settlement agreement wasfiled under seal. A stipulation of dismissal wasthen 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. Theplaintiff filed a motion to enforce a mediated set-tlement agreement and attached a handwrittenagreement, signed by both parties, that called for

a general release of all claims in exchange for anundisclosed cash payment. Later, the partiessubmitted their own draft settlement agreementsintended to implement that earlier, less detailedagreement. Those draft settlement agreementswere placed under seal.

William M. Mercer Inc. v. Mulder (DC 1:99-cv-00435filed 02/24/1999).Disability insurance fraud action against an in-sured employee and her alleged co-conspiratorpsychiatrist. The complaint alleges that the psy-chiatrist fabricated a diagnosis of “major depres-sion” so that the patient would qualify for short-term disability. The parties apparently settledduring a status conference on the eve of trial. Thecourt sealed the record of that proceeding. Later,the court sealed a series of documents arising outof the defendant’s motion to enforce that settle-ment agreement. Finally, the court, upon consentmotion by the parties, ordered that the complaintand defendant Mulder’s answer and counterclaimbe sealed. (The complaint, however, remains inthe open court file.)

Nick Chorak Mowing v. United States (DC 1:99-cv-00587 filed 03/08/1999).Contract action. The docket sheet is sealed. Theaction was dismissed as settled.

Lewis v. Booz-Allen & Hamilton Inc. (DC 1:99-cv-00713 filed 03/23/1999).Employment action for race discriminationagainst a worldwide consulting firm by an Afri-can-American former technology consultant. Astipulation of voluntary dismissal, signed by allparties, and an order dismissing the case withprejudice were filed under seal on the same dayshortly before trial.

L.L. v. Chimes District of Columbia Inc. (DC 1:99-cv-03277 filed 12/10/1999).Pseudonymous personal injury action for the sex-ual assault of a mentally and physically disabledperson. The defendant is a private company thatemploys mentally and physically disabled per-sons to provide building maintenance to thirdparties. The plaintiff, a mentally retarded 34-year-old woman, was raped by a nonimpaired co-worker who had a considerable criminal recordand who was alleged to have been repeatedlyviolent and insubordinate during his employmentwith the defendant. The case concluded with a


C-19

stipulated order filed under seal shortly beforetrial.

Reddick v. Georgetown University Hospital (DC 1:99-cv-03377 filed 12/20/1999).Medical malpractice action for the death of onetwin in utero and severe mental and physical dis-abilities of the other twin born live. The partiessettled and submitted the settlement agreementunder seal for the court’s approval. The court ap-proved it.

Groenfeldt v. George Washington University (DC1:99-cv-03470 filed 12/29/1999).Medical malpractice wrongful death action forfailure to diagnose a cancer while it was stilltreatable. The plaintiffs include two survivingchildren. The parties settled and submitted thesettlement agreement under seal for the court’sapproval. The court approved it.

Komori Corp. v. Akiyama Printing MachineManufacturing Co. (DC 1:00-cv-00432 filed03/02/2000).Designated a copyright action, this is really anaction for declaration of noninfringement of thedefendant’s patent by the plaintiffs’ offset printersthat print multiple colors on both sides during asingle pass through the press. The parties settledprivately. Earlier in the suit, the plaintiffs hadfiled an apparent settlement agreement under sealas part of a motion to enforce it.

Jennings v. Family Management Services Inc. (DC1:00-cv-00434 filed 03/02/2000).Fraud action against a nursing company, a finan-cial management company, and banks. The claimsalleged various abusive financial dealings with anelderly woman. The suit resulted in a consent de-cree 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 Dis-abilities Act to require installation of ATM ma-chines accessible to the blind. The parties settledprivately. Earlier in the suit, the plaintiffs filed asettlement agreement with the court under seal,although subsequent documents show that set-tlement negotiations continued thereafter.

Poindexter v. May Department Stores (DC 1:00-cv-01238 filed 05/31/2000).Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Acton behalf of assistant buyers and media coordi-nators for overtime payments. The parties settledand sought approval of the settlement agreementfrom the court, attaching the agreement underseal. The court approved it.

Grant v. Riley (DC 1:00-cv-01595 filed07/05/2000).Employment discrimination class action againstthe Department of Education. The parties settledand submitted the settlement agreement to thecourt for approval. The court approved it. Whilethe settlement agreement itself was public, thecourt sealed a list of the twenty-four individualswho would receive promotions as part of the set-tlement.

Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild v. Bureau ofNational Affairs (DC 1:00-cv-02045 filed08/24/2000).Labor and management relations action to compelarbitration. The employer had refused to proceedwith arbitration based on a putative settlement ofthe underlying grievance. In seeking to compelarbitration, the union filed the alleged settlementmaterials with the court and then moved that theybe sealed. The court sealed them. The parties sub-sequently settled the action pursuant to a settle-ment agreement, which was not filed.

Simmons v. Small Business Administration (DC 1:00-cv-02274 filed 09/22/2000).Employment discrimination action against theSmall Business Administration. The SBA assertedthat it had settled these claims, moved to dismiss,and attached the settlement agreements underseal. The court granted the motion that they bekept under seal and granted the motion to dis-miss.

Allen v. Soza and Co. (DC 1:00-cv-02726 filed11/13/2000).Employment discrimination action against a pri-vate employer and the Coast Guard. One partymoved to enforce a settlement agreement with theplaintiff. By order of the court, this motion wasfiled under seal. Ultimately, the court granted theplaintiff’s motion to voluntarily dismiss the casewithout prejudice, also explicitly preserving theright of the defendants to claim settlement in anysubsequent action.


C-20

Conanan v. Tanoue (DC 1:00-cv-03091 filed12/22/2000).Employment class action against the Federal De-posit Insurance Corporation for race discrimina-tion. The parties proposed to resolve the suit viaconsent decree, which was submitted to the court.The settlement called for the payment of $12 mil-lion in damages to class members and $2 millionin attorney fees. What the court sealed was thenumber of persons who could opt out of the set-tlement pursuant to the consent decree. The courtultimately accepted the consent decree and ap-proved final distribution of the settlement pro-ceeds.

Groobert v. President and Directors of GeorgetownCollege (DC 1:01-cv-00235 filed 01/30/2001).Medical malpractice action for failure to diagnoseand treat kidney failure. The husband of the de-ceased sued on behalf of the deceased, himself,and their minor child. The parties settled. Thecourt sealed all materials related to the minor’ssettlement 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 filed04/17/2001).Statutory action. The docket sheet is sealed. Theaction was dismissed as settled.

United States v. 3d Systems Corp. (DC 1:01-cv-01237filed 06/06/2001).Antitrust action to prevent a leading technologycompany from acquiring its most significant com-petitor. The court approved a proposed finaljudgment that required divestment. The courtsealed two appendices to the proposed judgmentthat related to pending patent applications.

Cooper v. Devereux Foundation (DC 1:01-cv-02325filed 11/06/2001).Assault action against a private residential treat-ment facility for coerced sexual intercourse with aminor resident by one of the staff members. Theparties filed their settlement agreement under sealand sought approval for dismissal with prejudice.The court approved. While that particular settle-ment agreement was sealed, other settlementmaterials 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 discrimi-nation against women who applied for or ob-tained financial advisor positions. The suit wasfiled as a settlement class; the proposed settle-ment/consent decree was filed the day after thecomplaint was filed. The judge entered an ordercertifying the class and approving the consentdecree, which provides for extensive injunctiverelief and a compensation fund of more than $31million. Subsequently several documents relatingto disbursement of the monetary relief were filedunder seal.

Cerveceria Modelo SA v. Hudnall (DC 1:02-cv-01586filed 08/09/2002).Trademark infringement action by the makers ofCorona beer against a pornographic Web site thatwas using Corona marks and images, includingimages of sexual acts with Corona beer bottles.The parties settled and sought a stipulated judg-ment and permanent injunction. When the courtasked to see the settlement agreement as part ofits review of the stipulated judgment, the partiesasked for it to be sealed. The court sealed it, andsubsequently entered the stipulated judgment andinjunction.

Middle District of FloridaNo relevant local rule.

Statistics: 13,678 cases in termination cohort; 17docket sheets are sealed (0.12%)—the dispositioncode for 1 of these cases suggests no sealed set-tlement agreement33 and an examination of theother 16 docket sheets revealed no sealed settle-ment agreements;34 513 unsealed docket sheets(3.8%) have the word “seal” in them; 103 completedocket sheets (0.75%) were reviewed; actualdocuments were examined for 43 cases (0.31%); 36cases (0.26%) appear to have sealed settlementagreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement AgreementsScarborough v. Medical Engineering Corp. (FL-M8:97-cv-02266 filed 09/18/1997).Personal injury case involving aluminum poi-soning by breast implants. A settlement agree-ment was reached during mediation. The courtdenied the plaintiff’s motion to set aside the me-

33. One statistical closing.34. Two of these cases were settled.


C-21

diation agreement due to mediator bias. A sealedsettlement agreement was filed with the defen-dants’ motion to enforce a prior order requiringthe plaintiff to sign a release. The case was dis-missed with prejudice conditioned on immediatepayment of the settlement and signing of the re-lease by the plaintiff.

United States ex rel. Carroll v. Living Centers ofAmerica Inc. (FL-M 8:97-cv-02600 filed10/23/1997).Qui tam action under the False Claims Act forfraudulent Medicare billing against a provider ofnursing homes. The government’s notice to inter-vene reported a settlement agreement had beenreached. The court ordered that all contents of thecourt’s file remain under seal (except the com-plaint and the notice to intervene). A sealed set-tlement agreement apparently was filed.

Burnette v. Cooker Restaurant Corp. (FL-M 8:99-cv-00734 filed 03/29/1999).Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Actby restaurant employees for failure to pay mini-mum wage and overtime wages. The case wasdismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement agree-ment. Five weeks later the court granted theplaintiffs’ motion to enforce the settlementagreement. The final document in the case reportsthat 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 againsta provider of pharmaceutical services for fraudu-lent Medicare billing. A sealed document wasfiled the same day that the case was dismissed. Inthe final order of dismissal the court ordered thatall documents remain under seal (except the com-plaint and the notice of election to decline inter-vention). A sealed settlement agreement appar-ently was filed.

Lambert Corp. v. Water Bonnet Manufacturing Inc.(FL-M 6:00-cv-00010 filed 01/04/2000).Action seeking declaratory judgment under CER-CLA for causing pollution on the plaintiff’s prop-erty. On the third day of a bench trial, a stipulatedsettlement agreement was made between theplaintiff and one of the defendants. A sealed set-tlement agreement was filed. The court also is-sued orders pertaining to final arguments re-garding the remaining defendant, and the case

was dismissed in the defendant’s favor nearlyeight months later.

Hemphill v. Helmtech Inc. (FL-M 5:00-cv-00045 filed01/18/2000).Product liability action in which the plaintiff suf-fered severe head injuries in a motorcycle accidentwhile wearing a helmet manufactured by the de-fendant. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.The court denied the plaintiff’s motion to enforcethe settlement agreement and for sanctions, be-cause payment of $2,320,542 had been received.The court retained jurisdiction for sixty days toenforce the terms of the settlement agreement.

United States ex rel. Gambrill v. Laboratory Corp. ofAmerica (FL-M 8:00-cv-00397 filed 02/25/2000).Qui tam action under the False Claims Act againsta provider of laboratory services for fraudulentMedicare billing. All documents in the case file(except the complaint) were filed under seal.

Jabs v. Manatee Memorial Hospital (FL-M 8:00-cv-00420 filed 03/01/2000).Medical malpractice case involving the negligentcare of a newborn with hypotension and respira-tory problems, which caused permanent braindamage. The court placed under seal the plain-tiff’s motion for approval of the minor’s settle-ment, the order granting the motion, the guardianad litem report, and the release. The supplementalreport of the guardian ad litem reports a settle-ment amount of $1,736,716.

Wheeler v. First Colony Life Insurance Co. (FL-M8:00-cv-00695 filed 04/12/2000).Contract class action alleging fraud and breach ofcommon law duties in the sale and subsequentservicing of life insurance policies. The plaintiffnever filed a motion to certify the class. The orderdismissing the case approved a confidential set-tlement agreement. The same day the case wasdismissed two sealed documents were filed underseal. A sealed settlement agreement apparentlywas filed.

Florida Conference Association of Seventh-DayAdventists v. Royal Venture Cruise Line Inc. (FL-M6:00-cv-00895 filed 07/13/2000).Admiralty action involving a deposit of $120,000for a cruise, which the cruise company failed toreturn after it went out of business. A sealed set-tlement agreement was filed. The settlementamount of $300,000 was noted in the stipulated


C-22

final judgment. The court retained jurisdiction toenforce the terms of the settlement agreement.

Russell v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. (FL-M 6:00-cv-01134 filed 08/28/2000).Product liability action involving a minor whocontracted hepatitis C from the defendant’s intra-venous immunoglobulin product. The courtgranted the motion to approve the settlement andordered the transcript and record of the settle-ment sealed.

TV/COM International Inc. v. MediaOne of GreaterFlorida Inc. (FL-M 3:00-cv-01045 filed 09/19/2000).Patent infringement action concerning a “multi-layer encryption system for broadcast of en-crypted information.” Two sealed settlementagreements were filed. The court retained juris-diction to enforce the terms of the settlementagreements.

Woolbright v. Capris Furniture Industries Inc. (FL-M5:00-cv-00315 filed 10/02/2000).Employment action in which a furniture storeemployee sued her former employer for sexualharassment and retaliation. A sealed settlementagreement was filed by the defendant. The courtretained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of thesettlement agreement.

Brackett v. United Healthcare Insurance Co. (FL-M8:00-cv-02112 filed 10/13/2000).ERISA action for wrongful denial of coverage forspeech therapy for the plaintiff’s brain-injuredchild. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Artcraft Electric Ltd. v. Classic Lighting Corp. (FL-M3:00-cv-01166 filed 10/18/2000).Copyright action involving the production, distri-bution, and sale of glassware products that aredirect copies of the plaintiff’s glassware. A sealedsettlement agreement was filed. The court re-tained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the set-tlement agreement.

Anthony v. Community Hospice of Northeast FloridaInc. (FL-M 3:00-cv-01239 filed 11/08/2000).Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Actby kitchen and nursing employees for failure topay overtime wages. A sealed settlement agree-ment was filed. The court retained jurisdiction forthirty days to enforce the terms of the settlementagreement.

Morrow v. Town of Oakland (FL-M 6:00-cv-01514filed 11/13/2000).Employment action by a chief of police for agediscrimination and wrongful termination. Asealed document was filed the day of the settle-ment conference. A sealed settlement agreementapparently was filed.

Thiruchelvam v. Humana Medical Plan Inc. (FL-M6:00-cv-01542 filed 11/16/2000).Employment action by eight doctors against ahealth insurance company, alleging that theywere terminated from their primary care agree-ments because of their race. The plaintiffs filed amotion to enforce the oral settlement agreementreached during mediation. One week after themotion was filed, two sealed documents werefiled. Two days later, a settlement conference washeld. The case was dismissed as settled, and thecourt retained jurisdiction to enforce the settle-ment agreement.

Palermo v. United Parcel Service Inc. (FL-M 8:00-cv-02395 filed 11/22/2000).Action under the Americans with Disabilities Act,Family Medical Leave Act, and Fair Labor Stan-dards Act by a supervisor against his former em-ployer for failure to pay overtime wages, dis-crimination, retaliation, and wrongful terminationbecause of his stress disorder. A sealed settlementagreement was filed as an attachment to a jointmotion for a protective order. The case was dis-missed as settled.

Wallendy v. Kanji (FL-M 8:01-cv-00323 filed02/13/2001).Action under the Americans with Disabilities Actfor an injunction requiring the defendant to re-move from its commercial property architecturalbarriers to the physically disabled. A portion ofthe settlement agreement containing attorney feesand costs was filed under seal.

Delgado v. Hillsborough Community College (FL-M8:01-cv-00514 filed 03/09/2001).Employment action by a Hispanic security officerfor race discrimination and retaliation for filing anEEOC complaint. A sealed settlement agreementwas filed. Two months after the case was dis-missed, the plaintiff filed a notice of the defen-dant’s noncompliance. One month later, theplaintiff reported that the defendant had com-plied with the settlement agreement.


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 sus-tained when the plaintiff’s wheelchair was thrownbackwards while entering the gangway of the de-fendant’s passenger ship. After the court orderedmediation, the case was dismissed without preju-dice and “subject to the right of the parties within60 days to submit a stipulated form of final orderor judgment.” Six days after the case was dis-missed, a sealed document was filed. Two monthslater, a final order granted the joint stipulation fordismissal with prejudice. A sealed settlementagreement 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 sexualharassment and retaliation. The case was dis-missed as settled. A sealed settlement agreementwas filed as an attachment to the plaintiff’s mo-tion to enforce the settlement agreement. Thecourt denied the motion.

Mishoe v. City of Bartow (FL-M 8:01-cv-01303 filed07/10/2001).Employment action for wrongful termination inretaliation for supporting a co-worker’s sexualharassment claim. A sealed document was filedabout a month after the case was dismissed with-out prejudice, and the parties were given sixtydays to submit a stipulated form of final order orjudgment.

Shuey v. Information and Display Systems Inc. (FL-M3:01-cv-00797 filed 07/13/2001).Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act by aninventory logistics coordinator for failure to payovertime wages. A sealed settlement agreementwas filed. The court retained jurisdiction to en-force the terms of the settlement agreement.

Hunter v. Albertson’s Inc. (FL-M 6:01-cv-00866 filed07/20/2001).Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Actby grocery store employees for failure to payovertime wages. A sealed settlement agreementwas filed.

Konecranes Inc. v. Leach (FL-M 3:01-cv-00917 filed08/09/2001).Contract action involving breach of an employeenoncompetition and confidentiality agreement. A

sealed settlement agreement was filed. The courtgranted the plaintiff’s motion for a permanentinjunction against the use of client lists and tradesecrets. The court retained jurisdiction to enforcethe terms of the settlement agreement.

Access for America Inc. v. Hall (FL-M 8:01-cv-01734filed 09/07/2001).Action under the Americans with Disabilities Actfor an injunction requiring the defendant to re-move from its commercial property architecturalbarriers to the physically disabled. A sealeddocument was filed ten days after the motion toapprove a consent decree. The court retained ju-risdiction to enforce the consent decree.

Access for America Inc. v. World Continents Inc. (FL-M 8:01-cv-01736 filed 09/07/2001).Action under the Americans with Disabilities Actfor an injunction requiring the defendant to re-move from its commercial property architecturalbarriers to the physically disabled. A sealed set-tlement agreement was filed. In the order of dis-missal, the court awarded the plaintiff $2,500 tocover legal fees, expert fees, costs, and reinspec-tion costs.

Hernandez v. Central Beef Industries LLC (FL-M5:01-cv-00323 filed 09/27/2001).Wrongful termination action under the FamilyMedical Leave Act seeking reinstatement and re-payment of employment benefits. A sealed set-tlement agreement was filed by the defendant.The court retained jurisdiction to enforce theterms of the settlement agreement.

DirecTV Inc. v. Lamothe (FL-M 8:01-cv-01923 filed10/09/2001).Action under the Federal Communication Actseeking injunctive relief and compensation forunlawful sale of signal theft devices. Eighteendays before the case was dismissed a sealeddocument was filed. The court dismissed the casewithout prejudice, and held that the parties could“re-open the action within sixty (60) days upongood cause.” The court also ordered a permanentinjunction enjoining the defendant from manu-facturing or selling signal theft devices.

Harwell v. Groover (FL-M 3:01-cv-01179 filed10/12/2001).Shareholder derivative action involving breach offiduciary duty and usurpation of corporate op-


C-24

portunity. A sealed settlement agreement wasfiled.

Access for America Inc. v. G&G Properties LLC (FL-M 8:02-cv-00212 filed 02/05/2002).Action under the Americans with Disabilities Actfor an injunction requiring the defendant to re-move from its shopping plaza architectural barri-ers to the physically disabled. In the consent de-cree the defendant agreed to modify its facilitiesto make them readily accessible to the disabled. Ina stipulated agreement the court approved thefees 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 anelectronics technician for failure to pay overtimewages. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Violet v. Designers’ Press Inc. (FL-M 6:02-cv-00658filed 06/06/2002).Employment action in which a woman sued herformer employer for sexual harassment and re-taliation. Settlement was reached during the set-tlement conference. The portion of the recordcontaining 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 Actby a security officer for failure to pay overtimewages. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Northern District of FloridaNo relevant local rule.

Statistics: 3,045 cases in termination cohort; 2docket sheets are sealed (0.07%)—the dispositioncode for 1 of these cases suggests no sealed set-tlement agreement35 and the disposition code for 1of these cases suggests a sealed settlement agree-ment;36 160 unsealed docket sheets (5.3%) have theword “seal” in them; 11 complete docket sheets(0.36%) were reviewed; actual documents wereexamined for 5 cases (0.16%); 5 cases (0.16%) ap-pear to have sealed settlement agreements.

35. One “other” dismissal.36. One case settled.

Cases with Sealed Settlement AgreementsUnited States v. Board of Regents (FL-N 4:93-cv-40226 filed 06/25/1993).Statutory action. The docket sheet is sealed. Thecase was dismissed as settled.

United States ex rel. Andres v. Florida ClinicalPractice Associates (FL-N 1:96-cv-00116 filed06/25/1996).Qui tam action under the False Claims Act forfraudulent Medicare billing. Many filings in thiscase are under seal, including the settlementagreement, but not the complaint.

Rzepka v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (FL-N 5:00-cv-00023 filed 02/01/2000).Motor vehicle action against the manufacturerand distributor of the plaintiffs’ Dodge Caravanand another driver for wrongful death in a roll-over accident. Plaintiffs alleged that design de-fects caused the car’s plastic roof to cave in, win-dows to burst, and restraint system to fail. Asealed settlement agreement was filed.

Thomas v. Florida Power Corp. (FL-N 4:00-cv-00231filed 06/14/2000).Employment discrimination case alleging a hostilework environment on the basis of race. The har-assment included the hanging of two rope noosesin the workplace. A sealed settlement agreementwas attached to the consent order of dismissal.

Blankenship v. Turner (FL-N 1:01-cv-00052 filed05/16/2001).Employment discrimination case involving sexualharassment by a former deputy sheriff. The plain-tiff alleged that some employees of the Sheriff’sDepartment made inappropriate and unwelcomesexual advances toward her and that after shereported the harassment she was made a target ofridicule and retaliation. At the pretrial conferencea settlement agreement was reached, and the an-nouncement and transcript of the settlementagreement were sealed.

Southern District of Florida“Unless the Court’s sealing order permits thematter to remain sealed permanently, the Clerkwill dispose of the sealed matter upon expirationof the time specified in the Court’s sealing orderby unsealing, destroying, or returning the matterto the filing party.” S.D. Fla. Gen. L.R. 5.4.D. “Ab-sent extraordinary circumstances, no matter


C-25

sealed pursuant to this rule may remain sealed forlonger than five (5) years from the date of filing.”Id. R. 5.4.B.2.

Statistics: 15,928 cases in termination cohort; 16docket sheets are sealed (0.10%)—the dispositioncodes for 15 of these cases suggest no sealed set-tlement agreements37 and the disposition code for1 of these cases suggests a sealed settlementagreement;38 669 docket sheets (4.2%) have theword “seal” in them; 260 complete docket sheets(1.6%) were reviewed; actual documents wereexamined for 128 cases (0.80%); 111 cases (0.70%)appear to have sealed settlement agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement AgreementsBrandt v. Deloitte & Touche LLP (FL-S 1:93-cv-01830filed 09/21/1993).Personal property damage action by a bankruptbank against an accounting firm that allegedlyfailed to exercise reasonable care in performingaccounting and auditing services. The final entryon the docket sheet notes that a sealed documentwas filed the same day the court reported that asettlement conference was canceled.

Arnold Palmer Enterprises v. Gotta Have It GolfCollectibles (FL-S 1:97-cv-00978 filed 04/14/1997).Trademark infringement action involving sale ofunlicensed photographs and false reproductions.A sealed document was filed a week before thecase was dismissed. In the order of dismissal thecourt retained jurisdiction to enforce the settle-ment agreement. A sealed settlement agreementapparently 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 forfraudulent Medicare billing. Many filings in thiscase are under seal, including the settlementagreement, but not the complaint.

Parris v. Miami Herald Publishing Co. (FL-S 1:97-cv-02524 filed 08/05/1997).Wrongful termination action under the FamilyMedical Leave Act. Seventeen days after the set-tlement conference, a sealed document was filedand the case was dismissed. Four days after the

37. One judgment on motion before trial, 4 volun-tary dismissals, 4 “other” dismissals, 4 “other” judg-ments, 2 statistical closings.

38. One consent judgment.

case was dismissed, an amended order of dis-missal was filed stating that the court would re-tain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settle-ment agreement. A sealed settlement agreementapparently 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 passengeron a flight that crashed at the Cali, Colombia, air-port, allegedly due to lack of ground navigationalaids. The case settled for $1 million, and details ofthe settlement were provided in the guardian adlitem report. A sealed document was filed thesame day the case was dismissed. A sealed set-tlement 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 forfraudulent Medicare billing. A sealed documentwas filed four days prior to an order dismissingthe case. In the order for dismissal “all other pres-ently existing contents of the Court’s file” (exceptthe complaint) were to remain sealed. A sealedsettlement agreement apparently was filed.

United Parcel Service of America Inc. v. LynnStrickland Tires Inc. (FL-S 1:98-cv-00992 filed05/10/1998).Contract action involving tire-related services. Asealed settlement agreement was filed. The courtapproved the settlement, retained jurisdiction toenforce the settlement agreement, and closed thecase. One of the defendants filed a motion to re-open the case and unseal the settlement agree-ment because the defendant was not a party to theagreement and never received a copy of it. Thecourt reopened the case, vacated the order ap-proving the settlement, and unsealed the settle-ment agreement, but ordered that “the partiesshall maintain the confidentiality of the documentand use it only to promote further settlement.”The defendant who had settled with the plaintiffwas dismissed. The final judgment against theremaining defendant was in the amount of$18,712.

Rando v. Slingsby Aviation Ltd. (FL-S 1:98-cv-02224filed 09/22/1998).Wrongful death action alleging that a faulty fuelsystem caused the crash of a Firefly Aircraft,which killed an Air Force Academy cadet. Thecase was dismissed as to the distributor of the air-


C-26

plane. A joint stipulation of dismissal was orderedfor the manufacturer of the fuel-injection system.A sealed document was filed two days prior todismissal. A sealed settlement agreement appar-ently was filed. Two years later a settlementagreement was reached with the manufacturer ofthe airplane, but this agreement was not filed. Inthe order of dismissal the court retained jurisdic-tion to enforce the terms of the settlement agree-ment.

Casey v. Windmere-Durable Holdings Inc. (FL-S 1:98-cv-02273 filed 09/29/1998).Securities class action for the fraudulent misrepre-sentation of financial condition, causing artificialinflation of the company’s stock price. The settle-ment agreement provided $10.5 million to theclass. A supplemental agreement was filed underseal.

United States ex rel. Christensen v. PreferredHealthcare Consultants Inc. (FL-S 1:98-cv-03021filed 12/10/1998).Qui tam action under the False Claims Act forfraudulent Medicare billing by health care pro-viders. Two days before the case was dismissed asealed document was filed. A sealed settlementagreement apparently was filed.

Martin v. Underwood Karcher & Karcher PA (FL-S1:99-cv-01440 filed 05/19/1999).Employment action for sexual harassment and forwrongful termination after the plaintiff reportedthe harassment. A sealed document was filed sixdays before the joint stipulation of dismissal. Inthe order of dismissal the court retained jurisdic-tion to enforce the terms of the settlement agree-ment. A sealed settlement agreement apparentlywas filed.

First Impressions Design and Management Inc. v. AllThat Style Interiors Inc. (FL-S 1:99-cv-02353 filed08/26/1999).Patent action alleging that the defendant mar-keted and sold a theater-style chair and falselyrepresented this product as identical to the plain-tiff’s “CineLounger.” In the order of dismissal thecourt approved the settlement agreement. Asealed document was filed the same day the casewas dismissed. A sealed settlement agreementapparently was filed.

Oviedo v. Crystal Art of Florida Inc. (FL-S 1:99-cv-02391 filed 08/31/1999).Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act by acrystal art assembler for failure to pay overtimewages. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Martin v. Thermo Electron Corp. (FL-S 1:99-cv-02547filed 09/22/1999).Contract action for breach of a master distributoragreement. A sealed document was filed twoweeks after the settlement conference and twoweeks before the joint stipulation to dismiss. Asealed settlement agreement apparently was filed.

United States ex rel. Alford v. Bon-Bone MedicalImaging Inc. (FL-S 9:99-cv-08841 filed 10/08/1999).Qui tam action under the False Claims Act forfraudulent Medicare billing. Sealed documentswere filed the same day the case was dismissed.

Island Developers Ltd. v. Martin Lumber and CedarCo. (FL-S 1:99-cv-02969 filed 11/03/1999).Contract action involving breach of implied war-ranty when defective wood windows were in-stalled. In the order of dismissal the court retainedjurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlementagreement. Two months after the case was dis-missed, a sealed document was filed the same daythe plaintiff filed a motion to expedite enforce-ment of the settlement agreement. A sealed set-tlement agreement apparently was filed. Thecourt denied the motion for oral argument, andthe plaintiff withdrew the motion to expedite en-forcement, because the parties resolved the issue.

In re Hays v. Martinengo (FL-S 1:99-cv-03000 filed11/08/1999).Statutory action in admiralty by owners of a mo-torboat for exoneration from or limitation of li-ability for an accident that killed three people. Asealed document was filed four days after the or-der approving the settlement. A sealed settlementagreement apparently was filed.

Estate of Regalado v. Airmark Engines Inc. (FL-S0:99-cv-07579 filed 11/29/1999); Estate of Acevedov. Airmark Engines Inc. (FL-S 0:99-cv-07580 filed11/29/1999).Two airplane personal injury and product liabilityactions for wrongful death against the manufac-turer and distributor of an aircraft for installing anincorrect fuel-pump system that caused the air-craft to crash, killing the pilot. The court ap-


C-27

pointed a guardian ad litem to approve the set-tlement agreement with the decedent’s minorchild. In the minutes of the motion to approve asettlement hearing, it was noted that the “partieswill file settlement under seal.” In the order dis-missing the case, the court retained jurisdictionfor sixty days to enforce the terms of the settle-ment agreement. A sealed document was filedone week after the case was dismissed. A sealedsettlement agreement apparently was filed.

Hofstein v. Coastal Leasing Inc. (FL-S 0:99-cv-07620filed 12/10/1999).Employment action by a portfolio manageragainst her former employer for wrongful termi-nation based on her pregnancy. The plaintiff’smotion to enforce the settlement agreement wasfiled under seal. The court denied the motion andentered a final judgment in favor of the defen-dant.

Gornescu v. United Cable Communications Group(FL-S 0:99-cv-07637 filed 12/15/1999).Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act by acable company employee for failure to pay over-time wages. A sealed settlement agreement wasfiled.

DC Comics v. Burglar Alarm Technicians Inc. (FL-S0:99-cv-07641 filed 12/16/1999).Copyright action involving the “Batman” logoagainst a burglar alarm company. A sealed set-tlement agreement was filed as an attachment tothe order of dismissal.

Zurich-American Insurance Co. v. Perez (FL-S 1:00-cv-00559 filed 02/10/2000).Action for declaratory judgment regarding dis-putes over an insurance contract in which thedistributor demanded a refund of the deposit onundelivered vehicles. A sealed document wasfiled three days before the case was dismissed.The order of dismissal refers to a “ConfidentialSettlement Agreement and Release.” A sealedsettlement agreement apparently was filed.

Guillen v. Northwest Airlines Inc. (FL-S 1:00-cv-01300 filed 04/06/2000).Action for damages for personal injuries sufferedby a three-year-old child when a flight attendantspilled hot coffee on her. In the guardian adlitem’s report, the settlement amount of $145,000was disclosed. The sealed settlement agreement

was filed as an attachment to the guardian’s re-port.

Jacobs v. Pine Crest Preparatory School Inc. (FL-S0:00-cv-06564 filed 04/21/2000).Employment action for wrongful termination of ateacher based on sex and age. A sealed settlementagreement was filed. In the order of dismissal thecourt retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms ofthe settlement agreement.

Williams v. Office Depot Inc. (FL-S 1:00-cv-01466filed 04/24/2000).Employment civil rights action in which a blackplaintiff sued a former employer for race dis-crimination and wrongful termination. One dayafter the stipulation of dismissal was filed, asealed document was filed. In the order of dis-missal the court retained jurisdiction to enforcethe terms of the settlement agreement. A sealedsettlement 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 Actfor failure to pay overtime wages. A sealeddocument was filed one week before the case wasdismissed. The order of dismissal approved thesettlement agreement. A sealed settlement agree-ment apparently was filed.

Mencia v. Crystal Art of Florida Inc. (FL-S 1:00-cv-02053 filed 06/08/2000).Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Actby warehouse employees for failure to pay over-time wages. A sealed settlement agreement wasfiled.

Sakr v. University of Miami (FL-S 1:00-cv-02294filed 06/28/2000).Action under the Americans with Disabilities Actalleging that the defendant dismissed the plaintifffrom a doctoral program on account of his dis-ability. The plaintiff’s counsel filed an emergencymotion to enforce the settlement agreement, al-leging that the plaintiff had agreed to accept thesettlement reached at the settlement conferencebut later refused to sign the agreement. The de-fendant filed an emergency motion to seal thesettlement agreement and filed a sealed copy ofthe agreement. The motion to enforce the settle-ment agreement was denied. Subsequently, thecourt granted the defendant’s motion for sum-mary judgment. The plaintiff filed an appeal one


C-28

month after the case was dismissed, and the ap-peal currently is pending.

Tessier v. J.C. Penney Inc. (FL-S 0:00-cv-07080 filed07/31/2000).Employment discrimination action by an Italianman alleging a hostile work environment. Theplaintiff alleged that he was harassed after hecomplained about hazardous working conditions.The defendant filed a sealed motion to enforce thesettlement agreement. The court denied the mo-tion to enforce because the plaintiff never signedthe settlement agreement. Four months later thecase was dismissed as settled.

Dolan v. Ancicare PPO Inc. (FL-S 0:00-cv-07099filed 08/03/2000).Employment discrimination case based on sexualharassment and retaliation. The joint stipulationfor dismissal asked the court to retain jurisdictionto enforce the settlement agreement. One monthafter the case was dismissed, a sealed documentwas filed. A sealed settlement agreement appar-ently was filed.

Estate of Runnels v. City of Miami (FL-S 1:00-cv-02930 filed 08/10/2000).Civil rights action for wrongful death that oc-curred when a police officer killed a man threat-ening to commit suicide. The decedent was alonein his house when the police officer shot himthrough a window. A sealed document was filedone week before the notice of settlement. A sealedsettlement agreement apparently was filed.

Association for Disabled Americans v. BeekmanTowers Inc. (FL-S 1:00-cv-02951 filed 08/14/2000).Civil rights action under the Americans with Dis-abilities Act for an injunction requiring the defen-dant to remove from its hotel architectural barri-ers to the physically disabled. A sealed settlementagreement was filed. The court retained jurisdic-tion to enforce the terms of the settlement agree-ment.

Rivera v. Lentine Marine Inc. (FL-S 2:00-cv-14266filed 08/30/2000).Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act by amechanic for failure to pay minimum wage andovertime wages. A sealed settlement agreementwas filed.

American Disability Association v. MavisDevelopment Corp. (FL-S 0:00-cv-07278 filed09/05/2000).Civil rights action under the Americans with Dis-abilities Act for an injunction requiring the defen-dant to remove from its commercial property ar-chitectural barriers to the physically disabled. Asealed document was filed two days before thecase was dismissed. In the order dismissing thecase the court retained jurisdiction to enforce thestipulation for settlement. A sealed settlementagreement apparently was filed.

Genao v. Joe Allen Miami Beach LLC (FL-S 1:00-cv-03689 filed 10/02/2000).Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Actby kitchen workers for failure to pay minimumwage and overtime wages. A sealed settlementagreement 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 manageragainst a former employer for race discrimination.In the order of dismissal the court retained juris-diction to enforce the settlement agreement. Asealed settlement agreement was filed as an at-tachment to the plaintiff’s motion to enforce it.The parties were unable to agree on a separateagreement that was to be the final settlementagreement, so the plaintiff wanted to enforce theoriginal settlement agreement. The defendantfiled a motion to compel a settlement agreementwith a revised confidentiality provision. The courtgranted the plaintiff’s motion to enforce the origi-nal settlement agreement and denied the defen-dant’s motion to compel a revised settlementagreement. The defendant filed a revised sealedsettlement agreement as an attachment to a re-newed motion to compel a settlement agreement.The defendant objected to the court order enforc-ing the original settlement agreement, and thecourt heard oral argument on this issue. After oralargument the parties amicably resolved the dis-pute involving the confidentiality clause. Thecourt retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms ofthe settlement agreement.

Ballantini v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (FL-S 1:00-cv-04755 filed 12/14/2000).Admiralty action for personal injury that occurredwhen the plaintiff fell down some stairs while apassenger on the defendant’s cruise ship. A set-tlement for $110,000 was noted in the minutes of


C-29

the settlement conference. The transcript of thesettlement conference was sealed. The court re-tained jurisdiction for thirty days to enforce thesettlement agreement.

Darch v. Café Iguana Inc. (FL-S 1:00-cv-04813 filed12/18/2000).Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Actby restaurant workers for failure to pay minimumwage and overtime wages. A sealed documentwas filed two weeks after the notice of settlementwas filed by the plaintiffs. A sealed settlementagreement apparently was filed.

United States v. Kantor (FL-S 0:00-cv-07851 filed12/19/2000).Action under the False Claims Act for fraudulentMedicare billing. A sealed document was filedthree days before the case was dismissed. Asealed settlement agreement apparently was filed.

Barnuevo v. BNP Paribas (FL-S 1:01-cv-00005 filed01/02/2001).Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act by abank employee for failure to pay overtime wages.A sealed document was filed the same day thecase was dismissed. In the order of dismissal thecourt retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms ofthe settlement agreement. A sealed settlementagreement apparently was filed.

Egli v. Martino Tire Co. of Royal Palm Beach (FL-S9:01-cv-08013 filed 01/04/2001).Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act by anautomobile repair shop employee for failure topay overtime wages. A sealed settlement agree-ment was filed. The order of dismissal stated that“the documents filed under seal shall remain un-der seal until the closing of this case, at whichtime they shall be destroyed.”

Weiss v. Russell J. Ferraro Jr. and Associates (FL-S2:01-cv-14025 filed 01/22/2001).Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act by alegal assistant for failure to pay overtime wages.A sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Rodriguez v. Fresh King Inc. (FL-S 1:01-cv-00304filed 01/23/2001).Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Actby warehouse employees for failure to pay over-time wages. A sealed document was filed the

same day the case was dismissed. A sealed set-tlement 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 buyoutwith allegations of conversion, fraud, and breachof fiduciary duty. A sealed settlement agreementwas filed. In the order of dismissal the court re-tained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the set-tlement agreement.

Biosample Inc. v. Biosamplex Inc. (FL-S 9:01-cv-08107 filed 02/06/2001).Trademark action concerning the sale of “biologi-cal products.” The court ordered a permanent in-junction against the defendant’s use of the trade-mark Biosamplex. A sealed settlement agreementwas filed. In the order of dismissal the court re-tained jurisdiction to enforce the injunction andsettlement 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 aconstruction worker for failure to pay overtimewages. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.In the order of dismissal the court retained juris-diction to enforce the terms of the settlementagreement.

Flores v. Albertson’s Inc. (FL-S 1:01-cv-00534 filed02/09/2001).Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Actby grocery store employees for failure to payovertime wages. A sealed document was filed twodays before the case was dismissed. In the orderof dismissal the court approved the settlementagreement. A sealed settlement agreement appar-ently 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 disclosea minor’s AIDS diagnosis to the minor. A sealeddocument was filed the same day the case wasdismissed. In the order of dismissal the court re-tained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the set-tlement agreement. A sealed settlement agree-ment apparently was filed.


C-30

Access Now Inc. v. Winn-Dixie Stores Inc. (FL-S1:01-cv-00764 filed 02/21/2001).Civil rights action under the Americans with Dis-abilities Act for an injunction requiring the defen-dant to remove from its grocery stores architec-tural barriers to the physically disabled. A sealeddocument was filed one day before the case wasdismissed. In the order of dismissal the settlementwas approved and the court ordered that the set-tlement agreement be returned to the partiesrather 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 maintenanceworker against his former employer for race dis-crimination and wrongful termination. A sealeddocument was filed five days before the case wasdismissed. In the order of dismissal the court ap-proved the settlement agreement and retainedjurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.A sealed settlement agreement apparently wasfiled.

Jones v. Air Compressor Works Inc. (FL-S 9:01-cv-08164 filed 02/23/2001).Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act by anoffice manager for failure to pay overtime wages.A sealed document was filed on the same day thecase was dismissed. The order dismissing the caseapproved the settlement agreement. A sealed set-tlement 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 alleginga hostile work environment as a result of sexualharassment and alleging wrongful termination onthe basis of age and disability. In the order ofdismissal the court approved the settlementagreement and granted a motion to file it underseal.

Thomas v. Johnny Rockets Group (FL-S 1:01-cv-01067filed 03/19/2001).Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Actby restaurant employees for failure to pay mini-mum wage. The case was dismissed as settled,and the court retained jurisdiction to enforce thesettlement agreement. Six months after the casewas dismissed the plaintiff filed a motion to en-force the settlement agreement. A sealed docu-ment, presumably the settlement agreement, wasfiled the same day.

Planet Solutions v. European Cosmetics and ResearchLab Inc. (FL-S 0:01-cv-06448 filed 03/21/2001).Trademark action under the Uniform Trade Se-crets Act involving trade secrets for cleaningproducts. The complaint also included Floridastatutory and common law claims. In August2002, seventeen days after the order granting astay pending arbitration, the court granted thejoint stipulation of dismissal and permanent in-junction. In March 2003, the defendant filed amotion to seal the settlement agreement so thatthe court could rule upon the motion to vacate thepermanent injunction on grounds that the plain-tiff breached the terms of the confidential settle-ment agreement. A sealed settlement agreementwas filed along with the motion to vacate. Noother documents were filed in the case.

Vigo v. American Sales and ManagementOrganization Corp. (FL-S 1:01-cv-01245 filed03/26/2001).Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act by asecurity guard for failure to pay overtime wages.A sealed settlement agreement was filed. In theamended order of dismissal the court retainedjurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlementagreement.

Lil’ Joe Records Inc. v. Worldwide Pants Inc. (FL-S1:01-cv-01377 filed 04/05/2001).Copyright action involving the use of a soundrecording on “The Late Late Show with Craig Kil-born.” A sealed document was filed five days be-fore the notice of settlement was filed. The courtretained jurisdiction for sixty days to enforce thesettlement agreement. A sealed settlement agree-ment apparently was filed.

Aguilera v. Quail Investments Inc. (FL-S 1:01-cv-01384 filed 04/06/2001).Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Actby restaurant employees for failure to pay over-time wages. A sealed document was filed thesame day the case was dismissed. A sealed set-tlement agreement apparently was filed.

Brito v. Shoma Development Corp. (FL-S 1:01-cv-01421 filed 04/10/2001).Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Actfor failure to pay overtime wages. A sealed set-tlement agreement was filed as an attachment tothe notice of stipulation for voluntary dismissal.In the order approving settlement, the court or-


C-31

dered that the settlement agreement remain underseal until the case was dismissed.

Carlucci v. Thermo Electron Corp. (FL-S 1:01-cv-01680 filed 04/24/2001).Personal injury action against the manufacturerand owner of an X-ray unit the plaintiff serviced.The plaintiff’s wrist was broken when the scissorarm casting broke, causing the arm and tube headto fall. A sealed settlement agreement was at-tached to the defendants’ motion to enforce thesettlement agreement. The case was dismissed assettled before the court ruled on the motion toenforce.

Signal Communications LLC v. Motorola Inc. (FL-S0:01-cv-06676 filed 04/25/2001).Contract action involving breach of a noncom-petition covenant in an agreement to purchaseassets of a two-way radio service division. Thejoint stipulation of dismissal notes that the partiesentered into a separate settlement agreement. Asealed document was filed three days before thecase was dismissed. In the order of dismissal thecourt retained jurisdiction to enforce the settle-ment agreement. A sealed settlement agreementapparently was filed.

Seiko Kabushiki Kaisha v. Swiss Watch InternationalInc. (FL-S 0:01-cv-06732 filed 05/02/2001).Infringement action for use of the trademarks“Seiko” and “Pulsar.” A sealed settlement agree-ment was filed.

Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant (FL-S 0:01-cv-01845 filed 05/04/2001).Commerce action. The docket sheet is sealed. Thecase was resolved by consent judgment.

Taylor v. Arrowpac Inc. (FL-S 1:01-cv-01948 filed05/11/2001).Employment civil rights action by a black plaintifffor race discrimination. A sealed settlementagreement was filed, and the plaintiff asked forthe enforcement of the settlement agreementeleven days later. The day after the motion to en-force the settlement agreement was filed, the mo-tion was withdrawn. In the final order of dis-missal the court retained jurisdiction for ninetydays to enforce the terms of the settlement agree-ment.

Harrington v. Twin City Fire Insurance Co. (FL-S9:01-cv-08442 filed 05/16/2001).Insurance action for bad faith in not offering pol-icy limits to resolve an automobile negligenceclaim. The court approved a settlement and sealedthe settlement agreement. The court retained ju-risdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.

Velazquez v. SoftNetGaming Inc. (FL-S 1:01-cv-02011 filed 05/17/2001).Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act forfailure to pay overtime wages. The case was dis-missed as settled, and the court retained jurisdic-tion to enforce the settlement agreement. Twomonths after the case was dismissed, the plaintifffiled a motion to enforce the settlement agreementunder seal. Another sealed document, presuma-bly the settlement agreement, was filed the sameday.

Medley Industria Farmaceutica SA v. Da Matta (FL-S1:01-cv-02132 filed 05/24/2001).Action for breach of contract involving repaymentfor sponsorship and support of the defendant’scareer as a race car driver. A sealed document wasfiled one day before the joint stipulation of dis-missal was filed. In the order of dismissal thecourt retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms ofthe settlement agreement. A sealed settlementagreement apparently was filed.

Israel v. Mayrsohn International Trading Co. (FL-S1:01-cv-02172 filed 05/25/2001).Employment action under the Americans withDisabilities Act by a disabled employee allegingwrongful termination. A sealed document wasfiled on the same day the case was dismissed. Inthe order of dismissal the court retained jurisdic-tion only to enforce the terms of the settlementagreement. A sealed settlement agreement appar-ently was filed. Three months after the case wasdismissed, the final judgment ordered that thedefendant pay $15,876 to the plaintiff.

Morkos Group v. Amoco Oil Co. (FL-S 0:01-cv-06911filed 05/29/2001).Contract action for breach of “Right of First Op-tion to Purchase when Available for Sale” by anindependent contractor for a gasoline station. Thesealed settlement agreement was filed as an ex-hibit to the notice regarding settlement. In the or-der dismissing the case, the court retained juris-diction to enforce the terms of the settlementagreement. On the same day the case was dis-


C-32

missed the court granted the defendant’s motionto enforce the settlement agreement. The plaintifffiled an appeal five months after the case wasdismissed, and the appeal currently is pending.

Fort Lauderdale Auto Leasing Corp. v. Sunshine AutoRentals Inc. (FL-S 1:01-cv-02682 filed 06/25/2001).Trademark action concerning the use of the serv-ice mark “Sunshine” by a rental car company. Thecourt granted the parties’ joint motion for astipulated permanent injunction. A sealed settle-ment agreement was filed.

Dede v. City Furniture Inc. (FL-S 1:01-cv-02696 filed06/25/2001).Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Actby furniture store employees for failure to payovertime wages. A sealed settlement agreementwas filed.

Vargas v. Shoma Development Corp. (FL-S 1:01-cv-02738 filed 06/27/2001).Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act by aconstruction worker for failure to pay minimumwage and overtime wages. A sealed settlementagreement was filed.

Fleurimond v. United Enterprises of Southeast FloridaInc. (FL-S 1:01-cv-02938 filed 07/06/2001).Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Actby construction workers for failure to pay over-time wages. The confidential settlement agree-ment was filed under seal with a motion to en-force the settlement agreement. The court deniedthe motion to enforce on the grounds that the de-fendant had satisfied its obligations. The parties’request that the settlement agreement be returnedwas granted. The court ordered that the motion tofile the settlement agreement under seal be un-sealed and that the docket entry referring to a“sealed document” also be unsealed to reflect thatthe sealed document was a settlement agreement.

National Installers Inc. v. Harris (FL-S 1:01-cv-02964filed 07/06/2001).Action for declaratory judgment under the FairLabor Standards Act for failure to pay overtimewages. A joint stipulation of settlement orderedthat the “Settlement Agreement is to remain per-manently under seal.”

Tapia v. Extendicare Homes Inc. (FL-S 1:01-cv-03104filed 07/17/2001).Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Actfor failure to pay overtime wages. A sealeddocument was filed on the same day the case wasdismissed. A sealed settlement agreement appar-ently was filed.

Eugene v. Pep Boys – Many Moe & Jack Inc. (FL-S1:01-cv-03171 filed 07/19/2001).Civil rights employment action by a black assis-tant store manager against his former employerfor race discrimination. The parties settled thecase during mediation. The plaintiff filed a motionto enforce the settlement agreement. The defen-dants filed under seal a response to the plaintiff’smotion, because it contained information on theconfidential terms of the settlement. The courtdismissed the case pursuant to a joint stipulationand retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlementagreement.

Tyson v. Martino Tire Co. of Royal Palm Beach (FL-S9:01-cv-08661 filed 07/19/2001).Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Actby service managers of an auto repair shop forfailure to pay overtime wages. A sealed settle-ment agreement was filed. In the order of dis-missal the court retained jurisdiction to enforcethe terms of the settlement agreement.

Giraldo v. One World Inc. (FL-S 1:01-cv-03172 filed07/20/2001).Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act forfailure to pay overtime wages and for retaliatorydischarge after the plaintiff complained of non-payment. A sealed settlement agreement was at-tached 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 againsta school district and a high school principal forsexual harassment. Two sealed documents werefiled eight days before the parties filed a joint no-tice of status of settlement documents. The noticestated that the parties had agreed on the terms ofthe settlement and were in the process of execut-ing the agreements. The case was dismissed assettled, and the court retained jurisdiction forsixty days to enforce the settlement agreement.


C-33

Palco Labs Inc. v. Vitalcare Group (FL-S 1:01-cv-03480 filed 08/10/2001).Patent infringement case involving an adjustabletip for a blood lancet device. The court grantedthe plaintiff’s motion for permanent injunction. Asealed settlement agreement was filed, and theorder of dismissal noted that the settlementagreement 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 Discrimi-nation Act for wrongful termination. The case wasdismissed in April 2002, and the court retainedjurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlementagreement. In May 2002, a sealed settlementagreement was attached to the first motion to en-force an agreement to pay the plaintiff $89,500.The court placed a lien on a property of the de-fendant’s sister company as security. In July 2002,there was a renewed motion to enforce the settle-ment agreement, claiming $57,000 still due. InDecember 2002, a third motion to enforce the set-tlement agreement sought sanctions for an unpaidoutstanding judgment of $51,000. The last docu-ment on the docket sheet, filed in February 2003,is a plaintiff’s memorandum concerning the effecton the outstanding judgment of the defendant’ssister company’s bankruptcy.

Mastercard International Inc. v. T&T SportsMarketing Ltd. (FL-S 1:01-cv-03632 filed08/24/2001).Contract action involving fraudulent misrepre-sentations and breaches of material provisions ina written contract for media promotional rights toa sporting event. A sealed settlement agreementwas filed.

Stubbs v. Art Express 30 Minute Custom FramingInc. (FL-S 1:01-cv-03760 filed 09/05/2001).Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act by anemployee of a custom art framing business forfailure to pay overtime wages. A sealed documentwas filed two days before the case was dismissed.The order of dismissal approved the settlementagreement. A sealed settlement agreement appar-ently was filed.

Sanchez v. Drusco Inc. (FL-S 1:01-cv-03796 filed09/07/2001).Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Actby employees of an export company for failure topay overtime wages. Three weeks after the case

was dismissed, the court granted a motion to ex-tend time to sign settlement papers. A sealeddocument was filed one day after the order to ex-tend time. A sealed settlement agreement appar-ently was filed.

BestNet Communications Corp. v. Infinity FinancialGroup (FL-S 0:01-cv-07483 filed 09/17/2001).Securities case involving false representation inconnection with the purchase of 100,000 shares ofcommon stock. The plaintiff filed a sealed motionto enforce the settlement agreement. The courtretained jurisdiction for sixty days to enforce theterms of settlement.

Rivera v. KB Toy of Florida Inc. (FL-S 0:01-cv-07607filed 10/17/2001).Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Actby assistant store managers for failure to payovertime wages. A sealed document was filed twodays before the case was dismissed. In the finalorder of dismissal, the court stated it consideredthe settlement agreement before dismissing thecase. A sealed settlement agreement apparentlywas filed.

Yeung v. Far & Wide Travel Corp. (FL-S 1:01-cv-04373 filed 10/24/2001).Contract action for breach of a restrictive covenantthat included a noncompetition clause. The par-ties filed a joint motion to seal a settlementagreement. The sealed settlement agreement wasfiled. The court denied the motion to seal and re-turned 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 aflight dispatcher for failure to pay overtimewages. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.In the order of dismissal, the court retained juris-diction to enforce the terms of the settlementagreement.

Siegel v. Office Depot Inc. (FL-S 1:01-cv-04566 filed11/06/2001).Civil rights employment action by a copy centermanager alleging demotion because of age. A set-tlement agreement was reached during media-tion. The case was dismissed as settled. A sealeddocument was filed the same day the case wasdismissed. A sealed settlement agreement appar-ently was filed.


C-34

Sarabia v. PeopLease Corp. (FL-S 1:01-cv-04870 filed11/30/2001).Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Actfor failure to pay overtime wages. A sealed set-tlement agreement was filed. The court retainedjurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.

Baumgarten v. Children’s Psychiatric Center Inc. (FL-S 1:01-cv-05040 filed 12/17/2001).Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act by apsychiatric aide for failure to pay minimum andovertime wages. A sealed settlement agreementwas filed.

Fishman v. American Media Inc. (FL-S 9:02-cv-80042filed 01/16/2002).Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Actby newspaper employees for failure to pay over-time wages. A sealed settlement agreement wasfiled. The court ordered that the settlementagreement remain sealed for five years, at whichtime it will be returned to the defendant.

Marinaro v. Miller & Bechert PA (FL-S 0:02-cv-60089 filed 1/22/2002).Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Actfor failure to pay overtime wages. A sealed set-tlement agreement was filed as an attachment tothe motion to seal the settlement agreement. Par-ties asked the court to destroy the motion to seal,the motion to approve the sealed settlementagreement, and the settlement agreement whenthe court entered the order to dismiss. In the orderdismissing the case, the court retained jurisdictionto enforce the terms of the settlement agreementfor sixty days, but did not mention destroying anydocuments.

White v. Cowcat Enterprises Inc. (FL-S 9:02-cv-80075filed 01/31/2002).Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Actby employees of an addiction treatment programfor failure to pay overtime wages. Two sealeddocuments were filed one day before the courtapproved the settlement and retained jurisdictionto enforce the settlement agreement. A sealed set-tlement agreement apparently was filed.

Nuñez v. Acosta Tractors Inc. (FL-S 1:02-cv-20417filed 02/06/2002).Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act by adirt digger operator for failure to pay overtimewages. In the order of dismissal the court retained

jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlementagreement for sixty days. Sealed documents werefiled four and eleven days after the case was dis-missed. A sealed settlement agreement apparentlywas filed.

Wilson v. Señor Frogs Inc. (FL-S 1:02-cv-20516 filed02/15/2002).Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Actby restaurant workers for failure to pay minimumand overtime wages. A sealed settlement agree-ment was filed with the motion to approve it. Thecourt approved the settlement but denied the mo-tion to seal the settlement agreement.

Puig v. Florida Sol Systems Inc. (FL-S 1:02-cv-20663filed 03/04/2002).Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Actfor failure to pay overtime wages. A sealed set-tlement agreement was filed. The court approvedthe settlement and said it would destroy the set-tlement agreement.

Webster v. Urbieta (FL-S 1:02-cv-20838 filed03/18/2002).Civil rights action against the owner of a gas sta-tion for denial of service to the black plaintiff andhis two minor children because of their race.Three sealed documents were filed within twoweeks of the case’s close. A sealed settlementagreement 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 resultingfrom defendant’s failure to properly load andstow cargo. Five months after the case was dis-missed as settled, a sealed document was filed.

VARIG SA v. Nijankin (FL-S 1:02-cv-20960 filed03/28/2002).RICO action for breach of fiduciary duty to re-cover damages for the defendant’s receipt ofcommissions, bribes, and kickbacks from theplaintiff’s contractors. A sealed document wasfiled one day before the case was dismissed. Thecourt retained jurisdiction to enforce the settle-ment agreement.

Hernandez v. Children’s Psychiatric Center Inc. (FL-S1:02-cv-20961 filed 03/28/2002).Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act forfailure to pay minimum and overtime wages. A


C-35

sealed settlement agreement was filed as an at-tachment to the defendant’s motion to approveand seal it. Six days later the court denied themotion to seal. The settlement agreement was re-turned to the defendant. The defendant filed amotion for reconsideration of the motion to seal orin the alternative to review the settlement in cam-era. The court granted an in camera review. Thecourt approved the settlement and dismissed thecase.

Reyes Cigars SA v. Adworks of Boca Raton Inc. (FL-S9:02-cv-80290 filed 04/30/2002).Contract action against an advertising companyfor intentionally shutting down the plaintiff’s e-commerce Web site in breach of an agreement thatthe plaintiff would own the rights to the site. Theplaintiff’s request for injunctive relief to reinstatethe Web site was denied. A sealed document wasfiled four days before the case was dismissed. Asealed settlement agreement apparently was filed.

Fernandez v. G.F.B. Enterprises LLC (FL-S 1:02-cv-21563 filed 05/24/2002).Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Actfor failure to pay overtime wages. A sealed set-tlement agreement was filed. The court approvedthe settlement and dismissed the case.

Steinberg v. Michaud Buschmann Mittlemark MillianBlitz & Warren PA (FL-S 9:02-cv-80523 filed06/06/2002).Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Actfor failure to pay overtime wages. The case settledduring mediation. The case was dismissed with-out prejudice, and the court retained jurisdictionfor sixty days to enter judgment or final order ofdismissal. One month later a sealed documentwas filed. The court has yet to enter an order ofdismissal.

Plasencia v. Hanjin Shipping Co. (FL-S 1:02-cv-21968filed 07/03/2002).Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Actfor failure to pay overtime wages. A sealed set-tlement agreement was filed as an attachment tothe defendant’s motion to file it under seal. Thecase was dismissed as settled.

Abascal v. Univision Network LP (FL-S 1:02-cv-22092 filed 07/17/2002).Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Actby sales employees for failure to pay overtimewages. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.

The court approved the settlement and orderedthat the settlement agreement be unsealed De-cember 5, 2007.

Charmant v. L & M Fisheries Inc. (FL-S 0:02-cv-61141 filed 08/15/2002).Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Actfor failure to pay overtime wages. A sealed set-tlement agreement was filed. The parties filed ajoint stipulation of dismissal and asked the courtto retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlementagreement. The case was closed, but no order ofdismissal was filed. Five sealed documents werefiled the same day the case was closed. A sealedsettlement agreement apparently was filed.

Wool v. Tokyo Bowl Inc. (FL-S 1:02-cv-22442 filed08/19/2002).Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Actby restaurant employees for failure to pay over-time wages. A sealed settlement agreement wasfiled as an attachment to a joint motion to seal it.Eight days later the court denied the motion toseal and returned the settlement agreement tocounsel. The case has not been closed, and no or-der of dismissal has been filed.

Shred-it USA Inc. v. Tejo (FL-S 1:02-cv-22494 filed08/22/2002).Contract action for breach of a confidentiality andnoncompetition agreement. A sealed settlementagreement was attached to the defendant’s mo-tion 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 amaintenance worker for failure to pay overtimewages. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.The court approved the settlement and dismissedthe case.

Pizza Hut Inc. v. Grossman (FL-S 1:02-cv-23192filed 10/29/2002).Trademark infringement action by Pizza Hutagainst the owner of the domain name “piza-hut.com.” A sealed settlement agreement wasfiled. A consent judgment ordered a permanentinjunction against the defendant’s use of the do-main name. The court retained jurisdiction forsixty days to enforce the settlement agreement.


C-36

District of GuamNo relevant local rule.

Statistics: 130 cases in termination cohort; 7docket sheets (5.4%) have the word “seal” inthem; 3 complete docket sheets (2.3%) were re-viewed; actual documents were examined for 1case (0.77%); 1 case (0.77%) appears to have asealed settlement agreement.

Case with a Sealed Settlement AgreementBlaz v. van der Pyl (GU 1:00-cv-00014 filed03/31/2000).ERISA action by a former dental employee forfailure to provide pension documents, for wrong-ful termination in retaliation for a request to ex-amine pension documents, and for wrongfullyattempting to withhold pension funds in satisfac-tion of the plaintiff’s personal debt to her em-ployer. The defendants countersued for conver-sion of patients’ bill payments to the plaintiff’spersonal use. The case settled at a court-mediatedsettlement conference, and a sealed document wasfiled that day. Two days later, the court dismissedthe action pursuant to the settlement agreement,which was incorporated by reference into the no-tice of dismissal.

District of HawaiiNo relevant local rule.

Statistics: 1,752 cases in termination cohort; 2docket sheets are sealed (0.11%)—the dispositioncode for 1 of these cases suggests no sealed set-tlement agreement39 and the disposition code for 1of these cases suggests a sealed settlement agree-ment;40 458 unsealed docket sheets (26%) have theword “seal” in them; 42 complete docket sheets(2.4%) were reviewed; actual documents wereexamined for 40 cases (2.3%); 38 cases (2.2%) ap-pear to have sealed settlement agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement AgreementsKon v. Goto (HI 1:96-cv-00340 filed 04/09/1996).ERISA class action by retired employees forbreach of fiduciary duty. A sealed settlementagreement was filed. Two months after final ap-proval of the settlement, the plaintiff filed a mo-tion to enforce the settlement agreement. Thecourt granted the motion and ordered the defen-dant to pay $453,802. Subsequently, the defendantwas held in civil contempt and jailed twice for not

39. One “other” dismissal.40. One case settled.

truthfully disclosing his financial records. Thedefendant filed for bankruptcy, but the bank-ruptcy case was dismissed. One year later, thefinal judgment was ordered against the defen-dant. The court retained jurisdiction over thisjudgment for one year.

Tanaka v. First Hawaiian Bank (HI 1:96-cv-00734filed 09/04/1996).RICO action for breach of fiduciary duty involv-ing the estate of the plaintiff’s deceased father. Onthe eleventh day of a jury trial a sealed settlementagreement was filed. A default judgment was or-dered against one of the defendants for$2,613,906.

R&R of Hawaii Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California (HI1:97-cv-00248 filed 03/14/1997).Real property case alleging soil contamination bystorage tanks left by the defendant, who was theprevious owner. The settlement was placed on therecord under seal during a settlement conference.

Arrington v. Wong (HI 1:98-cv-00357 filed05/04/1998), consolidated with Arrington v. Wong(HI 1:99-cv-00782 filed 11/09/1999).The first case is designated a statutory action, andthe second, a medical malpractice case. Thesecases were brought by the estate and relatives of aman (including his minor grandchild) who diedof respiratory failure allegedly because he wasrefused care by the defendants at their medicalcare facility, which was the closest. The settlementwas placed on the record under seal during a set-tlement conference.

Cyanotech Corp. v. Aquasearch Inc. (HI 1:98-cv-00600 filed 07/13/1998).Patent noninfringement case concerning a methodto control a microorganism growth process. Thedefendant’s motion to enforce the settlementagreement was sealed and denied by the court.

Lesane v. Hawaiian Airlines (HI 1:98-cv-00735 filed09/01/1998); Lesane v. Hawaiian Airlines (HI 1:01-cv-00024 filed 01/03/2001).Employment action by a black mechanic for racediscrimination. The hearing on the defendant’smotion to enforce the settlement agreement wassealed. The court granted the motion to enforcethe settlement agreement.


C-37

Castle & Cooke Properties Inc. v. BHP Hawaii Inc. (HI1:98-cv-00923 filed 11/17/1998).Environmental case in which hazardous chemi-cals and petroleum products allegedly migratedfrom the defendant’s property to the plaintiff’sproperty, causing contamination of groundwaterand soil. An unexecuted sealed settlement agree-ment was filed.

Casimiro v. Allstate (HI 1:99-cv-00527 filed07/22/1999).Insurance action. The docket sheet is sealed. Thecase was dismissed as settled.

EEOC v. Safeway Inc. (HI 1:99-cv-00593 filed08/25/1999).Employment action on behalf of a man allegingsexual harassment and wrongful termination. Thesettlement agreement was placed on the recordunder seal during a settlement conference. Thecase was terminated by a consent decree that wasin effect until February 26, 2003.

Silva v. Scott (HI 1:99-cv-00636 filed 09/16/1999).Civil rights action by an undergraduate studentagainst her professor and adviser and his em-ployer for sexual harassment. On the sixth day ofjury deliberation, a settlement was reached. Thesettlement was placed on the record under sealduring a settlement conference.

Turner v. GTE Corp. (HI 1:99-cv-00652 filed09/22/1999).Civil rights action by a secretary for sexual har-assment and wrongful termination. The settle-ment was placed on the record under seal duringa settlement conference.

City & County of Honolulu v. Estate of Campbell (HI1:99-cv-00670 filed 09/30/1999).Environmental case under CERCLA, seekingcompensation for the cleanup of the plaintiff’sproperty, which allegedly was contaminated byhazardous chemicals during the defendant’s own-ership of the property. The settlement was placedon the record under seal during a settlement con-ference.

King v. Gannett Co. (HI 1:99-cv-00686 filed10/06/1999), consolidated with Hawaii v. GannettPacific Corp. (HI 1:99-cv-00687 filed 10/06/1999).Antitrust action by a group of newspaper sub-scribers and the state of Hawaii to prevent the

defendant from closing down one of the two dailynewspapers in general circulation in Honolulu. Asealed settlement agreement was filed.

Taylor v. Kaneshiro (HI 1:99-cv-00909 filed12/13/1999).Prisoner civil rights action by the mother of a manwho allegedly died because prison officials didnot seek immediate emergency medical treatmentfor his self-inflicted wounds. The settlement wasplaced on the record under seal during a settle-ment conference. Eight months after settlement,the court ordered the defendant to pay theamount of settlement. The minutes of a status con-ference regarding dismissal notes a settlementamount of $200,000.

Giobbi v. Lahaina Divers Inc. (HI 1:00-cv-00005 filed01/04/2000).Personal injury action by a woman who was in-jured by a boat propeller while swimming. Thesettlement was placed on the record under sealduring a settlement conference.

Hilo Fish Co. v. Kowalski (HI 1:00-cv-00185 filed03/06/2000).Patent case involving a process for freezing sea-food. A partial settlement agreement was filedunder seal as an attachment to the minutes of asettlement conference. Six months later the set-tlement was placed on the record during anothersettlement conference. The court ordered a con-sent judgment and permanent injunction in favorof the defendants.

Redmond v. Ackerson (HI 1:00-cv-00444 filed06/27/2000).Civil rights action by a disabled black man alleg-ing harassment by his homeowner’s associationafter he complained about a revoked parkingpermit for his handicap-equipped van. A sealedsettlement agreement was filed.

Hermes International v. High-Class Hawaii LLC (HI1:00-cv-00518 filed 07/26/2000).Trademark infringement case involving fraudu-lent reproductions of the plaintiff’s “Kelly bag”designs. The case was dismissed, and a perma-nent injunction was granted in a confidential or-der filed under seal.


C-38

Quitog v. Piney (HI 1:00-cv-00629 filed09/26/2000).Housing case under the Americans with Disabili-ties Act and the Fair Housing Act by a disabledwoman against her landlord for threatening toevict her for having too many caregivers stayingovernight in her apartment. The settlement wasplaced on the record under seal during a settle-ment conference.

Wolken-Vierra v. Allstate Insurance Co. (HI 1:00-cv-00721 filed 11/03/2000).Insurance action for bad faith involving an in-sured who caused the death of the plaintiff’s hus-band in a motor vehicle accident. The defendantfailed to secure a release of claims of settlement inthe plaintiff’s earlier case against it. The insuredwas forced to continue as a defendant in that caseand later assigned rights to the plaintiff to sue forthe $480,000 judgment (which included $350,000for the decedent’s minor child). The defendant’smotion for approval of settlement was filed underseal and granted by the court.

Arnott v. United Airlines Inc. (HI 1:00-cv-00731filed 11/09/2000).Railway Labor Act action by a female flight atten-dant against her employer for violating the termsof the collective bargaining agreement by notprocessing her workers’ compensation benefits.The settlement was placed on the record underseal during a settlement conference.

Noice v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co. (HI 1:01-cv-00036filed 01/11/2001).Truth-in-Lending Act case involving a consumertransaction in which the defendant allegedly mis-represented the financial terms and conditions ofa loan. The settlement was placed on the recordunder seal during a settlement conference.

Beach v. See’s Candies Inc. (HI 1:01-cv-00047 filed01/17/2001).Employment action by a female store manager fordiscrimination and wrongful termination. Thesettlement was placed on the record under sealduring a settlement conference.

Bertuccio v. Longs Drug Stores California Inc. (HI1:01-cv-00052 filed 01/18/2001).Personal injury case alleging that the plaintiff suf-fered a knee injury when he slipped and fell in thedefendant’s store. The settlement was placed on

the record under seal during a settlement confer-ence.

Richardson v. Longs Drug Stores California Inc. (HI1:01-cv-00101 filed 02/08/2001).Personal injury case alleging that the plaintiff suf-fered a back injury when hit by a hand truck inthe defendant’s store. The settlement was placedon the record under seal during a settlement con-ference.

Fuchs v. Tokyu Corp. (HI 1:01-cv-00165 filed03/09/2001).Real property case for breach of a purchase andsale agreement for a parcel of land. A sealed set-tlement agreement was filed.

Pachuta v. UnumProvident Corp. (HI 1:01-cv-00199filed 03/28/2001).Insurance action by a physician with Alzheimer’sdisease for breach of a disability insurance policy.All documents pertaining to the plaintiff’s motionto enforce the settlement agreement were sealed.A new settlement agreement was reached, and theplaintiff withdrew the motion.

Continental Casualty Co. v. CPA Consulting Group(HI 1:01-cv-00200 filed 03/28/2001).Insurance interpleader action concerning disputedfunds of an insurance policy. The settlement wasplaced on the record under seal during a settle-ment conference.

Rowe v. Cutter Ford Inc. (HI 1:01-cv-00209 filed03/30/2001).Contract case alleging that the defendant failed toproperly deliver all disclosures about a used car.The settlement was placed on the record underseal during a settlement conference.

Newinsky v. Maui Radiology Consultants LLP (HI1:01-cv-00223 filed 04/05/2001).Labor action under the Americans with Disabili-ties Act, Family Medical Leave Act, and ERISA,by an MRI technician who became disabled whileon the job. The defendant allegedly failed to ac-commodate his disability, failed to notify him ofFMLA applicability, and denied him retirementbenefits. The settlement was placed on the recordunder seal during a settlement conference.


C-39

Jaress & Leong v. Continental Casualty Co. (HI 1:01-cv-00266 filed 04/24/2001).Contract action claiming that the defendant set-tled claims of fraud, misrepresentation, and mal-practice against the plaintiff without his consent.The defendant’s motion for approval of settlementwas filed under seal. The defendant’s motion tooppose the plaintiff’s motion to enforce the set-tlement agreement was filed under seal. The courtdenied the plaintiff’s motion to enforce the set-tlement agreement.

State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Eilers (HI 1:01-cv-00306 filed 05/11/2001).Insurance action seeking a binding declaration bythe court that the plaintiff is not obligated underthe insurance policies of the defendant’s employerto defend or indemnify it against a claim of defa-mation and discrimination. The settlement wasplaced on the record under seal during a settle-ment conference.

Herrmann v. Kaiser Permanente (HI 1:01-cv-00767filed 11/15/2001), consolidated with Herrmann v.Kaiser Permanente (HI 1:01-cv-00813 filed12/07/2001).Employment and civil rights actions by a doctorfor wrongful termination of hospital privileges.The settlement was placed on the record underseal 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 forage and race discrimination and wrongful termi-nation. The settlement was placed on the recordunder seal during a settlement conference.

District of IdahoAbsent a court order to the contrary, sealeddocuments are returned to the submitting party atthe end of the case. D. Idaho L.R. 5.3(f). Court staffmembers have observed that after they startedmaking electronic images of court files availablein 1998, parties have more often requested thatsettlement agreements be filed under seal.

Statistics: 1,350 cases in termination cohort; 6docket sheets are sealed (0.44%)—all of thesecases’ disposition codes suggest no sealed settle-

ment agreements;41 440 unsealed docket sheets(33%) have the word “seal” in them; 10 completedocket sheets (0.74%) were reviewed; actualdocuments were examined for 5 cases (0.37%); 4cases (0.30%) appear to have sealed settlementagreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement AgreementsBursch v. Residential Funding Corp. (ID 3:99-cv-00385 filed 09/03/1999).Class action under the Truth in Lending Act byplaintiffs who entered into loan transactions pur-suant to a home sales program under which thedefendants allegedly “marked up” the cost ofconstruction materials. Following mediation theparties agreed to a confidential settlement agree-ment, and pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.3, thecourt sealed the agreement.

EEOC v. J.R. Simplot Co. (ID 1:99-cv-00439 filed09/30/1999).Employment discrimination case challenging anEnglish language reading skills test as having anadverse impact on Hispanic and Asian-Americanemployees and applicants. The court approved aconsent decree, which was not sealed. Provisionsof the consent decree required the EEOC to filewith the court as a separate exhibit the specificamount of lost wages and interest each claimantwas entitled to and a list of claimants who timelyreturned the claim form. One year later the courtagreed to seal the exhibit and incorporate it aspart of the consent decree.

Estate of Shinski v. McDonnell-Douglas Corp. (ID1:00-cv-00280 filed 05/23/2000).Product liability action against the manufacturerof a helicopter for wrongful death in a crash re-sulting from the engine’s failing suddenly. Thecourt approved and sealed the settlement agree-ment.

McKee v. Young (ID 1:00-cv-00713 filed12/08/2000).Motor vehicle action against a truck driver andthe truck’s owner for injuries sustained when thesemi-truck and trailer rear-ended the plaintiff’svehicle. A stipulation of compromise and settle-ment was filed and sealed.

41. One judgment on motion before trial, 2 judg-ments on jury verdicts, 1 multidistrict litigation trans-fer, 2 voluntary dismissals.


C-40

Northern District of Illinois42

The Northern District of Illinois distinguishes “re-stricted” documents, to which access has beenrestricted, from “sealed” documents, which areactually in sealed enclosures so that access re-quires the breaking of a seal. N.D. Ill. L.R. 26.2(a).A document may be restricted upon a showing ofgood cause. Id. R. 26.2(b). With good cause thedocument’s docket entry may “show only that arestricted document was filed without any nota-tion indicating its nature.” Id. R. 26.2(c). Absent anorder to the contrary, document restrictions arelifted sixty-three days after the case is over. Id. R.26.2(e). Restricted documents may be returned tothe parties or destroyed, but they may not remainrestricted for more than twenty years. Id.

Statistics: 19,378 cases in termination cohort;649 docket sheets (3.3%) have the word “seal” inthem; 99 complete docket sheets (0.51%) were re-viewed; actual documents were examined for 80cases (0.41%); 72 cases (0.37%) appear to havesealed settlement agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement AgreementsPoole v. Alpha Therapeutic Corp. (IL-N 1:86-cv-07623filed 10/08/1986).Product liability action by a hemophiliac againstmanufacturers of blood products for failure toscreen and test for the AIDS virus, which resultedin his contracting the virus. He died during thecourse of the trial, and his wife and children con-tinued the case. Two defendants settled, and thesettlement agreement was approved by the courtand filed under seal. Three other defendants ulti-mately settled, but the agreements were not filedwith the court. The remaining defendant also set-tled. This agreement, including the specificamounts to be distributed to the children, was notsealed.

Wilson v. Wilson (IL-N 1:89-cv-09620 filed12/29/1989).Personal property damage action concerningfamily trusts. One family member was dismissedpursuant to a sealed settlement agreement ap-proved by the court. The plaintiff reached an ap-parent settlement agreement with the remainingdefendants in open court for $1.2 million. A dis-pute over this agreement arose. Both the districtcourt and the court of appeals ruled for the plain-


its good-cause rule.

tiff in his motion to enforce the agreement. Theplaintiff obtained substitute counsel, and his for-mer attorneys moved to enforce a later settlementagreement. The court granted the motion, releas-ing $175,000 to the attorneys. The case finally ter-minated by stipulated dismissal.

Pivot Point International Inc. v. Charlene ProductsInc. (IL-N 1:90-cv-06933 filed 11/29/1990).Copyright action for the unauthorized marketingof exact reproductions of the plaintiff’s “MaraSculpture,” “an artistically sculpted mannequinhead which is unlike any other to the extent thatthis artist’s sculpture is extremely lifelike andpleasing in appearance.” The plaintiff filed a mo-tion to enforce an oral settlement agreement, withone exhibit filed under seal. Another documentwas filed under seal on the day the defendants’response was due. The plaintiff’s reply brief wasfiled unsealed, and it lays out terms of the allegedsettlement agreement, along with proposedchanges to satisfy the defendants’ objections. Theagreement required that the defendants ceasetheir copyright infringement, but permitted themto sell current inventory, and it made no mentionof monetary terms. An exhibit to the plaintiff’sbrief was filed under seal. The court held thecopyright invalid and dismissed the complaint.The plaintiff appealed, and the matter remainsbefore the court of appeals.

Geneva Assurance Syndicate v. Medical EmergencyServices Associates (IL-N 1:92-cv-01652 filed03/06/1992).Insurance action by six plaintiffs against 120 de-fendants concerning medical malpractice insur-ance pooling. During the course of litigation asealed document was filed the same day as a mo-tion to dismiss one of the defendants. The motionwas granted that day by minute order. Later inthe litigation the plaintiffs filed a motion to en-force a settlement agreement with other defen-dants. The memorandum was filed under seal.The case ultimately was resolved by settlementwith all parties.

DeKalb Genetics Corp. v. Pioneer Hi-BredInternational Inc. (IL-N 3:96-cv-50112 filed04/30/1996), consolidated with DeKalb GeneticsCorp. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. (IL-N3:96-cv-50239 filed 07/23/1996), DeKalb GeneticsCorp. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. (IL-N3:98-cv-50186 filed 06/19/1998), DeKalb GeneticsCorp. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. (IL-N3:99-cv-50212 filed 07/01/1999), and DeKalb


C-41

Genetics Corp. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc.(IL-N 3:99-cv-50385 filed 11/23/1999); Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. v. DeKalb Genetics Corp. (IL-N 3:00-cv-050201 filed 06/07/2000), consolidatedwith Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. v. MonsantoCo. (IL-N 3:01-cv-050219 filed 07/10/2001).Patent infringement actions between a producerand seller of corn seed and its competitors. Thecases settled. The court granted the defendants’sealed motion to enforce the settlement agree-ment.

Jensen v. Oliver (IL-N 1:97-cv-01018 filed02/13/1997).Fraud action by an investor against a corpora-tion’s managing shareholder for using corporatemoney to pay for unauthorized personal expensesand converting all the corporation’s assets andtransferring them to a competing company heowned. The case settled. The settlement termswere stated on the record, and the transcript ofthe proceedings was filed under seal.

College Inn Partners v. Deby Inc. (IL-N 1:97-cv-02989 filed 04/25/1997).Environmental action concerning the continuingcontamination of the plaintiffs’ land by the defen-dants’ dry cleaning establishment and their un-derground petroleum storage tanks. The partiesentered into a confidential settlement agreement.The defendants filed a motion to enforce it. Thememorandum in support of their motion was re-stricted.

Santelli v. Electro-Motive (IL-N 1:97-cv-05702 filed08/12/1997).Designated a civil rights action, this is a Title VIIemployment discrimination action by a femalewelder against an automobile manufacturer, al-leging that she was repeatedly denied equal op-portunity in training, pay, and promotion becauseof her sex. The case settled. The defendant’s briefin support of its motion to enforce the settlementagreement and the plaintiff’s response wereplaced under seal for a period of two years. Thedefendant’s motion reveals that the plaintiff re-jected a $7,000 check tendered by the defendant.The court granted the defendant’s motion to en-force the settlement agreement and directed theplaintiff to accept the check.

Scott v. Steingold (IL-N 1:97-cv-07871 filed11/12/1997).RICO action alleging nationwide schemes to sellunregistered securities in wireless cable and spe-cialized mobile radio systems. Some of the defen-dants settled, and the court granted them leave tofile the settlement agreement under seal. The re-maining defendant also settled. The court-approved settlement was stricken from the docketand court record.

Bavaro v. Grand Victoria Casino (IL-N 1:97-cv-07921filed 11/13/1997).Marine action against a riverboat casino by anemployee for failure to provide a safe work envi-ronment, which caused her to injure herself on astairway. She alleged that she was fired in antici-pation of a lawsuit. The case settled. The courtorder regarding the settlement was restricted.

Nystrom v. Associated Plastic Fabricators Inc. (IL-N1:98-cv-00134 filed 01/09/1998), consolidatedwith Malachowski v. Associated Plastic FabricationsInc. (IL-N 1:98-cv-04282 filed 07/13/1998) andHerman v. Peper (IL-N 1:99-cv-04275 filed06/28/1999).ERISA actions concerning a company’s failure totransfer former employees’ vested benefits intotheir designated IRAs. Some of the parties settled,and the court granted the plaintiffs’ oral motion toseal the settlement document and agreement;however, some of the terms of the settlementagreement, including the agreed amount of$850,000, are stated in the court order recognizingthe oral settlement. The plaintiffs’ motion to en-force the settlement agreement was withdrawnafter one defendant filed for bankruptcy. The re-maining defendants ultimately settled.

Coilcraft Inc. v. Instructor Warehouse (IL-N 1:98-cv-00140 filed 01/09/1998).Trademark infringement action by a manufacturerof electronic components against an unauthorizeddistributor. The case was dismissed as settled. Thecourt’s consent judgment order was restricted.

EEOC v. Foster Wheeler (IL-N 1:98-cv-01601 filed03/17/1998).Employment class action alleging race and sexdiscrimination. According to the docket sheet, thecase settled as to the lead individual plaintiff, anda motion for entry of a protective order coveringconfidential settlement terms was filed under seal.But a minute order states that “payment amounts


C-42

to individuals identified on Exhibits B & C”would be $11,666.65 per individual. The finaljudgment states that the lead individual plaintiffwill receive $25,000, each of seven other namedplaintiffs will receive either $10,000 or $15,000,and a union defendant will pay punitive damagesof $50,000, with $20,000 going to the lead plaintiffand $30,000 to be divided among the other classmembers. Both the EEOC and the lead plaintiffwere awarded fees.

Soros Associates v. Trafalgar House ConstructionIndia Ltd. (IL-N 1:98-cv-01807 filed 03/24/1998).Breach of contract action by a construction engi-neer seeking payment for additional work. Thecase was dismissed as settled. The terms of thesettlement agreement were filed under seal.

L.R. Oliver & Co. v. B&J Manufacturing Co. (IL-N1:98-cv-04268 filed 06/10/1998).Breach of contract action by a manufacturer of gritcoatings against a rival for failure to pay royaltiespursuant to an oral agreement. The case was dis-missed as settled. The transcript of the proceed-ings containing the terms of the agreement wasfiled under seal.

Midwest Community Health Service Inc. v. AmericanUnited Life Insurance Co. (IL-N 1:98-cv-06128 filed09/30/1998).ERISA action alleging breach of fiduciary duty forfailure to disclose the impact on the plaintiff’splans of an asset transfer. The case was dismissedas settled. The plaintiffs filed the confidential set-tlement agreement under seal.

Erickson v. Baxter Healthcare Inc. (IL-N 1:99-cv-00426 filed 01/26/1999).Product liability action on behalf of a hemophiliacagainst manufacturers of blood products for fail-ure to screen and test for the AIDS virus andHepatitis C, which resulted in his contracting theviruses and dying. The parties entered into a con-fidential settlement agreement. The court grantedthe plaintiff’s motion to submit the statement ofsettlement under seal. The court approved thesettlement and the distribution of proceeds to aminor survivor.

Tracy v. Jewel Food Stores Inc. (IL-N 1:99-cv-02736filed 04/26/1999).Patent infringement action concerning disposablediapers. One of the defendants settled and filed arestricted memorandum in support of the motion

to enforce the oral settlement agreement. In asealed order, the court granted the defendant’smotion. The order later was unsealed and madepart of the public record. The case ultimately wasdismissed as settled.

Wise v. McNeil Pharmaceutical (IL-N 1:99-cv-03852filed 06/10/1999).Product liability action on behalf of a minor withcystic fibrosis against drug manufacturers forfailing to detect the toxic effects of drugs that re-sulted in fibrosing colonopathy disease. The casesettled. The court order approving the settlementand the distribution of proceeds from the minor’ssettlement was restricted. However, documentsreveal that $200,000 from the gross amount of thesettlement proceeds was paid to the minor’s par-ents for family purposes.

CoolSavings.com Inc. v. Brightstreet.com Inc. (IL-N1:99-cv-05499 filed 08/23/1999).Patent infringement action concerning targetedelectronic certificates such as coupons. The casesettled. The terms of the settlement were stated onthe record at a settlement conference and placedunder seal. The court temporarily unsealed thetranscript so that the parties could order copies ofit. The transcript then was resealed. The partieswere unable to reduce the terms of the settlementto writing. The court examined several competingdocuments claimed to accurately reflect the set-tlement agreement, some of which were unsealedand contained parts of the settlement transcript.The court ultimately agreed with the plaintiff’sversion of the settlement agreement. The defen-dants appealed, and the court of appeals affirmedthe court’s decision.

Fitzpatrick v. Daewoo Motor America Inc. (IL-N 1:99-cv-05557 filed 08/25/1999).Employment action against a Korean automobilecompany 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 underseal.

Pappas v. Hartford Life Insurance Co. (IL-N 1:99-cv-05612 filed 08/27/1999).Insurance action concerning the defendants’ salespractices in marketing and selling whole life anduniversal life policies. The case settled. The set-tlement transcripts were sealed.


C-43

March v. Greater Rockford Airport Authority (IL-N3:99-cv-50297 filed 09/10/1999).Designated a civil rights action, this is an em-ployment action by an African-American femalesecurity officer for race and sex discrimination inaccommodating her pregnancy. The plaintiff fileda motion to clarify the settlement agreement, andthe defendant filed a motion to enforce it. Thecontroversy apparently involved the scope of li-ability release. At the hearing, the parties put thesettlement agreement on the record, and the courtsealed the tape of the hearing.

Motor Coach Industries Ltd. v. SMC Corp. (IL-N1:99-cv-06578 filed 10/06/1999).Patent action concerning a “stairway for a motorcoach.” The action was dismissed pursuant to asettlement agreement filed under seal.

Rucker v. Streetwise Inc. (IL-N 1:99-cv-07195 filed11/04/1999).Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act by anoffice assistant alleging that the newspaper pub-lisher who employed her failed to pay her over-time wages. The case settled. The settlement wasrestricted. The case was appealed and ultimatelydismissed as settled.

Recycling Sciences International Inc. v. SoilRestoration and Recycling LLC (IL-N 1:00-cv-00311filed 01/18/2000).Patent infringement action concerning soil reme-diation processes. The case was dismissed as set-tled. The settlement was filed under seal and re-dacted 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 African-American radiation protection manager allegingthat the electric company intentionally subjectedhim to unequal and discriminatory treatment be-cause of his race and color. The case settled. Thesettlement agreement was stated on the record.The settlement agreement and the audiotape ofthe settlement proceedings were sealed.

Nelson v. Sotheby’s Inc. (IL-N 1:00-cv-01590 filed03/16/2000).Personal property damage action concerning theconversion of a painting. The case was dismissedas settled. The court ordered that the cassette tapeof the settlement conference and any transcript

prepared from the cassette tape be placed underseal.

Heel-O-Matic Inc. v. GP Manufacturing LLC (IL-N1:00-cv-01818 filed 03/24/2000).Patent infringement action concerning an appa-ratus for rope training. The case settled. The de-fendants filed a motion to reinstate the action forbreach of the settlement agreement. The defen-dants’ supplemental memorandum and exhibitsin support of their motion are restricted.

Bagnall v. Freeman Decorating (IL-N 1:00-cv-01922filed 03/30/2000).Employment action alleging violation of theAmericans with Disabilities Act for terminatingand refusing to rehire the plaintiff based on hisperceived disability. The case settled. The plaintifflater filed a sealed motion to enforce the settle-ment agreement.

Godinez v. Eagle Insurance Agency (IL-N 1:00-cv-01987 filed 03/31/2000); consolidated on appealwith Jones v. American Ambassador Casualty Co. (IL-N 1:00-cv-05973 filed 09/28/2000).Section 1981 actions by and on behalf of minoritycustomers of an insurance company alleging thatthey paid money for substandard insurance cov-erage and were not compensated for automobilelosses ordinarily covered by standard automobileinsurance policies. The court held that the plain-tiffs’ civil rights claims were barred by the McCar-ran–Ferguson Act, which forbids federal courtsfrom intervening in the regulation of insurance bystates. The plaintiffs appealed. The case settled.The case was remanded to the district court tocertify approval of the settlement. The settlementagreement was filed under seal.

Denison Hydraulics Inc. v. Veljan Hydrair Ltd. (IL-N1:00-cv-02022 filed 04/04/2000).Trademark infringement action by a manufacturerof hydraulic pumps. The case settled. The courtordered that the confidential settlement agree-ment remain under seal for twenty years andthereafter be destroyed.

Devlieg Bullard II Inc. v. Ivan Doverspike Co. (IL-N1:00-cv-05260 filed 08/25/2000).Patent infringement action by a manufacturer ofmultiple spindle machines. The case settled. Thecourt sealed the transcript of the proceedings thatmemorialized the confidential settlement agree-ment.


C-44

Leadership Council for Metropolitan OpenCommunities Inc. v. Buczek (IL-N 1:00-cv-05851filed 09/22/2000).Housing discrimination action on behalf of anAfrican-American family, alleging that the defen-dant refused to rent to them because of their threeminor children. The case settled. The audiotape ofthe settlement proceedings outlining the terms ofthe agreement was placed under seal. The consentdecree also was sealed. The court later granted theplaintiffs’ motion to lift the seal restricting publi-cation of the consent decree.

Royal Source Inc. v. Puri-Clean Enterprises Inc. (IL-N1:00-cv-06603 filed 10/24/2000).Trademark infringement action by a manufacturerof nutritional and dietary supplements againstcompetitors. The case settled. The court grantedthe plaintiff’s motion to file under seal exhibits toits motion to enforce the settlement agreement.The defendants requested that the court order bevacated, because they never agreed to the plain-tiff’s version of the settlement terms. The courtdenied the defendants’ motion. The case ulti-mately was dismissed as settled.

Pressner v. Target Corp. (IL-N 1:00-cv-06636 filed10/25/2000).Title VII employment action alleging sex dis-crimination and retaliation for supporting a co-worker’s lawsuit against the retail store defen-dant. The case settled. The tape of the settlementproceedings was sealed.

Collier v. Greater Rockford Airport Authority (IL-N3:00-cv-50416 filed 11/21/2000).Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act con-cerning an airport’s failure to pay employeesovertime wages. The case was dismissed as set-tled with respect to all plaintiffs except one. Thatplaintiff ultimately settled for $11,000, and thesettlement agreement was filed under seal as anexhibit.

Viravakin v. Sara Lee Branded Foods (IL-N 1:00-cv-07677 filed 12/07/2000).Title VII employment action by an Asian accountspayable clerk independent contractor alleging thatover the span of four years she was overlookedfor several employment opportunities because ofher race and national origin. The case settled. Thetranscript and tape of the settlement proceedingswere sealed.

188 LLC v. Trinity Industries Inc. (IL-N 1:00-cv-07993 filed 12/21/2000).Breach of contract action concerning the negligentrepair of railroad cars. The case settled. Both par-ties filed restricted motions to enforce the settle-ment agreement. The plaintiff filed for bankruptcyand motions were deemed moot.

Johnstone v. Wabick (IL-N 1:01-cv-00577 filed01/29/2001).Civil rights action by shareholders against trustmanagers concerning fraudulent transfers thatresulted in a $7 million loss for shareholders. Thecase settled. The court granted the plaintiffs’ re-quest to file the stipulated judgment against thedefendants under seal. The judgment later wasunsealed, revealing that the defendant had to payplaintiffs $1,050,000.

Poly-Plating Inc. v. Hi-Grade Welding andManufacturing Inc. (IL-N 1:00-cv-00772 filed02/05/2001).Trademark infringement action by a manufacturerof surface coating metals. The case settled. Thecourt placed the transcript and tape of the settle-ment proceedings under seal.

Anderson Medical Supply Inc. v. Chevron PhillipsChemical Co. (IL-N 1:01-cv-01388 filed02/27/2001).Trademark infringement action concerning abreathing mask for children requiring asthmaaerosol medication. The case settled. The tape ofthe settlement proceedings was placed under seal.

Robert Half International Inc v. Wong (IL-N 1:01-cv-01489 filed 03/02/2001).Breach of contract action alleging misappropria-tion of trade secrets by former employees of a re-cruitment company. The case settled. The courtsealed the defendants’ motion to enter judgmentbased on the settlement agreement. The case wasdismissed as settled.

Juno Lighting Inc. v. Bartco Lighting (IL-N 1:01-cv-01498 filed 03/02/2001).Patent infringement action by a lighting manu-facturer. The case settled. The settlement agree-ment was filed under seal.


C-45

Leherer Flaherty & Canavan P.C. v. MesirowFinancial Inc. (IL-N 1:01-cv-01643 filed03/08/2001).ERISA action alleging that the defendant failed todiversify and tend to the corporation’s retirementand pension plan, which resulted in severe losses.The case settled. The terms of the settlementagreement were stated on the record and placedunder seal.

Lawson Products Inc. v. Chromate Industrial Corp.(IL-N 1:01-cv-01793 filed 03/14/2001).Contract action by manufacturers of industrialfasteners seeking to enjoin their competitor fromsoliciting their employees and encouraging themto breach their employment agreements by mis-appropriating trade secrets. The case settled. Thesettlement 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 ex-ecutive director alleging that she was locked outof her office by the board of directors because ofage discrimination. The case settled. The tran-script of the settlement conference was sealed.

Fruit of the Loom Inc. v. Gildan Activewear Inc. (IL-N1:01-cv-02315 filed 04/04/2001).Contract action to enjoin the misappropriation ofthe plaintiff’s trade secrets. The case settled. Thefinal settlement agreement was subject to thebankruptcy court’s approval. The consent orderwas 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 aFilipino lab technician against an internal medi-cine and ambulatory patient consulting corpora-tion, alleging wrongful discharge based on na-tional origin. The case settled. The transcript tapeof the settlement conference was sealed.

Hellman v. Econovo Ltd. & Trade Trust Ltd. (IL-N1:01-cv-02613 filed 04/13/2001).Breach of contract action by a chief developmentofficer alleging that he was not properly compen-sated after being terminated without cause. Thecase settled. The terms of the settlement werestated on the record and placed under seal.

Nu-Wool Co. v. Certainteed Corp. (IL-N 1:01-cv-03691 filed 05/18/2001).Statutory action by a manufacturer of celluloseinsulation products against a manufacturer of fi-berglass insulation products, alleging that the de-fendant, in an attempt to thwart competition,produced and distributed false advertisementsabout the dangers of cellulose insulation. The casesettled. The settlement and release agreement isrestricted.

Johnson v. Board of Trustees of the University ofIllinois (IL-N 1:01-cv-03774 filed 05/22/2001).Employment action alleging that the defendantbreached the sealed settlement agreement, en-tered into in a previous action, by changing theplaintiff’s job description and requiring him toreport to workers he previously supervised. Thecourt ordered that the settlement agreement re-main under seal. The case was ultimately dis-missed 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 researchcompany against a consulting corporation, alleg-ing that the defendants had no claim to the workperformed under a grant. The parties entered intoan “interim settlement agreement,” which wassealed and approved by the court. The case ulti-mately was dismissed as settled.

Mitchell v. American Express TBS (IL-N 1:01-cv-06225 filed 08/14/2001).Title VII employment action alleging sexual har-assment, retaliatory conduct, and constructivedischarge. The case settled. The terms of the set-tlement were stated on the record, and the tapewas placed under seal.

Tibor v. Connaissance Consulting LLC (IL-N 1:01-cv-07207 filed 09/18/2001).Contract action by an account executive andsalesman against a technology consulting com-pany for failure to provide him with written no-tice of its intent to terminate him and for refusingto 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 resinsmanufacturer against a customer for nonpayment.


C-46

The case settled. The court granted the defen-dant’s oral motion to seal the settlement agree-ment.

Fox v. Yellow Freight System Inc. (IL-N 1:01-cv-07827 filed 10/10/2001).Wrongful termination action alleging race and agediscrimination. The case settled. The terms of thesettlement were stated on the record and placedunder seal.

Nolden v. TCI of Illinois Inc. (IL-N 1:01-cv-09335filed 12/06/2001).Employment action alleging wrongful discrimi-nation because of the plaintiff’s disability. Theparties reached a settlement and placed the termsof 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 manu-facturer against a competitor. The case settled.Although the confidential settlement agreementwas filed under seal, it can be found attached tothe plaintiff’s notice of filing.

Career Holdings Inc. v. Finnigan (IL-N 1:02-cv-02746filed 04/16/2002).Fraud action seeking an injunction preventing asenior employee from going to work for a com-petitor until his knowledge of the recruitmentsolutions company’s trade secrets is significantlyless current. The case settled. The agreed orderdismissing 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 fromworking for a competitor of office supplies andusing trade secrets. The case settled. The plaintifffiled a motion to enforce the settlement agree-ment. The motion contains terms of the settlementagreement, including an injunction against con-tacting the plaintiff’s customers for a period ofnine months. Two days later, the court grantedthe plaintiff’s oral motion to file exhibits underseal.

Martinez v. City of Chicago (IL-N 1:02-cv-05093filed 07/18/2002).Employment action by a mailroom assistant al-leging sexual harassment. The case settled. The

transcript of the settlement conference was filedunder seal.

Shen Wei (USA) Inc. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp. (IL-N1:02-cv-05196 filed 07/23/2002).Patent infringement action by manufacturers ofmoisturizing therapeutic gloves against a com-petitor. The case settled. The plaintiffs filed a re-stricted motion to enforce the settlement agree-ment.

Northern District of IndianaNo relevant local rule. According to the clerk, thecourt considered adopting a rule like the Districtof South Carolina’s, proscribing sealed settlementagreements, but decided such a rule was unneces-sary, because the district does not have sealedsettlement agreements.

Statistics: 4,103 cases in termination cohort; 1docket sheet is sealed (0.02%)—this case’s dispo-sition code suggests no sealed settlement agree-ment;43 216 docket sheets (5.3%) have the word“seal” in them; 11 complete docket sheets (0.27%)were reviewed; actual documents were examinedfor 0 cases; no case appears to have a sealed set-tlement agreement.

Southern District of Indiana“No document will be maintained under seal inthe absence of an authorizing statute, Court rule,or Court order.” S.D. Ind. L.R. 5.3(a).


Cases with Sealed Settlement AgreementsUnited 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 forfraudulent Medicare billing by psychiatric hospi-tals. The case was dismissed as settled, and thecomplaint, notice of intervention, stipulation ofdismissal, and dismissal were unsealed. A sealedsettlement agreement apparently was filed.

43. One judgment on motion before trial.


C-47

Stanback v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (IN-S 1:99-cv-00043 filed 01/15/1999).Civil rights employment action for wrongful ter-mination after the plaintiff complained that hewas sexually harassed. A jury awarded the plain-tiff $2.8 million. To prevent an appeal, the plaintiffreached an agreement with the defendant. Asealed settlement agreement was filed with themotion to enforce it.

Indianapolis Motor Speedway Corp. v. TransworldDiversified Services Inc. (IN-S 1:99-cv-01073 filed07/12/1999).Contract action involving breach of a sponsorshipagreement. A sealed settlement agreement wasfiled as an attachment to the joint notification ofsettlement.

Bokelman v. Allied Telecommunications Inc. (IN-S1:99-cv-01452 filed 09/16/1999).Contract action for breach of an employmentagreement involving failure to pay the plaintiff asales commission. The defendant filed a sealedsettlement agreement. The court dismissed thecase and returned the settlement agreement to thedefendant.

Cook Vascular Inc. v. Reiser (IN-S 1:99-cv-01598filed 10/15/1999).Patent infringement action involving a specializedcatheter used to remove problem pacemakers. Asealed settlement agreement was filed pursuant toa protective order. The court retained jurisdictionto 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 leaseagreement. A consent judgment was reached, anda sealed settlement agreement was filed. The or-der of dismissal discloses that the amount ofjudgment was $800,000.

Locke v. Lawrence Township Fire Department (IN-S1:00-cv-00942 filed 06/07/2000).Civil rights employment action by a firefighteragainst her employer for sexual discriminationand retaliation. The plaintiff filed a motion to en-force the settlement agreement. The court sealedthe motion because it contained settlement terms.

FFI Corp. v. Powers Fastening Inc. (IN-S 1:00-cv-00968 filed 06/13/2000).Contract product liability action claming that theplaintiff installed grain dryers using the defen-dant’s faulty anchoring system, which caused onegrain dryer to collapse and required the plaintiffto test all of the anchors it installed. The plaintifffiled a motion to enforce a settlement agreement.Two months after the motion was filed, the courtordered the motion sealed because it containedsettlement terms.

Bailey v. United National Bank (IN-S 1:00-cv-01175filed 07/21/2000).ERISA action by retired employees for breach offiduciary and contractual duty in not properlymonitoring and protecting assets. At the pretrialconference the record of settlement was sealed.The case was dismissed and referred to the bank-ruptcy court because the ERISA claims related tomatters that were contested in the debtor’s bank-ruptcy case.

Northern District of IowaA document may be filed under seal only by courtorder. N. & S. D. Iowa L.R. 5.1(e). Thirty days af-ter the case is over (sixty days if the United Statesis a party), the clerk may notify parties thatdocuments will be unsealed unless there is atimely objection. Id. (Note that the Northern andSouthern Districts of Iowa have the same localrules.)


Cases with Sealed Settlement AgreementsMineral Area Osteopathic Hospital Inc. v. Keane Inc.(IA-N 1:99-cv-00050 filed 03/31/1999).Contract action by three hospitals against a pro-vider of health care information software fordamages arising from the Y2K bug. The defendantsought a protective order. Papers and proceedingspertaining to the plaintiffs’ motion to certify aclass were sealed, and the motion was denied. Theparties settled (as did three additional hospitalplaintiffs in independent actions) at a settlementconference before a magistrate judge. The partiesasked the court to approve a confidential settle-ment agreement, which was filed under seal. Oneterm of the agreement was plaintiffs’ not appeal-


C-48

ing the denial of class certification. The court ap-proved 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 sur-geon alleging a hostile work environment forwomen, more favorable treatment of male sur-geons, and termination of her employment con-tract for complaining about the discrimination.The court scheduled a settlement conference be-fore the chief magistrate judge, and nearly twomonths later the plaintiff filed a sealed motion toenforce a settlement agreement. The defendantsfiled a sealed opposition. Four months later thecase was dismissed as settled.

Weems v. Federated Mutual Insurance Co. (IA-N6:00-cv-02013 filed 02/08/2000).Designated a civil rights action, this is really anemployment discrimination action by an African-American employee alleging wrongful termina-tion on the basis of race. The complaint includedstate-law counts for assault and intentional inflic-tion of emotional distress. The defendant filed acounterclaim for $549.32 in excess salary paid andthe return of property belonging to the defendant.In advance of a settlement conference, the defen-dant filed a “confidential settlement statement”under seal. Subsequently the case was dismissedas settled.

EEOC v. American Home Products Corp. (IA-N 3:00-cv-03079 filed 09/29/2000).Employment discrimination action on behalf offemale employees for a hostile work environmentcreated by a manager. The complaint alleged thatthe manager was promoted rather than disci-plined and that employees who investigated theharassment were fired. A consent decree man-dated payment of $478,500 to employees. The listof employees and their shares was filed underseal.

Liu v. Life Investors Insurance Co. of America (IA-N1:01-cv-00141 filed 09/28/2001).Action alleging employment discrimination onthe basis of race and national origin in failing topromote the plaintiff. The action was dismissed assettled, and the plaintiff filed a sealed “motion toextend time to finalize settlement” three weekslater. Over a month later the defendant filed asealed 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 agreementnot to seek employment with the defendant orrelated companies with a limitation to companieswithin the United States, (2) the plaintiff objectedto terms concerning his return of the defendant’sproperty and to the defendant’s not admittingliability, and (3) the plaintiff’s wife had not signedthe agreement. Ruling on the motion, the courtordered specific terms and that a signed settle-ment agreement be filed by a specific date. Theagreement was filed under seal.

EEOC v. DeCoster (IA-N 3:02-cv-03077 filed09/26/2002).Employment sex discrimination action on behalfof female employees who complained of sexualharassment and assault. The case was terminatedby consent decree. The defendant denied the alle-gations, but agreed to promulgation of an anti-harassment policy, training, recordkeeping, andpayment of $1,525,000 in monetary relief. The listof who received how much was sealed, but eachof approximately a dozen individuals receivedapproximately $125,000.

Southern District of IowaA document may be filed under seal only by courtorder. N. & S. D. Iowa L.R. 5.1(e). Thirty days af-ter the case is over (sixty days if the United Statesis a party), the clerk may notify parties thatdocuments will be unsealed unless there is atimely objection. Id. (Note that the Northern andSouthern Districts of Iowa have the same localrules.)

Statistics: 1,976 cases in termination cohort; 69docket sheets (3.5%) have the word “seal” inthem; 9 complete docket sheets (0.46%) were re-viewed; actual documents were examined for 0cases; no case appears to have a sealed settlementagreement.

District of MaineNo relevant local rule.

Statistics: 1,070 cases in termination cohort; 141docket 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 set-tlement agreements.


C-49

Cases with Sealed Settlement AgreementsStrout v. Paisley (ME 1:00-cv-00107 filed05/24/2000).Wrongful death and personal injury actionagainst a truck driver and his employer for caus-ing a motor vehicle accident that killed the plain-tiff’s wife and caused him bodily injury. Theplaintiff’s motion for approval of the couple’s mi-nor son’s settlement was sealed. An unsealed or-der approving the minor’s settlement reportedthat the minor received $125,341 of the $450,000settlement.

Carrier v. JPB Enterprises (ME 2:01-cv-00187 filed07/20/2001).ERISA class action against plaintiffs’ former em-ployer for failure to provide advance notice ofmass layoffs, failure to pay severance and vaca-tion pay, and failure to contribute to a 401(k) plan.The parties filed a sealed joint motion to approvethe settlement. An unsealed order approving thesettlement reported that the class representativeseach received a total of $10,000. The order ap-proving the plaintiffs’ motion for attorney feesreported 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 theCourt record shall include (a) proposed reasonssupported by specific factual representations tojustify the sealing and (b) an explanation why al-ternatives to sealing would not provide sufficientprotection. The Court will not rule upon the mo-tion until at least 14 days after it is entered on thepublic docket to permit the filing of objections byinterested parties.” D. Md. L.R. 105.11. At the endof the case, sealed documents are returned to theparties or destroyed. Id. R. 113.2.

Statistics: 7,851 cases in termination cohort; 8docket sheets are sealed (0.10%)—the dispositioncodes for 6 of these cases suggest no sealed set-tlement agreements45 and the disposition codesfor 2 of these cases suggest sealed settlementagreements;46 232 unsealed docket sheets (3.0%)have the word “seal” in them; 20 complete docketsheets (0.25%) were reviewed; actual documents

44. This district is included in the study because ofits 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 agree-ments.

Cases with Sealed Settlement AgreementsGrandison v. Lanham (MD 1:94-cv-00204 filed01/27/1994).Prisoner civil rights action by a Muslim prisonerwho alleged he was prevented from practicing hisreligion while incarcerated. The parties settled. Atape recording of the settlement conference wassealed.

United States ex rel. Ackley v. International BusinessMachines Corp. (MD 8:97-cv-03189 filed09/18/1997).Qui tam case filed under the False Claims Act forfraudulent billing by a computer company work-ing on NASA’s space shuttle project. A sealedsettlement agreement was filed.

Quillen v. CSX Transportation Inc. (MD 8:97-cv-03219 filed 09/22/1997).Federal employers’ liability action by the wife andminor son of an assistant conductor who diedwhen the passenger train he was riding oncrashed into a commuter train. A petition for ap-proval of the settlement was sealed. The courtdenied the request to approve the settlement.

Robinson v. New Line Cinema Corp. (MD 1:97-cv-03859 filed 11/14/1997).Copyright case claiming that the defendantpassed off as its own a screenplay by the plaintiff,which the plaintiff called “Sister Sara” and thedefendant called “Set It Off.” The court grantedthe defendant summary judgment, and the plain-tiff appealed. The court of appeals reversed.Eleven months after the case was reopened, theplaintiff filed a sealed motion to enforce a settle-ment agreement. The case was dismissed as set-tled.

Wilklow v. Johns Hopkins Hospital (MD 1:98-cv-02178 filed 07/08/1998).Medical malpractice action by the parents of aminor who suffered neurological and permanentphysical damage because her hydrocephalus wasnot treated promptly. A sealed order granted theplaintiffs’ motion to approve the settlement.


C-50

Kessler v. American Postal (MD 8:98-cv-03547 filed10/21/1998).Statutory action. The docket sheet is sealed. Thecase was dismissed as settled.

Superior Federal Bank FSB v. Tandem NationalMortgage Inc. (MD 1:99-cv-02360 filed08/04/1999).Contract case involving breach of a purchaseagreement. Settlement documents were filed un-der seal. The defendants’ second application toapprove the settlement agreement included acopy of the settlement agreement that did notmention the amount being paid. A default judg-ment was ordered against one of the defendantsfor $71,041.

Teague v. O&K Escalators Inc. (MD 8:00-cv-00292filed 01/31/2000).Personal injury action by the estate of a man whowas killed when an escalator he was installing inthe Washington Metro system collapsed. Theplaintiff alleged that the fastener system was de-fective. There were counterclaims, cross-claims,and third-party claims among Metro, the con-tractor, the escalator manufacturer, and partsmanufacturers. A sealed settlement agreementwas filed.

Harmon v. Tyson Foods Inc. (MD 1:00-cv-01997 filed06/29/2000).Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Actby chicken catchers for failure to pay overtimewages. A joint memorandum for approval of thesettlement agreement was sealed and approvedby 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 servicesrendered to assist the defendant in an antitrustlawsuit. The defendant filed a third-party com-plaint for legal malpractice against its former at-torneys. After a settlement conference the courtdismissed the case. The plaintiff filed a motion torevoke the dismissal and reopen the case, becausethe primary defendant did not pay the settlement.This motion included a letter from the magistratejudge that revealed the settlement amount of$162,000. The third-party defendant filed a sealedsettlement agreement as an exhibit to a motion toenforce it.

Clean Harbors Environmental Services Inc. v. Isom(MD 1:01-cv-00657 filed 03/05/2001).Contract case involving breach of a confidentialityand noncompetition agreement. A sealed consentorder was filed.

Robinson v. Allen Family Foods Inc. (MD 1:01-cv-00838 filed 03/20/2001).Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Actby chicken catchers for failure to pay overtimewages. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Warehouse Employees Local Union Number 730 v.Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (MD 1:01-cv-01528filed 05/25/2001).Case filed under the Labor and Management Re-lations Act involving dismissal of a union workerin violation of a collective bargaining agreement.A sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Chamberlain v. Fairbanks Capital Corp. (MD 8:01-cv-01779 filed 06/19/2001).Statutory action involving violation of the FairDebt Collection Act in connection with the plain-tiffs’ home mortgage. A sealed settlement agree-ment was filed.

United States v. Frederick Memorial (MD 1:01-cv-02923 filed 10/02/2001).Statutory action. The docket sheet is sealed. Thecase was dismissed as settled.

Eastern District of MichiganSealed settlement agreements should be unsealedtwo years after the date of sealing, absent an orderto the contrary. E.D. Mich. L.R. 5.4. Court staffmembers say that the rule is difficult to imple-ment, because no rule specifies that sealed settle-ment agreements be designated as anything otherthan a sealed document, so it is difficult to knowwhat documents are covered by the rule. Sealeddiscovery documents are returned or unsealedsixty days after the case is over. Id. R. 5.3(b).

Statistics: 9,561 cases in termination cohort; 351docket sheets (3.7%) have the word “seal” in them(but 155 of these merely have “seal” in a partyname, including 141 cases with Crown Cork andSeal Company as a party); 52 complete docketsheets (0.54%) were reviewed; actual documentswere examined for 19 cases (0.20%); 16 cases(0.17%) appear to have sealed settlement agree-ments.


C-51

Cases with Sealed Settlement AgreementsHerman Miller Inc. v. Palazzetti Imports & ExportsInc. (MI-E 2:96-cv-75833 filed 06/25/1996).Trademark and trade dress action concerninghigh-quality reproductions of Eames chairs andottomans. There was a jury trial, a judgment, anappeal, and a remand. On the eve of the secondtrial, the case settled pursuant to a sealed settle-ment agreement “to remain under seal for a pe-riod of ten (10) years” (until January 3, 2013).

Smith v. Chrysler Financial Corp. (MI-E 2:97-cv-76338 filed 12/03/1997).Employment action by a paralegal alleging re-taliation against her for complaining of the gen-eral counsel’s pursuing a sexual relationship withanother paralegal through unwelcome sexual ad-vances. The action was partially dismissed pursu-ant to a sealed settlement agreement, and anaward of attorney fees was to be determined. Inaddition, the plaintiff was ordered to keep confi-dential the terms of the defendants’ settlementagreement with the other paralegal in her sepa-rate action. Attorney fees of $184,371.25 and costsof $13,240.98 were awarded by sealed order,which both the plaintiff and the defendants ap-pealed. The case settled on appeal.

Relume Corp. v. Dialight Corp. (MI-E 2:98-cv-72360filed 06/09/1998).Patent infringement case concerning LED displaysin traffic signals. The court granted summaryjudgment to the defendants. Documents filed inthe case indicate that the plaintiff tried to negoti-ate a settlement with the defendants that wouldrelieve it of the preclusive effect of the summaryjudgment in future actions against other manu-facturers of LED traffic signals. Apparently somedefendants were amenable to this and some werenot. The amenable defendants agreed to a settle-ment agreement filed under seal. The plaintiffthereafter lost an appeal of the summary judg-ment. The case was finally dismissed as settledpursuant to an apparently unfiled settlementagreement.

Solomon v. City of Sterling Heights (MI-E 2:98-cv-73900 filed 09/04/1998).Civil rights case against a newspaper, a city, andits police department for injuries resulting fromthe police’s use of tear gas, pepper spray, andphysical violence to disrupt a picket line. Theplaintiff further alleged denial of medical treat-ment while in confinement and permanent dis-

ability. Judgment on a jury verdict awarded theplaintiff $500,000 in compensatory damagesagainst all defendants and $1 million in punitivedamages against the newspaper. Litigation overprejudgment interest and attorney fees continued,and a sealed settlement agreement with the citydefendants was filed. The newspaper appealedthe judgment against it, and the matter is still onappeal.

Pasque v. Frederick (MI-E 2:99-cv-75113 filed10/20/1999).Motor vehicle action for wrongful killing of a bi-cyclist by a truck driver. A sealed document wasfiled the same day as a “settlement on the record,”and the case was dismissed on an approved set-tlement the following month. Five days before thesettlement on the record, the plaintiff filed a peti-tion to determine settlement specifying a $2 mil-lion settlement.

Wagner v. Ford Motor Co. (MI-E 2:99-cv-75567 filed11/17/1999).Employment discrimination case, which was dis-missed without prejudice in November. The courtretained jurisdiction for two months in the eventthat the settlement was not consummated. Twomonths later the court agreed to retain jurisdictionfor an additional month. One month later—inearly March—the court dismissed the case withprejudice. A sealed document was filed by thejudge nearly two months later; this may be asealed settlement agreement.

Fitch v. Sensormatic Electronics Corp. (MI-E 2:00-cv-71603 filed 04/03/2000).Complaint under the Fair Labor Standards Act forwrongfully requiring field technicians to deductone hour from each workday. A stipulated orderfor dismissal states that the court facilitated a set-tlement conference, which resulted in a confiden-tial settlement agreement that the court will holdunder seal. The docket sheet, however, does notshow the filing of such an agreement.

Intra Corp. v. Air Gage Co. (MI-E 5:00-cv-60234filed 04/19/2000).Patent case concerning an “apparatus for in-specting an engine valve seat.” The case was dis-missed, and the court retained jurisdiction to en-force a sealed settlement agreement.


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 cordinjuries sustained by the plaintiff while swimmingin the ocean at the defendant’s hotel. The case set-tled, and approximately three months after thefiling of the stipulated order of dismissal—on thestatistical date of termination—a sealed documentwas filed; this may be a settlement agreement.

Hoy v. Pet Greetings (MI-E 2:00-cv-72308 filed05/19/2000).Patent case concerning edible pet greeting cards.A sealed document was filed on the day of termi-nation. The unsealed judgment contains severalterms of a settlement agreement, but states thatsome terms are sealed.

Madison/OHI Liquidity Investors LLC v. OmegaHealthcare Investors Inc. (MI-E 2:00-cv-72793 filed06/21/2000).Contract case for failure to provide a security in-vestment firm with an agreed-upon line of credit.A settlement agreement was reached during abench trial, and a transcript of the agreement wasfiled under seal.

Baker v. Bollinger (MI-E 4:00-cv-40239 filed06/26/2000).Employment case against the University ofMichigan and some of its employees. The case fileincludes a protective order concerning confiden-tial health information. The court granted theparties’ joint motion for a stipulated permanentinjunction and sealing of the record.

Smith v. City of Detroit (MI-E 4:00-cv-40273 filed07/21/2000).Civil rights action against the city of Detroit for awrongful killing by a police officer. A sealeddocument was filed by the judge six days beforethe case was dismissed as settled. The case wasdismissed without prejudice to give plaintiffssixty days to move to enforce the settlementagreement if it was not consummated.

Allegiance Telecom Inc. v. Hopkins (MI-E 2:01-cv-74310 filed 11/09/2001).Designated a trademark case, this is an unfaircompetition case against former employees forsiphoning business, with the seventh of elevenclaims arising under the Lanham Act. A sealeddocument was filed nine days before the case was

closed. The stipulated order of dismissal specifiesthe terms of settlement, but also refers to an “ac-companying Confidential Settlement and MutualGeneral Release Agreement” and represents thatan attached exhibit contains true information andis 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 complaintalleges ERISA violations in wrongfully denyingan employee’s wife $21,256.80 in health insurancebenefits because the employer wrongfully ceasedpaying the premium. The record of a settlementconference was sealed, the case was referred tomediation, and the case was dismissed as settled.

Moses v. MSP Industries Corp. (MI-E 5:02-cv-60076filed 04/12/2002).Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act by astudent engineer for failure to pay for overtimework. The case was dismissed pursuant to asealed settlement agreement.

Western District of Michigan47

Documents may be filed under seal only withprior permission from the court, W.D. Mich. L.Civ. R. 10.6(a)-(b), and will be unsealed thirtydays after termination of the case, absent an orderto the contrary, id. R. 10.6(c).

Statistics: 2,775 cases in termination cohort; 2docket sheets are sealed (0.07%)—the dispositioncode for 1 of these cases suggests no sealed set-tlement agreement48 and the disposition code for 1of these cases suggests a sealed settlement agree-ment;49 181 unsealed docket sheets (6.5%) have theword “seal” in them (but 79 of these include onlydocket entries made under the identification“seal” because the docket clerk had been access-ing sealed documents in other cases, or only nota-tion of whether a sealed mediation award wasaccepted or rejected); 13 complete docket sheets(0.47%) were reviewed; actual documents wereexamined for 7 cases (0.25%); 8 cases (0.29%) ap-pear 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-causerule.

48. One voluntary dismissal.49. One case settled.


C-53

Cases with Sealed Settlement AgreementsTompkins v. Anderson (MI-W 4:99-cv-00124 filed09/10/1999).Fraud action concerning ownership and operationof a radio station. The case settled at a settlementconference, and the proceedings were sealed.Eight months after the case was dismissed, theplaintiffs moved to enforce the confidential set-tlement agreement. The plaintiffs attached thesettlement agreement, which called for twenty-three monthly payments of $500 from each defen-dant. The plaintiffs’ motion was denied on theground that the court had not retained jurisdic-tion to enforce the settlement agreement.

C.S. Engineered Castings Inc. v. deMco TechnologiesInc. (MI-W 4:01-cv-00024 filed 02/20/2001).Negotiable instrument action for nonpayment ofloans, with counterclaims for fraud and relatedinjuries. The amount in controversy allegedly was$75,000 in principal and $2,445.45 in interest. Thecase settled. The plaintiff moved to enforce theconfidential settlement agreement, claiming$72,800 still owed. The motion stated that a copyof the confidential agreement would not be at-tached, but would “be delivered to the court forconsideration with this motion.” The motion wasunopposed and granted. It appears that the courtsubsequently filed the confidential settlementagreement under seal.

Stryker Corp. v. NeoDyme Technologies Corp. (MI-W4:01-cv-00031 filed 02/26/2001).Contract action for failure to pay $91,500 in in-voices for hospital goods and services. The courtagreed to file a confidential settlement agreementunder seal so that the court could retain jurisdic-tion to enforce it. The order to seal stated “thatwithin 30 days after termination of the case, theCourt will return the Settlement Agreement toeither of the attorneys.” The motion to seal thesettlement agreement was filed two days after thecase was dismissed, and the order was grantedthe following month. The docket sheet shows thatthe sealed settlement agreement was filed thesame day as the order to seal and does not show areturn of the sealed document. Less than twomonths later, the defendant filed a notice forbankruptcy protection.

Fewless v. Board of Education (MI-W 1:01-cv-00271filed 05/01/2001).Civil rights action for a warrantless strip search ofa disabled 14-year-old student on a false tip from

another student that the boy was concealing con-traband drugs in his buttocks. The parties filed a“confidentiality agreement and stipulated protec-tive order” to keep confidential “the name orother personally identifying information about aminor witness or minor party.” A magistratejudge presided over a settlement conference,which was sealed “in furtherance of justice andthe protection of a minor child.” Subsequent to astipulated dismissal, the plaintiff filed a motion torecover $53,034.10 in fees and costs. The defen-dants argued against this figure by noting that thesettlement amount was “significantly lower than[the] initial demand” of $750,000 stated in theplaintiffs’ Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures. The court’sresolution 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 unwantedphysical sexual advances. A minute docket entrystates that a settlement was placed on the recordunder seal. A stipulated order dismissing the casegives no additional information.

Mikulak v. ChoiceOne Financial Services Inc. (MI-W1:01-cv-00721 filed 11/07/2001).Pro se employment action by an insurance agentwho was a recovering alcoholic for wrongful ter-mination and disability discrimination. The courtsealed a tape recording of a settlement conferenceat which the case settled.

Compaq Computer Corp. v. SGII Inc. (MI-W 1:02-cv-00028 filed 01/16/2002).Trademark action. The docket sheet is sealed. Thecase was dismissed as settled.

Rapid Design Service Inc. v. Cambridge IntegratedService Group (MI-W 1:02-cv-00179 filed03/18/2002).Contract action by a self-insured employer againsta company hired by the employer to provide ad-ministrative services on insurance claims. An em-ployee was severely burned when mixing explo-sives in his home, and the defendant authorizedan insurance payment of $236,983.32 to the em-ployee. But the employer’s “excess insurance”provider refused to cover the payment becausethe injury arose from criminal activity, so the em-ployer sued the defendant for wrongful authori-zation. The case settled pursuant to a confidentialsettlement agreement, which was inadvertentlyfiled with the court and subsequently sealed.


C-54

District of MinnesotaAbsent an order to the contrary, sealed docu-ments should be reclaimed by the parties fourmonths after the case is over if there is no appealand thirty days after the case is over if there is anappeal. D. Minn. L.R. 79.1(d). The court will de-stroy documents not retrieved within thirty daysof notice to retrieve them. Id. R. 79.1(e).


Cases with Sealed Settlement AgreementsSealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant (MN 0:98-cv-02428 filed 11/10/1998).Fraud action. The docket sheet is sealed. The casewas dismissed as settled.

M.K. v. Pinnacle Programs Inc. (MN 0:98-cv-02440filed 11/13/1998).Section 1983 civil rights action by a minor plaintiffagainst an individual, a corporation, and a countyand its board of supervisors. The case was dis-missed as settled. The entire case file is sealed.

Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant (MN 0:99-cv-00292 filed 02/18/1999).Fraud action. The docket sheet is sealed. The casewas dismissed as settled.

W.E v. Hennepin County (MN 0:99-cv-00585 filed04/13/1999).Section 1983 civil rights action by minor plaintiffsagainst the Hennepin County Children and Fam-ily Services Department and two of its represen-tatives for repeatedly ignoring signs of neglectand both physical and sexual abuse while thechildren were in their mother’s care. In a sealed

50. One dismissal for want of prosecution; 3 judg-

ments on motions before trial, 1 voluntary dismissal, 3“other” dismissals, 1 case affirmed by the appeal divi-sion.

51. Four cases settled.

order, the court approved the settlement agree-ment and dismissed the case.

Stockberger v. Physicians Mutual Insurance Co. (MN0:99-cv-00805 filed 05/24/1999).Contract action by a division manager for wrong-ful termination. The employer filed a counter-claim alleging misappropriation of trade secrets,intentional interference with contractual relations,and unfair competition. The case was settled anddismissed. The settlement transcript was sealed.

Dimensional Arts Inc. v. Holographic LabelConverting Inc. (MN 0:99-cv-00958 filed06/23/1999).Patent infringement action concerning a holo-graphic product. A sealed settlement agreementwas filed. The court enjoined the defendants frominfringing on the plaintiff’s patent and using itstrade secrets.

Heidi Ott A.G v. Target Stores Inc. (MN 0:99-cv-01170 filed 07/29/1999).Trademark action concerning Swiss dolls. Thecase was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settle-ment agreement. Two months later the plaintifffiled a motion to enforce the settlement agree-ment. The court granted the motion and providedthe parties with a settlement payment schedule.

Von Ruden v. Arvig Enterprises Inc. (MN 0:99-cv-01260 filed 08/11/1999).Employment action for wrongful termination justdays before the birth of the plaintiff’s secondchild. The parties entered into a confidential set-tlement agreement that was sealed by the court.

Schlicht v. Dakota Minnesota & Eastern RailroadCorp. (MN 0:99-cv-02059 filed 12/28/1999).Wrongful death federal employers’ liability actionon behalf of the widow and children of the de-ceased plaintiff against a city and a railroad cor-poration. The case was dismissed as settled. Theentire case file is sealed.

Keystone Retaining Wall Systems Inc. v. RockwoodRetaining Walls Inc. (MN 0:00-cv-00496 filed03/03/2000).Patent infringement action concerning retainingwall blocks. The case was dismissed pursuant to asealed settlement agreement.


C-55

Binkerd v. Mayo Foundation (MN 0:00-cv-00985filed 04/17/2000).Medical malpractice action for the wrongful deathof a child. The case settled. All documents relatingto the settlement are marked confidential under aprotective order and may only be viewed uponwritten order issued by the court.

Hutchinson v. Nutro Products Inc. (MN 0:00-cv-01929 filed 08/14/2000).Trademark infringement action concerning petfood. 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 toenforce the settlement agreement. The court’s or-der on the defendant’s motion is sealed. The caseultimately was dismissed.

Kaufman v. University Travel Services Inc. (MN 0:00-cv-02226 filed 09/29/2000).Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act forfailure to pay an employee overtime wages pur-suant to an agreement the defendant entered intowith the Department of Labor. The case was dis-missed pursuant to a sealed settlement agree-ment.

Robinson v. Preferred Management Services Inc. (MN0:00-cv-02419 filed 10/30/2000).Action under the Fair Housing Act alleging racediscrimination and refusal to accommodate theplaintiffs’ asthma disability. The court approvedand sealed a minor’s settlement.

Young v. Conroy (MN 0:01-cv-00354 filed02/27/2001).Marine action on behalf of a minor child for inju-ries from the defendant’s motorboat. The partiesentered into a confidential settlement agreement,which the court placed under seal.

Jones v. Messerli & Kramer PA (MN 0:01-cv-00748filed 04/30/2001).Fraud action under the Fair Debt Collection Actfor trying to collect a debt with notice of theplaintiff’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy case. The casewas dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlementagreement.

Vertical Real Estate Inc. v. AirBand CommunicationsInc. (MN 0:01-cv-00804 filed 05/09/2001).Fraud action by a real estate corporation against aseller of broadband wireless communication

services for breach of contract. The plaintiff al-leged that the defendant used proprietary infor-mation to circumvent the plaintiff and enter intocontracts with the plaintiff’s subcontractors di-rectly. The case settled, and the court ordered thetranscript 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 Egyp-tian employee against a food service corporation.The case settled, and the court sealed the tran-script of the settlement agreement.

Percarina v. Tokai Corp. (MN 0:01-cv-01655 filed09/07/2001).Product liability action arising from the negligentmanufacture of a butane lighter that was notchild-resistant and caused catastrophic burns totwo minor children. The defendants filed a coun-terclaim of contributory negligence and indem-nity. The case was dismissed as settled. The courtorder approving the minors’ settlement and dis-tribution 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 theplaintiff’s premium overpayments. The defen-dants filed a counterclaim alleging that the plain-tiff failed to pay for the coverage afforded. Thecase was dismissed as settled. The confidentialtranscript of the settlement conference was sealed.

Winmark Corp. v. MNO Inc. (MN 0:01-cv-01805filed 10/02/2001).Originally filed as a trademark infringement ac-tion, the complaint was amended to allege breachof an anticompetition covenant instead. The casesettled, and the court ordered the defendants tokeep the terms of the settlement agreement confi-dential. The transcript of the settlement agree-ment was sealed. However, a subsequent stipula-tion order reveals that the defendants agreed torename three of their stores and, with respect toeach store, enter into new franchise agreementswith the plaintiffs.

Independent School District No. 112 v. A.S. (MN0:01-cv-01859 filed 10/10/2001).Civil rights action against a seven-year-old specialeducation student by a school district appealingthe decision by a district hearing officer that theschool district needs to provide one-to-one nurs-


C-56

ing care pursuant to the Individuals with Dis-abilities Education Act. The case settled, and thetranscript of the settlement conference was sealed.

Universal Hospital Services Inc. v. Hennessy (MN0:01-cv-02072 filed 11/13/2001).Breach of contract action by a supplier of move-able medical equipment alleging that its formerdistrict manager used confidential trade informa-tion to solicit the plaintiff’s customers on behalf ofa competitor and in violation of a noncompetitionagreement. The defendant filed a counterclaimalleging that he signed the agreement after he hadalready begun employment and received no con-sideration for signing it. The case settled. The set-tlement 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 oftheir minor children for race discrimination. Thecase was dismissed as settled. The court approvedand sealed the minors’ settlement agreements.The entire case file is under seal.

Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant (MN 0:02-cv-00369 filed 02/12/2002).Fraud action. The docket sheet is sealed. The casewas 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 medicalimplant devices against a former distributor, al-leging violation of the covenants not to compete.The defendant filed a counterclaim alleging thatthe plaintiff failed to pay a commission for serv-ices rendered. The case settled. The settlementagreement was sealed. Some of the settlementterms appear to be detailed in the consent order.

Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant (MN 0:02-cv-04270 filed 11/07/2002).Contract action. The docket sheet is sealed. Thecase was dismissed as settled.

Northern District of Mississippi52

Court records may be sealed only upon a showingof good cause. N. & S. D. Miss. L.R. 83.6(B). Ab-

52. This district was selected at random for thestudy, and it has a good-cause rule.

sent an order to the contrary, sealed documentsare unsealed thirty days after the case is over. Id.R. 83.6(D). If a court orders a document sealedbeyond that time period, the order “shall set adate for unsealing.” Id. (Note that the Northernand Southern Districts of Mississippi have thesame local rules.)


Cases with Sealed Settlement AgreementsSmith v. Salvation Army (MS-N 1:99-cv-00148 filed04/03/1999).Contract action by a bookkeeper for wrongfultermination. The case was dismissed as settled,and the parties agreed to keep terms of the set-tlement confidential. Two months later the plain-tiff filed a sealed motion to enforce the settlementagreement. 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 BostonMortgage Capital Inc. v. Bayou Caddy’s Jubilee Casino(MS-N 4:99-cv-00284 filed 11/22/1999).Foreclosure actions concerning preferred shipmortgages pertaining to riverboat gambling. Theparties filed a stipulation of dismissal. Over threemonths later the court granted a joint motion toseal the record.

Banks v. CCA of Tennessee Inc. (MS-N 4:01-cv-00150filed 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 forfailure to pay employees overtime for meetingsthe plaintiffs attended as part of their employ-ment but beyond their scheduled shift. The plain-tiffs filed under seal a motion to enforce a settle-ment agreement. The court ordered the defen-dants to pay approximately $2,075,000 to 346plaintiffs, with notice to a handful of namedplaintiffs whose claims were determined not to bevalid.


C-57

Southern District of Mississippi53

Court records may be sealed only upon a showingof good cause. N. & S. D. Miss. L.R. 83.6(B). Ab-sent an order to the contrary, sealed documentsare unsealed thirty days after the case is over. Id.R. 83.6(D). If a court orders a document sealedbeyond that time period, the order “shall set adate for unsealing.” Id. (Note that the Northernand Southern Districts of Mississippi have thesame local rules.)


Cases with Sealed Settlement AgreementsSealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant (MS-S 1:95-cv-00161 filed 03/23/1995).Statutory action. The docket sheet is sealed. Thecase was dismissed as settled.

Sistrunk v. Forest Oil Corp. (MS-S 2:97-cv-00070filed 02/18/1997).Product liability action by the mother of three mi-nors for a fatal drilling rig accident that resultedin the wrongful death of their father. The courtgranted one defendant summary judgment. Theplaintiffs settled with another defendant for$49,000. The case against the remaining defen-dants was then dismissed as settled. The courtordered the transcript of the settlement conferencesealed.

Compass Marine v. Lambert Fenchurch (MS-S 1:99-cv-00252 filed 04/05/1999).Fraud action. The docket sheet is sealed. The casewas 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 vol-

untary dismissals, 1 “other” dismissal.55. Two cases settled.

Donnell v. BellSouth Telecommunications Inc. (MS-S3:00-cv-00202 filed 03/14/2000).Employment discrimination action by an African-American technician. The case settled. The defen-dants filed a motion to enforce the settlementagreement. The plaintiff opposed the motion andmoved to seal the settlement agreement that wasattached as an exhibit. The court granted theplaintiff’s motion to enforce. The case is on ap-peal.

Calvert Co. v. Conte Glancz Industries Inc. (MS-S3:00-cv-00704 filed 09/20/2000).Breach of contract action by a manufacturer ofhigh voltage electrical bus systems for nonpay-ment. The case was dismissed pursuant to asealed settlement agreement.

Boyd v. G & K Services Inc. (MS-S 2:00-cv-00327filed 12/29/2000).Employment action by a sales representative forunjust discipline, suspension, and demotion afterhe reported sexual harassment of himself andothers by management. The case settled. Thecourt ordered the transcript of the settlement con-ference sealed.

Forestry Suppliers Inc. v. General Supply Corp. (MS-S3:01-cv-00014 filed 01/09/2001).Copyright infringement action concerning for-estry catalogues. The case was dismissed pursu-ant to a sealed settlement agreement.

Hufstetler v. Hudson Salvage Inc. (MS-S 1:01-cv-00156 filed 04/18/2001).Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act forfailure to pay overtime wages. The case was set-tled and dismissed. According to the joint stipu-lation of dismissal, “the settlement agreementcontains payment for all claims for back pay,overtime, liquidated damages, attorneys fees,costs, interest, breach of contract damages, andback benefits which have been or could have beenraised by plaintiff.” The court later granted thedefendant’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 forfailure to pay employees overtime wages formeetings held outside employees’ scheduledshifts. The case was dismissed as settled. The file


C-58

contains a sealed document that appears to be thesettlement agreement.

Pasha Hawaii Transport Lines LLC v. TravelersCasualty and Surety Co. (MS-S 1:01-cv-00279 filed07/10/2001).Breach of contract action against a surety com-pany concerning performance and payment in theconstruction of a car-and-truck carrier vessel. Thecase settled, and the court sealed the record of thesettlement hearing.

Mabry v. Cooper Tire and Rubber Co. (MS-S 3:01-cv-00810 filed 10/18/2001).Product liability action concerning automobiletires. The case was dismissed as settled. The courtsealed all documents related to the settlementagreement on behalf of the minor plaintiff. How-ever, a subsequent court order releasing the mi-nor’s claims against Ford Motor Company for thesum of $5,000 is unsealed.

Huffmaster v. Harlin (MS-S 2:02-cv-00001 filed01/03/2002).Section 1983 civil rights action concerning thewarrantless illegal search of the plaintiff’s bed-room. The plaintiff was jailed and refused bond.The case settled. The defendants subsequentlyfiled a motion to compel settlement and for anaward of attorney fees and costs. The courtgranted the plaintiff’s request to seal the defen-dants’ motion, because it contained terms of theconfidential settlement agreement. The settlementwas renegotiated, and some documents were or-dered sealed by the court.

Barlow v. Equifax Information Services Inc. (MS-S2:02-cv-00088 filed 04/05/2002).Personal injury action under the Fair Credit Re-porting Act for inaccurate information posted tothe plaintiff’s credit file. The case settled. Thetranscript of the settlement conference was sealed.

Tillery Dental Clinic PLLC v. BellSouth Credit andCollections Management Inc. (MS-S 2:02-cv-00796filed 10/01/2002).Breach of contract action by dental clinics for neg-ligence in managing the plaintiffs’ advertising.The defendants filed a counterclaim seeking com-plete payment for the advertisements. The partiessettled, and the court sealed the transcript of thesettlement conference.

Eastern District of Missouri56

A document may be filed under seal only by courtorder upon a showing of good cause. E.D. Mo.L.R. 83-13.05(A)(1). Absent an order to the con-trary, sealed documents may be unsealed andplaced in the public file thirty days after the caseis over. Id. R. 83-13.05(A)(2).

Statistics: 4,798 cases in termination cohort; 342docket sheets (7.1%) have the word “seal” in them(but 98 of these merely have the word “seal” inplace of docket entry clerk initials); 53 completedocket sheets (1.1%) were reviewed; actual docu-ments were examined for 22 cases (0.46%); 20cases (0.42%) appear to have sealed settlementagreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement AgreementsMcCrary v. Delo (MO-E 4:93-cv-00384 filed02/12/1993).Civil rights prisoner petition in which the plaintiffalleged that prison guards permitted a race-basedattack on him, nearly resulting in the severing ofhis ear. The plaintiff further alleged inadequatemedical treatment and retaliation for seeking legalredress. After a trial, the jury found in favor of theplaintiff on some claims and in favor of some de-fendants on others, awarding the plaintiff $50,000in compensatory damages and $80,000 in punitivedamages. Other claims previously dismissed onsummary judgment were reopened when it wasdiscovered that the defendants withheld court-ordered discovery. The case subsequently wasreferred to mediation, where it was settled. Ac-cording to a later-filed unsealed court opinion, theterms of settlement included payment to theplaintiff of $200,000 and confidentiality.

The plaintiff subsequently filed under seal a“motion for order vacating order re dismissal,vacating trial setting, reopening discovery andassessing sanctions.” This motion most likely wasfiled under seal because it disclosed terms of theconfidential settlement agreement. Apparently,after the defense counsel agreed to the settlement,the Missouri Attorney General’s Office deter-mined it had to notify victims of the plaintiff’scrimes of the settlement, contrary to the settle-ment agreement, and the plaintiff was concernedthat the victims would seek to block payment. Thedefense counsel was sanctioned, and the case ul-timately was dismissed as resolved.

56. This district was selected at random for the

study, and it has a good-cause rule.


C-59

Perez v. Ford Motor Co. (MO-E 4:98-cv-01973 filed11/25/1998).Motor vehicle product liability action by a wifeand two children for their injuries and for thehusband’s wrongful death in an automobile acci-dent. The plaintiffs and decedent were passengersin an Aerostar minivan, which was driven by thedefendant driver, rented from the defendantrental agency, and manufactured by the defen-dant auto maker. Apparently, the van hit a patchof ice, rolled down an embankment, and lost itsside door, causing the decedent to be thrown fromthe van and killed when his seatbelt, manufac-tured by the defendant seatbelt manufacturer,failed. The court approved a settlement with thedefendant driver in which the wife received$51,000 for her injuries, each child received $2,500for the child’s own injuries and $7,000 for thewrongful death of the child’s father, and theplaintiffs’ attorneys received $30,000.

Over one year later, the court approved a set-tlement with the defendant seatbelt manufacturerin which each child received $12,000, the dece-dent’s mother received $6,000, and the plaintiffs’attorneys received $20,000. Approximately oneyear after that, the case against the remaining de-fendants was dismissed pursuant to a sealed set-tlement agreement. An unsealed order approvingthe structure of the minors’ settlement disclosesthat the auto maker agreed to future payments tothe children equivalent to approximately $100,000total 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 bloodproduct. During the plaintiff wife’s first preg-nancy, she was given RhoGAM to protect subse-quent pregnancies from Rh incompatibility. Theplaintiffs husband, wife, and baby sued for inju-ries sustained during delivery following the sec-ond pregnancy, allegedly arising from insufficientRhoGAM dosage during the first delivery. (Filedpapers suggest the defective dosage subsequentlywas recalled.) At court-ordered ADR, the casesettled. The plaintiffs filed a motion to approvethe settlement on behalf of the minor, stating thatRh incompatibility did not appear to result inpermanent injury to the minor, and attaching asealed copy of the confidential settlement agree-ment. The court approved the settlement anddismissed the case.

Rademeyer v. Farris (MO-E 4:99-cv-01770 filed11/12/1999).Personal property fraud action alleging that thedefendant wrongfully netted $602,000 by simulta-neously negotiating the sale of a medical technol-ogy corporation in which he was 51% owner andthe purchase of the remaining 49% for substan-tially less than the sale price. The district courtgranted the defendant summary judgment, butthe court of appeals reversed. On remand, thecase settled and the court accepted a copy of thesettlement agreement under seal.

Ray v. de Castro (MO-E 4:00-cv-00118 filed01/25/2000).Medical malpractice action by the husband andchildren of a woman who died from breast cancerfor failure to diagnose and treat the cancer earlyenough to save her. After a settlement hearingbefore the court, a settlement agreement was ap-proved by sealed court order. Upon satisfaction ofjudgment, the case was dismissed.

United States ex rel. Padda v. Jefferson MemorialHospital P.H.O. (MO-E 4:00-cv-00177 filed02/03/2000).Qui tam action under the False Claims Act. Thedocket sheet shows only documents 1, 17, 18, and19. The last document is a “sealed stipulation fordismissal of case,” and all four documents, in-cluding the complaint, are sealed.

Black v. AutoZone Inc. (MO-E 4:00-cv-00488 filed03/23/2000).Motor vehicle personal injury action against atruck driver and a truck company by parents of aboy killed in a traffic accident with the truck. Thecourt approved a settlement agreement by an or-der the court ordered sealed for fifteen years.

Cummings v. Mallinckrodt Inc. (MO-E 4:00-cv-00660filed 04/20/2000).Designated a civil rights action, this is an em-ployment action for wrongful termination in re-taliation for previously pursuing an employmentdiscrimination lawsuit against the defendant thatultimately was settled. The defendant filed asealed “motion to enforce settlement agreementreached during the Court ordered mediation,”and the plaintiff opposed the motion by sealedbrief. The case was resolved without a hearing onthe motion.


C-60

Orthodontic Centers of Missouri Inc. v. Bhatia (MO-E4:00-cv-00765 filed 05/09/2000).Contract action by a provider of business and of-fice management to orthodontic practices againstan orthodontist for failure to make monthly pay-ments. The plaintiff filed a motion to enforce asettlement agreement, and a copy of the agree-ment was filed under seal. The matter ultimatelywas resolved without a hearing on the motion toenforce.

Berliner v. LoBue Associates (MO-E 4:00-cv-00824filed 05/17/2000).Contract action by a departing corporate CEOagainst the corporation for three years’ salary asseverance pay. After the court twice denied thedefendants’ motions for summary judgment, theparties settled and the court sealed the transcriptof the settlement hearing. The case was dismissed,and the court retained jurisdiction to enforce theagreement.

Schuppert v. Orthodontic Centers of America (MO-E4:00-cv-01034 filed 06/23/2000).Contract action by a dentist against his businessand office management provider. The defendantsfiled a sealed motion to enforce a confidential set-tlement agreement. Before the motion was heard,the disagreement apparently was resolved andthe case dismissed pursuant to a consent judg-ment disclosing no settlement terms beyond thevalidity 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 fetusand injuries to the mother and her child when themother and child were arrested after the childaccidentally hit a police officer’s private car with atar-paper shingle he was throwing into the air tosee fly. The plaintiffs, who are African-American,also alleged race discrimination. The courtgranted the plaintiffs’ motion to approve a$400,000 settlement agreement calling for pay-ment of $70,360 to the mother now and $10,000per year thereafter, $25,000 to the child on hiseighteenth birthday, and $173,455 to the plaintiffs’attorneys. Subsequent to the court’s granting thismotion by “ruled document,” the court filed an“order approving settlement” under seal. Twodays later a newspaper article reported the city’ssettlement payment, prompting the defendants torequest a gag order on the plaintiffs, which thecourt denied.

Estate of Dobbins v. City of Pagedale (MO-E 4:00-cv-01104 filed 07/07/2000).Civil rights action for wrongful killing by a policeofficer. The case was dismissed pursuant to a con-fidential settlement agreement, which the courtapproved by sealed order. Filed correspondencesuggests that the decedent’s minor son wouldobtain his interest in the settlement upon reachingthe age of eighteen.

McDermott v. 7-Eleven Inc. (MO-E 4:00-cv-01495filed 09/15/2000).Designated an employment action, the complaintalleges sexual harassment, including unwantedsexual touching, of a female employee and herminor daughter. The case was consolidated withtwo other cases for discovery purposes (McCroy v.7-Eleven Inc., MO-E 4:00-cv-01495, and Castrogio-vanni v. 7-Eleven Inc., MO-E 4:00-cv-01974). Thecase settled, and the plaintiffs filed a sealed mo-tion to approve the minor’s settlement, which thecourt granted. Two months after the case’s con-clusion, the clerk notified counsel that sealeddocuments would be unsealed absent an order tothe contrary. The court granted the defendant’smotion to return the sealed documents to the de-fendant.

Tipler v. Delta Area Economic Opportunity Corp.(MO-E 1:00-cv-00152 filed 12/13/2000).Employment action in which thirteen African-American plaintiffs alleged forty-one causes ofaction pertaining to a racially discriminatory hos-tile work environment and wrongful termination.After some claims were dismissed on summaryjudgment, the case went to trial. During a break,the case settled. The settlement agreement wasput on the record, settlement proceedings weresealed, and the case was dismissed.

Nottingham v. Women’s Health Specialists PC (MO-E1:01-cv-00005 filed 01/10/2001).Medical malpractice action for brain injury to ababy resulting from negligent pregnancy care anddelivery. The case was dismissed pursuant to asealed judgment of settlement. An unsealed satis-faction of judgment showed that the plaintiffs re-ceived $100,000 in settlement.

Bowler v. Southwestern Bell Telephone LP (MO-E4:01-cv-00131 filed 01/26/2001).Employment action by a plaintiff with psoriasisfor wrongful termination and disability discrimi-nation. The case settled at court-ordered ADR, but


C-61

two weeks later the plaintiff’s counsel requestedto withdraw as counsel on the ground that hisclient dismissed him; the plaintiff apparently de-veloped second thoughts. Approximately onemonth later the defendant filed a sealed motion toenforce the settlement agreement. Approximatelyone week later, the plaintiff’s attorney filed asealed motion to enforce the settlement agree-ment. The plaintiff’s attorney’s motion to recoverhis fees from the plaintiff discloses that the casewas settled for $7,500. The attorney recoveredfrom the plaintiff $5,700 in fees and $2,210.85 incosts.

Earth City Technologies Inc. v. Dentsply InternationalInc. (MO-E 4:01-cv-00173 filed 02/02/2001).Trademark infringement action concerning ultra-sonic endodontic tips. The parties filed a partialsettlement agreement under seal. The case contin-ues. (It is not clear why the statistical databaseshows the case to have been terminated in 2001.)

Stelbrink v. Manyx (MO-E 4:01-cv-00411 filed03/20/2001).Motor vehicle action in which a fourteen-year-oldIllinois resident sued the Missouri-resident driverof the car in which he was a passenger (a womanwith the same last name as the plaintiff—possiblythe mother or an aunt), a Missouri deputy sheriff,and the sheriff for injuries resulting from the dep-uty sheriff’s car colliding with the car in which theplaintiff rode while the deputy sheriff was ignor-ing traffic signals in response to an emergency.After hearings to approve settlement with the mi-nor plaintiff were initiated, the complaint wasamended to name the second minor passenger ofthe car as a plaintiff—the defendant driver’sdaughter, who also was a Missouri resident. Thecourt approved and sealed the settlement agree-ment.

Brown v. SSI Global Security Agency (MO-E 4:01-cv-00917 filed 06/08/2001).Employment action by a pro se plaintiff for sexualharassment. The case was dismissed pursuant to asealed settlement agreement.

Western District of MissouriNo relevant local rule.

Statistics: 4,857 cases in termination cohort; 167docket sheets (3.4%) have the word “seal” inthem; 35 complete docket sheets (0.72%) were re-viewed; actual documents were examined for 27

cases (0.56%); 24 cases (0.49%) appear to havesealed settlement agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement AgreementsJedrzejewski v. Reckitt & Colman Inc. (MO-W 6:97-cv-03637 filed 12/23/1997).Employment action for wrongful termination of aPolish employee in retaliation for EEO and OSHAcomplaints. The case settled, and the parties askedthe court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the set-tlement agreement, which the court ordered theparties to file under seal for court review. Thecourt dismissed the action with prejudice, retain-ing jurisdiction over the settlement.

Clune v. Industrivarden Service AB (MO-W 4:98-cv-00179 filed 02/11/1998).Product liability action by a woman and her mi-nor children against an elevator manufacturer forthe wrongful death of her husband on a construc-tion site when he fell off an elevator platform, al-legedly because of an inadequate guardrail. Thecase was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settle-ment agreement approved by the court.

Morris v. William Woods University (MO-W 2:99-cv-04062 filed 03/18/1999).Contract action for wrongful termination of theequestrian division chair in retaliation for her re-porting illegal horse trading by the university.The plaintiff’s attorney apparently agreed to asettlement, which the plaintiff claimed was be-yond the attorney’s authority, so the defendantfiled a sealed motion to enforce the settlementagreement, and the plaintiff’s attorney filed a mo-tion to withdraw. In an unsealed order, the courtheld that the parties had agreed to a settlement inwhich the plaintiff would receive $42,000 and herattorney would receive $32,851. The court alsoheld that the plaintiff would be liable for the de-fendants’ fees and costs in enforcing the agree-ment. The defendants sought $121,170.62, but thecourt granted the plaintiff’s motion to amend thejudgment, finding that the plaintiff did not act inbad faith in resisting the settlement agreement.

Moore v. Russell (MO-W 2:99-cv-04082 filed04/15/1999).Designated a prison-condition action, this is reallya civil rights action by a now-incarcerated womanagainst a sheriff’s department and its officers forcoercing her to engage in repeated acts of sexualintercourse in exchange for their unlawfully notserving an arrest warrant on her. According to a


C-62

minute entry, the parties settled, and “proceed-ings [were] to remain under seal.” That day thecourt received a check for $250,000 “to be depos-ited in court registry for settlement.” A sealed or-der concerning the settlement was filed the fol-lowing day, and the case was dismissed.

Thomas v. Kansas City Power and Light Co. (MO-W4:99-cv-00464 filed 05/11/1999).Employment action by an African-American em-ployee claiming racial discrimination in compen-sation, promotion, working conditions, and su-pervision. The parties filed a joint stipulation ofdismissal one week after the defendant filed asealed motion to enforce settlement.

Zuno-Cajayon v. Ashton Court Partners (MO-W4:99-cv-00560 filed 06/08/1999).Employment discrimination and breach of con-tract action by a Filipino nurse. Apparently sev-eral other plaintiffs filed similar lawsuits, whichwere consolidated for discovery. After mediation,as part of the court’s Early Assessment Program,one defendant moved to enforce an alleged set-tlement agreement whereby $40,000 would bepaid to twenty-six plaintiffs. The court held thatsuch an agreement had been reached and grantedthe motion. But the court rescinded its order uponlater determination that although there wasagreement on the amount of settlement, there wasnot agreement on which entities not parties to thecase would be released from liability. The defen-dant subsequently renewed its motion to enforce,but while the motion was pending the consoli-dated cases settled at a settlement conference. Thecourt ordered that the tape recording of the con-ference and the draft agreement presented as anexhibit 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 deathof the plaintiffs’ newborn baby as a result of neg-ligent delivery. A settlement was reached and ap-proved by the court at a settlement conference,and two conference exhibits were sealed. Theplaintiffs’ recovery is sealed, but the agreementcalled for their attorneys to receive $76,587.34 infees 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’ com-pensation insurance against a trucking company

for employing more workers than it acknowl-edged to the insurer. The parties announced asettlement at a telephonic settlement conference,the record of which the court ordered sealed. Thecase was dismissed by stipulation.

Banks v. Peak (MO-W 6:00-cv-03004 filed01/06/2000).Designated an employment discrimination action,the complaint alleges a variety of malicious ac-tions by an employer against a 78-year-old em-ployee. The alleged actions include gluing histoolbox shut, setting his toolbox on fire, andturning a fan on him in winter. The case settled ata settlement conference, the record of which wassealed.

James v. Tri-Lakes Newspapers Inc. (MO-W 6:00-cv-03019 filed 01/20/2000).Action under the Family Medical Leave Act by anewspaper advertising manager for failure to re-instate her after she took leave for a hysterectomy.The case settled at a settlement conference, therecord of which was sealed.

United States ex rel. Ken Babcock Sales Inc. v.Courtney Day Inc. (MO-W 5:00-cv-06018 filed02/11/2000).Action under the Miller Act for failure to pay fivesubcontractors amounts due totaling $388,648.65in a federal construction project for the MissouriAir National Guard. The defendants filed a coun-terclaim alleging that one of the plaintiffs pro-vided defective concrete. Three plaintiffs settled ata settlement conference, the record of which wassealed. The remaining plaintiffs settled at anotherconference, the proceedings of which also weresealed. The unsealed judgment shows a paymentof $292,131.48 to the plaintiffs.

Dobbs v. Youngelman (MO-W 4:00-cv-00374 filed04/21/2000).Medical malpractice action for brain damage re-sulting from the defendant’s failure to properlydiagnose and treat the plaintiff’s intraparenchy-mal hepatic hemorrhage. The case was dismissedpursuant to a sealed settlement agreement ap-proved 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 theschool district for wrongfully seeking her dis-missal and revocation of her teaching license after


C-63

her estranged husband delivered to the schooldistrict nude pictures of her that she had sent bye-mail to private correspondents. The court sealedthe record of a settlement conference, although itis not clear whether the case settled then. The fol-lowing week the parties filed a joint motion underseal, and the court granted the motion by sealedorder. A week later the parties filed a joint motionto dismiss the case, which the court granted.

Youngs v. ITT Industries Inc. (MO-W 4:00-cv-00463filed 05/15/2000).Product liability action for severe head and bodyinjuries, resulting in permanent disabilities, in-cluding brain damage, caused by an explosion ofthe defendants’ air tank when the plaintiff wastrying to fill it. The case settled at a settlementconference, and the court sealed the conferencetranscript. The sealed transcript was forwarded tothe county probate court for settlement approval.After the probate court approved the settlementagreement, the district court sealed an “applica-tion for approval of settlement involving an inca-pacitated person” and approved the agreement bysealed order. A subsequently filed unsealed orderdiscloses a settlement amount of $725,000, in-cluding attorney fees of $363,500 and attorneyexpenses of $112,282.13.

Sedalia Lab Inc. v. Novacare Orthotics & ProstheticsEast Inc. (MO-W 4:00-cv-00540 filed 06/01/2000).Contract action concerning a $7 million businesssale. The court sealed a transcript of an “in camerahearing on settlement agreement.” An unsealedconfession of judgment called for the defendantsto pay $2 million unless the defendants paid $1.7million by a certain date. Subsequently the courtfiled a sealed consent judgment. Other unsealeddocuments, however, confirm the $2 million con-tingent judgment.

Primus Corp. v. Bio-Rad Laboratories Inc. (MO-W4:00-cv-00634 filed 06/23/2000).Patent case concerning a diabetes test using high-performance liquid chromatography glycol he-moglobin blood assays. The case was dismissedpursuant to a sealed settlement agreement.

Gillihan v. D & M Masonry Inc. (MO-W 4:00-cv-00698 filed 07/11/2000).ERISA action by benefits trustees for wrongfullypaid benefit claims totaling approximately$200,000. The court denied the parties’ request toseal the entire record, but granted their request to

seal the settlement agreement, pursuant to whichthe 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 retailgrocers against a grocery wholesaler for fraudu-lent overbilling. One of the consolidated cases, aclass action originally filed in the District of Utah,settled for $16 million. Plaintiffs’ attorneys re-ceived $6 million in fees and approximately$300,000 in expenses, and two lead plaintiffs eachreceived an incentive of $100,000. The defendantfiled a sealed motion to enforce settlement agree-ments in three cases originally filed in the West-ern District of Missouri (Don’s United Super Inc. v.Werries, MO-W 98-06042 filed 03/18/1998; Cod-dington Enterprises v. Werries, MO-W 98-01100filed 10/19/1998; J&A Foods Inc. v. Fleming Cos.,MO-W 00-00285 filed 03/24/2000). The partiesresolved 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-Americanwoman with epilepsy for race and disability dis-crimination and retaliation. The case settled at asettlement conference, the record of which wassealed.

C.S. v. Heartland Chicken Inc. (MO-W 4:01-cv-00058filed 01/16/2001).Designated an employment discrimination action,this is an action for rape of a minor female Pop-eye’s employee by a male co-worker. The casewas dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlementagreement approved by the court.

Fitzgerald v. New Holland North America Inc. (MO-W 2:01-cv-04032 filed 02/13/2001).Product liability action for wrongful death when a1949 tractor manufactured by the defendant rolledover. The parties filed a sealed motion for settle-ment approval. Unsealed documents show theamount 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 disabled11-year-old boy by a schoolmate and for the de-fendant school district’s failure to accommodatethe resulting trauma in the boy’s education. The


C-64

defendant denied that sexual abuse occurred. Thecase was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settle-ment agreement approved by the court.

Wilson v. Goody Products Inc. (MO-W 2:01-cv-06152filed 12/21/2001).Product liability action on behalf of a six-year-oldgirl for blindness to one eye caused by a springymetal headband manufactured by the defendant.The case was dismissed pursuant to a sealed set-tlement agreement approved by the court.

Kelly v. Ex-L-Tube Inc. (MO-W 4:02-cv-00543 filed06/06/2002).Employment disability discrimination action by ashipper whose right arm was amputated at theelbow as a result of an on-the-job injury. The casesettled at a settlement conference, the record ofwhich was sealed.

District of New HampshireThe District of New Hampshire recognizes twolevels of sealing. Documents sealed at Level I maybe reviewed without court order by any attorneyappearing in the action. D.N.H. L.R. 83.11(b)(1).Documents sealed at Level II may be reviewedwithout court order only by the filer (or the per-son to whom an order is directed if the sealeddocument is an order). Id. R. 83.11(b)(2). Docu-ments may be sealed only by court order, andmotions to seal must explain the basis for sealingand specify which level of sealing is desired. Id. R.83.11(c).

Statistics: 1,157 cases in termination cohort; 2docket sheets are sealed (0.17%)—both of thesecases’ disposition codes suggest no sealed settle-ment agreements;57 82 unsealed docket sheets(7.1%) have the word “seal” in them; 10 completedocket sheets (0.86%) were reviewed; actualdocuments were examined for 4 cases (0.35%); 4cases (0.35%) appear to have sealed settlementagreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement AgreementsA.S.I. Worldwide Communications Corp. v.WorldCom Inc. (NH 1:98-cv-00154 filed03/17/1998).Contract action between providers of telephoneservice. The plaintiff filed under seal a motion toenforce a settlement agreement, but before the

57. Two “other” dismissals.

case closed, the defendant filed for bankruptcyprotection 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 prod-uct MultiBond, a chemical solution used in themanufacture of printed circuit boards, infringedthe plaintiffs’ patent. The defendant alleged thatits product did not infringe, because it did not usea cationic surfactant, and filed a counterclaim fortortious business interference. The court grantedthe defendant summary judgment on the patentclaim, and the plaintiffs appealed. With the plain-tiffs’ appeal and the defendant’s counterclaim stillpending, the parties settled and filed a sealed set-tlement agreement.

Griffin v. Odyssey House Inc. (NH 1:99-cv-00561filed 12/03/1999).Personal injury action against a residential facilityfor emotionally troubled adolescents for negli-gently permitting a 15-year-old resident to at-tempt suicide by hanging herself with her belt,which left her in a persistent vegetative state. Thecase settled pursuant to a confidential settlementagreement. The settlement agreement was filedunder seal and then returned to the parties. Theamount of settlement was kept confidential, butunsealed documents disclose that settlementfunds were used to satisfy Medicaid liens and es-tablish a special needs irrevocable trust.

Armstrong v. Correctional Medical Services Inc. (NH1:00-cv-00532 filed 11/14/2000).Civil rights action for wrongful death resultingfrom inadequate medical treatment for a headinjury inflicted by a correctional officer while thedecedent was held at the Hillsborough CountyHouse of Corrections under arrest for failure topay child support. The plaintiff filed a sealed mo-tion to approve a settlement agreement on behalfof the decedent’s minor heir. The court approvedthe agreement, but denied the motion to seal theapproval motion, and ordered the confidentialagreement returned to the parties.

District of New MexicoNo relevant local rule.

Statistics: 3,084 cases in termination cohort; 3docket sheets are sealed (0.10%)—the dispositioncodes for 2 of these cases suggest no sealed set-


C-65

tlement agreements,58 and the disposition code for1 of these cases suggests a sealed settlementagreement;59 86 unsealed docket sheets (2.8%)have the word “seal” in them; 23 complete docketsheets (0.75%) were reviewed; actual documentswere examined for 19 cases (0.62%); 19 cases(0.62%) appear to have sealed settlement agree-ments.

Cases with Sealed Settlement AgreementsDoss v. Major League Baseball Properties Inc. (NM1:98-cv-00927 filed 08/03/1998).Personal property damage action concerning thesurreptitious appropriation of a commercial tradename. The case settled, and the stipulated order ofdismissal was sealed.

Loeffler v. Transportation Manufacturing Corp. (NM6:98-cv-01424 filed 11/19/1998).Product liability action for wrongful death arisingfrom the defective design and manufacture of asafety platform. The case settled. The court ap-pointed a guardian ad litem for the decedent’sminor children. There appears to be a sealed set-tlement 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 mutualfund alleging that a former employee was engag-ing in an ongoing criminal conspiracy includingextortion and threats to publicize false informa-tion. The defendants filed a counterclaim allegingbreach of an oral partnership agreement. Two ofthe parties resolved their dispute by way of a con-fidential settlement agreement. The court entereda stipulated permanent injunction under seal aspart of the settlement agreement.

Velasco v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (NM 1:99-cv-01369filed 11/23/1999).Motor vehicle product liability action for the neg-ligent design and manufacture of an automobile,which caused the vehicle to roll over several timeson the highway. The plaintiff sustained perma-nent and disabling spinal cord injuries. The par-ties settled, agreeing to keep the amount andterms of the settlement confidential. The courtsealed documents that disclosed the terms of thesettlement agreement. The court retained juris-

58. Two “other” dismissals.59. One case settled.

diction over the settlement fund. The case wasdismissed as settled.

Ramirez v. Isuzu Motors Ltd. (NM 1:00-cv-00331filed 03/06/2000).Product liability action for wrongful death in avehicle rollover accident as a result of the negli-gent design and manufacture of an SUV. The casesettled. The court approved the settlement on be-half of the surviving minor and placed the agree-ment under seal.

Dillon v. Jackson (NM 6:00-cv-00751 filed05/24/2000).Civil rights action by a female prisoner for rapeand assault by six corrections officers. The casesettled. The plaintiff filed a motion for a court or-der approving the settlement, appointing aguardian ad litem, and sealing court records ofthe settlement proceedings. The defendants op-posed the motion. The transcript of the proceed-ing was sealed.

John v. United States (NM 1:00-cv-00850 filed06/13/2000).Medical malpractice action for a baby’s brain in-jury resulting from lack of oxygen during deliv-ery. The case was consolidated with John v. UnitedStates (NM 1:01-cv-00285 filed 03/13/2001). Aguardian ad litem was appointed for the child.The case was dismissed as settled. The court orderapproving the minor’s settlement agreement wassealed.

Hymes-Odorizzi v. Royal Maccabees Mutual LifeInsurance Co. (NM 1:00-cv-00940 filed06/29/2000).Insurance action for recovery of benefits under adisability insurance policy. The defendants filed acounterclaim alleging that the plaintiff was notdisabled while her policy was in force. The casewas dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlementagreement.

Wallace v. Greer Enterprises Inc. (NM 1:00-cv-00952filed 07/03/2000).Stockholders’ suit against a property managementcorporation for corporate oppression of minorityshareholders. The case settled, and the tape-recorded settlement agreement, transcribed by theclerk, was sealed. A subsequent dispute arosewith respect to the nondisclosure provision of theconfidential settlement agreement. Each of theparties, pursuant to court order, submitted alter-


C-66

native language under seal, and the court issued aconfidentiality order. The court subsequentlygranted the parties’ requests to remove the tape-recorded settlement agreement from the court’sfile and docket. The case ultimately was dismissedas settled.

Unzueta v. Pope (NM 6:00-cv-01015 filed07/13/2000).Motor vehicle action for serious bodily injuries. Aguardian ad litem was appointed to represent theminor plaintiff. The case settled. The transcript ofthe evidentiary hearing on settlement was sealed.

Whitley v. New Mexico Department of HumanServices (NM 2:00-cv-01101 filed 07/28/2000).Section 1983 civil rights action by a guardian adlitem on behalf of a child alleging rape by anotherminor while they both were under the care andsupervision of New Mexico’s Children, Youth,and Families Department. The case was dismissedas settled, and the transcript of the proceedingswas sealed.

Espinosa v. Flores (NM 1:00-cv-01641 filed11/20/2000).Section 1983 civil rights action on behalf of a mi-nor against her elementary school teacher, alleg-ing sexual harassment and sexually offensivetouching. A guardian ad litem was appointed.The case settled. The proceedings approving theminor’s settlement agreement were sealed.

United States v. New Mexico Department of PublicSafety (NM 1:00-cv-01656 filed 11/22/2000).Employment action alleging sexual harassment ofa public safety employee. The parties entered intoa written confidential settlement agreement. Theemployee filed a sealed motion to enforce the set-tlement agreement. The dispute alleged in themotion was resolved, and the motion was with-drawn.

Thrasher v. Albuquerque Public School Board (NM1:01-cv-00113 filed 01/30/2001).Employment action alleging discrimination basedon race and sex, which resulted in harassment anda demotion. The case was dismissed pursuant to asealed settlement agreement.

Miller v. Napoli (NM 1:01-cv-00145 filed02/05/2001).Personal injury action against a law firm, allegingbreach of fiduciary duty and negligent represen-tation in a class action suit. The law firm filed athird-party complaint against the plaintiff’sbrother, an attorney who advised her during theclass action suit. The case settled. The court sealedthe plaintiff’s motion to enforce the settlementagreement.

Maguire v. Albuquerque Public School District (NM1:02-cv-00325 filed 03/22/2002).Personal injury action concerning the battery of aminor student with attention deficit disorder byanother student, resulting in physical disfigure-ment. The case settled. The clerk’s minutes re-garding the approval of the settlement weresealed.

L.W. v. Gallup McKinley County School Board (NM1:02-cv-00485 filed 04/29/2002).Section 1983 civil rights action alleging the sexualabuse of a minor student by a school counselor.The case settled. A guardian ad litem was ap-pointed for the minor. The transcript of the pro-ceedings approving the settlement was sealed.

J.A.D. v. City of Albuquerque (NM 1:02-cv-00664filed 06/07/2002).Section 1983 civil rights action concerning thesexual molestation of a minor by a school busdriver. The case settled. A guardian ad litem wasappointed for approval of the settlement. Theclerk’s minutes regarding the approval hearingwere sealed.

Arviso v. Mission Manor Health (NM 6:02-cv-01072filed 08/27/2002).Statutory action. The docket sheet is sealed. Thecase was dismissed as settled.

Eastern District of New YorkTo clear out its vault, the district court orderedthat sealed documents be archived at the recordscenter and disposed of after twenty years there.E.D.N.Y. Admin. Order 2001-02 (Feb. 21, 2001).



C-67

Cases with Sealed Settlement AgreementsAetna Casualty and Surety Co. v. Berson (NY-E 1:95-cv-01712 filed 05/01/1995).RICO action by four insurance companies againstpublic adjusters, company adjusters, salvors, bro-kers, accountants, appraisers, attorneys, contrac-tors, investigators, and insureds. The plaintiffsalleged that the defendants inflated insurancelosses. Over 100 people were criminally chargedin this fraudulent scheme, and most have pledguilty. Separate settlement agreements werereached with each defendant, who then was dis-missed. One settlement agreement was filed un-der seal at the court’s request. The case was closedwhen one of the plaintiffs informed the court thatit did not intend to pursue the case any further.

Rodolico v. Unisys Corp. (NY-E 9:95-cv-03653 filed09/06/1995).Employment discrimination class action on behalfof all engineers over age 40 employed by the de-fendant and selected for layoff effective Novem-ber 23, 1993. The plaintiffs alleged that the defen-dant’s policies and practices in the layoff dis-criminated against its older employees by dispro-portionately selecting them for discharge and byusing evaluation practices which disfavored olderworkers. The court permitted the case to proceedas a class action for the purpose of determiningliability only. The case settled during mediation.The settlement agreement was approved on therecord 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-02962filed 06/13/1996).Copyright infringement action alleging copying oftechnical drawings to obtain approval from theFederal Aviation Administration to manufactureand distribute replacement parts for a fuel controlsystem designed and manufactured by the plain-tiff. Prior to the commencement of a jury trial, thecase settled and the settlement agreement wassealed. The case was administratively closed untilfive months later, when the court received theparties’ stipulation of dismissal, which was sealedand 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 ajudgment for violations of the Small Business In-vestment Act. This action was brought when theSmall Business Administration, acting as receiver,

discovered fraud. The case settled, and the settle-ment terms were placed under seal. A sealeddocument was placed in the vault. The court or-dered the action discontinued, and the case wasclosed.

Chadeayne v. Don Thuber Enterprises Inc. (NY-E9:97-cv-06043 filed 10/20/1997).Airplane action for severe and permanent injuriessustained when the charter aircraft the plaintiffwas taking to return from the defendant’s gam-bling establishment in New Jersey crashed intothe Atlantic Ocean six miles from Kennedy Air-port. The plaintiff settled with all defendants, in-cluding the owner, operator, and manufacturer ofthe aircraft as well as providers of the air charterservice. The parties stipulated to a dismissal withprejudice, and the court placed a sealed documentin the vault.

Williams v. Brookwood Childcare Services (NY-E1:98-cv-00230 filed 01/13/1998).Civil rights action by a minor’s guardian againstthe city of New York and various departmentsconcerning child welfare. The court approved asettlement at an infant compromise hearing. Thetape and transcript of the hearing were orderedsealed. The parties were asked to submit ordersreflecting hearing rulings. A sealed document wasplaced in the vault a week later. Another sealeddocument was placed in the vault one day beforethe court filed the parties’ stipulation and order ofdismissal with prejudice.

Wang v. Liang (NY-E 1:98-cv-02786 filed04/13/1998).Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act byseven garment workers for failure to pay mini-mum and overtime wages. The parties agreed tosettle in principle for $285,000. During a telephonesettlement conference, two outstanding settlementissues were resolved, and a confidential stipula-tion was placed on the record. The transcript ofthis stipulation was sealed. All claims against allbut three defendants were dismissed with preju-dice. A default judgment was entered against theremaining defendants, and the plaintiffs wereawarded $101,360.82 in compensatory and liqui-dated damages.

Jackson v. J.C. Penney Co. (NY-E 0:98-cv-02956 filed04/17/1998).Personal injury case for serious and permanentinjuries from a slip and fall, which occurred while


C-68

the plaintiff was on the defendant’s premises. Ajury trial commenced, but the parties settled afterthe plaintiff presented her case. A sealed settle-ment agreement was placed on the record, andthe case was dismissed with prejudice. The docketsheet indicates that a sealed document was placedin the vault shortly thereafter.

United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. AbconAssociates (NY-E 0:98-cv-03826 filed 05/28/1998).Designated a contract product liability action, thisis a contract action by the plaintiff surety com-pany against indemnitors for breach of an indem-nity agreement under which the plaintiff issuedperformance and payment bonds guaranteeingpayment to subcontractors and performance ofconstruction work. The parties settled, and thesettlement stipulation was placed on the recordand accepted by the court. On the same day, thecourt dismissed the case without prejudice to re-new should settlement not be consummated andplaced a sealed document in the vault. The casewas closed the next day.

Nu-Chem Laboratories Inc. v. Mastrorocco (NY-E9:98-cv-03867 filed 05/29/1998).Statutory action alleging RICO violations, in-cluding mail and wire fraud, trade libel, businessdisparagement, and defamation. The parties set-tled, and the court approved their stipulation ofsettlement and gave the parties permission to fileit with the court. A sealed document was placedin the vault, and the case was closed.

Reid v. City of New York (NY-E 1:98-cv-05929 filed09/23/1998).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 motheron behalf of her deceased daughter and her twosons. The plaintiff alleged that the defendantsplaced the children in foster care with adults whohad a prior record of child abuse and neglect andwho physically and psychologically abused thechildren, culminating in the torture and murder ofher daughter in the presence of her sons. During asettlement conference, the parties agreed to settlethe case in principle and submit infant compro-mise orders for court approval. The court ap-proved the settlement agreement and the plain-tiff’s proposed allocation and ordered the partiesto immediately execute the settlement agreement,which was filed under seal with the court. The

parties agreed to dismiss the action with preju-dice.

Goldsmith v. J.C. Penney Co. (NY-E 9:99-cv-00068filed 01/05/1999).Personal injury action for serious permanent inju-ries resulting from an escalator’s sudden stop-ping. After the plaintiff was sworn in at the jurytrial, the case settled on the record, and the recordwas ordered sealed. The case closed with preju-dice. One month later the defendant submittedthe settlement agreement and release, after whichthe parties promised to file a stipulation of dis-missal. The defendants agreed to pay the plaintiff$4,000. The court approved the settlement agree-ment and release.

Doolittle v. Board of Fire Commissioners (NY-E 0:99-cv-00495 filed 01/26/1999).Employment discrimination suit by a hearing-impaired volunteer firefighter for violation of theAmericans with Disabilities Act in excluding himfrom the fire department. The parties settled, anda tentative settlement was placed on the record.The court ordered the case discontinued withoutprejudice. The case was closed, and a little over aweek later a sealed document was placed in thevault. Five months later the parties filed a stipu-lation of settlement outlining the terms of the set-tlement and agreeing to discontinue the case withprejudice.

Piscitelli v. RJM Contracting Inc. (NY-E 9:99-cv-01318 filed 03/09/1999).ERISA action by the fiduciary of seven employeebenefit plans to enforce the defendants’ obliga-tions to make contributions to the plans. In addi-tion, as the chief executive officer of a labor orga-nization, the plaintiff alleged that the defendantsbreached their collective bargaining agreementwith the labor organization. The defendants in-formed the court that the parties had settled. Thecourt ordered the case closed, and a sealed docu-ment was placed in the vault the same day. Sev-eral months later the parties filed a stipulation ofdiscontinuance with prejudice stating that fullsettlement had been achieved.

Hutzler v. General Motors Corp. (NY-E 9:99-cv-01780 filed 03/26/1999).Motor vehicle product liability action against themanufacturer of a vehicle and the manufacturer ofits seatbelt restraint system for severe and perma-nent injuries sustained by a passenger in a colli-


C-69

sion. A jury was impaneled, but the case againstthe seatbelt manufacturer settled. The trial of thecase against the vehicle manufacturer ended in amistrial. The second jury trial commenced, andthe parties settled. The settlement agreement wasput on the record. The court ordered the recordsealed, and the transcript was placed in the vault.The court ordered the parties to file the settlementagreement under seal within thirty days. The ac-tion was dismissed with prejudice.

Gorman v. Polar Electro Inc. (NY-E 9:99-cv-02575filed 05/05/1999).Patent infringement action concerning inventionsfor monitoring biomedical response. During asettlement conference, the case settled and thestipulation of settlement was entered on the re-cord. Portions of the settlement were placed un-der seal. The case was dismissed with prejudiceand ordered closed.

Siebert v. Iowa Precision Industries Inc. (NY-E 1:99-cv-03159 filed 06/04/1999).Product liability action alleging that faulty instal-lation of the shear and uncoiler devices at theplaintiff’s work site caused a metal sheet to fall onthe plaintiff, which resulted in a herniated disk,back pain, double vision, and sexual dysfunction.The parties settled on the record during a settle-ment conference, and the tape was sealed. Thetranscript of the settlement conference was filed,disclosing that the defendant agreed to pay$6,000. The court accepted the parties’ stipulationof dismissal with prejudice.

Olivieri v. Del-Con Tile Inc. (NY-E 9:99-cv-03622filed 06/25/1999).ERISA action by trustees and fiduciaries of severalemployee labor–management trust funds allegingthat the defendant failed to comply with itsstatutory and contractual obligations to the trustfunds arising under the defendant’s collectivebargaining agreement with non-party unions. Theparties agreed to settle the case, but the court re-scheduled a pretrial conference after the partiesfailed to file a fully executed stipulation of dis-continuance. Several days after the defendant in-formed the court of its willingness to discuss set-tlement terms with the plaintiffs, a sealed docu-ment was placed in the vault. After almost oneyear in which no activity occurred, a pretrial con-ference was scheduled, but the case was closedafter the parties finally filed a stipulation of dis-missal.

Lulo v. K-Mart Corp. (NY-E 9:99-cv-04227 filed07/27/1999).Personal injury action for injuries from a fallcaused by the collapse of a chair in a departmentstore’s customer service area. The docket sheetshows that shortly after a settlement conferencewas held, a sealed document was placed in thevault. Two months later the defendants informedthe court that the case had settled and submitted astipulation discontinuing the case with prejudice.

Fasten v. Kubista (NY-E 1:99-cv-04596 filed08/06/1999).Action under the Fair Debt Collection Act allegingthat a letter falsely represented that an attorneywas participating in the collection of the plaintiff’salleged debt. During a status conference, the par-ties settled and entered the terms of settlement onthe record and discontinued the action. The courtordered the transcript of the proceedings sealed.The action was discontinued with prejudice withleave to reopen it to enforce the settlement terms.

Manenti v. Stratem Facilities Management Inc. (NY-E9:99-cv-05625 filed 09/14/1999).Designated a civil rights action, this is an em-ployment sex discrimination action alleging thatthe plaintiff was terminated after a maternityleave under the pretext of downsizing, despite thedefendants’ hiring a replacement for the plaintiff.The parties settled and submitted the original set-tlement agreement to the court with their stipula-tion of discontinuance. The court dismissed thecase with prejudice and placed a sealed documentin the vault.

Murphy v. Caracciolo (NY-E 9:99-cv-06797 filed10/21/1999).Civil rights action by a Catholic priest allegingwrongful criminal prosecution in retaliation forhis lawful exercise of First Amendment rights bypraying near the defendant’s abortion clinic. Thecomplaint alleges that the plaintiff was exoner-ated in two prosecutions. During jury selection,the plaintiff informed the court that the case hadsettled. A stipulation of settlement was entered onthe record, and the court ordered the transcriptand the two court exhibits on the record sealed.The court ordered the case dismissed with preju-dice and placed a sealed document in the vault.


C-70

Automotive Management Group v. Coach Sales ofNeoplan Inc. (NY-E 9:99-cv-06837 filed10/22/1999).Contract action concerning bus leases. The partiessettled and informed the court that the stipulationof settlement resolved all matters, and the casewas closed. Shortly thereafter, the court placedtwo 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 re-tired teachers concerning transfer credits for prioryears of service outside the district. Prior to com-mencement of a jury trial, the courtroom wassealed, and the parties reached a confidentialagreement with all except six plaintiffs not pres-ent in the courtroom. The stipulation of settlementwas filed by the court along with the affidavit ofone of the plaintiffs, who was unable to be in thecourtroom to enter a settlement on the record. Theschool 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-cv-00831 filed 02/09/2000).Personal injury action against three corporateowners and operators of a garbage-burning facil-ity at which a plaintiff suffered serious injuriesfrom a fall while making a delivery. The injuredplaintiff and his wife discontinued the actionagainst two defendants. A jury trial was held, butbefore the jury returned its verdict, the plaintiffssettled with the remaining defendant. A sealeddocument was placed in the vault the same day,and the case was closed.

Kim v. United States Postal Service (NY-E 1:00-cv-01282 filed 03/03/2000).Motor vehicle action for severe internal and ex-ternal injuries (some alleged to be permanent)resulting from a vehicle collision. One of thedriver defendants was a postal worker. Theplaintiff informed the court that the case had set-tled. It appears that the defendants made paymentaccording to the terms of the settlement, but theplaintiff was awaiting signed stipulations of set-tlement and discontinuance prior to disbursementof the funds. Two weeks after the plaintiff askedthe court to issue a date by which the defendantsmust sign the stipulations of settlement and dis-continuance, the court filed a document under

seal. Two weeks later, the parties submitted astipulation dismissing the case with prejudice.

Papaieck v. Aeroflex Inc. (NY-E 0:00-cv-01472 filed03/15/2000).Designated a contract action, this is an ERISA caseagainst a former employer for misrepresentingthat its retirement plan did not exist and refusingto allow the plaintiff to participate in the plan. Theparties settled, and the terms of settlement wereplaced on the record. The docket sheet indicatesthat a sealed document was placed in the vaultone day following settlement. This document islikely to be what the parties referred to as the con-sulting agreement, an essential component of thesettlement, which the plaintiff needed to sign be-fore the parties would file a stipulation of dis-missal. Several months later the parties filed theirstipulation to dismiss the case with prejudice, andthe case was closed.

Stitt v. Nassau County Correctional Center (NY-E0:00-cv-01544 filed 03/17/2000).Prisoner civil rights case for failure to mail time-sensitive legal documents. Almost one year afterthe case was filed, the court granted the parties’request that their stipulation of discontinuanceand settlement be filed under seal. The case wasclosed.

Carrillo v. Delgado Travel (NY-E 1:00-cv-01843 filed03/29/2000).Employment discrimination action by a femaletravel agency employee alleging sex discrimina-tion following disclosure of her pregnancy statusand retaliatory discharge after she filed chargeswith the New York City Human Rights Division.Following a settlement conference, the parties re-ported that the case had settled, and the court dis-continued the case without prejudice. The partiesresolved a dispute over the terms of the settle-ment agreement and met in court to execute a re-vised settlement agreement. The court ordered theminutes of the two settlement conferences placedunder seal. The parties agreed to dismiss the casewith prejudice.

Seide v. Seaman Furniture Co. (NY-E 9:00-cv-01934filed 04/03/2000).Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act forfailure to pay overtime wages. The parties settledand agreed to a consent judgment in favor of theplaintiff. The case was dismissed with prejudice,


C-71

and the settlement agreement was filed underseal.

Sadd v. Brookhaven Memorial Hospital MedicalCenter (NY-E 9:00-cv-02548 filed 05/04/2000).Employment discrimination action by a nurse,alleging her employer violated the Americanswith Disabilities Act by terminating her becauseof her breast cancer and an assumption that shewould miss a great deal of work because of treat-ment. The parties settled, and a stipulation of set-tlement was entered on the record. The settlementwas subject to a confidentiality agreement. Thetranscript of the proceeding was ordered sealed,and the case was dismissed with prejudice.

Lanfranchi v. Freight Brokers International Inc. (NY-E1:00-cv-03027 filed 05/26/2000).Contract action alleging that a freight brokerageowed the plaintiff unpaid incentive compensationaccording to the terms of two sales and agencyconsultation agreements. Following a full-daysettlement conference, the parties settled andplaced the settlement terms on the record, whichwas sealed. The parties agreed to dismiss the casewith prejudice.

Ryder v. East Meadow Union Free School District(NY-E 9:00-cv-03209 filed 06/05/2000).Employment discrimination action by a femaleelementary school teacher against the school dis-trict and principal, alleging sex discrimination,including sexual harassment and retaliatory de-motion. The parties settled, and the stipulation ofsettlement was entered on the record. The settle-ment was subject to a confidentiality agreement.The court sealed the transcript, and the case wasdismissed with prejudice. Five months later theparties filed a stipulation and order of settlementand discontinuance.

Barrau v. Vital Care Infusion (NY-E 9:00-cv-03364filed 06/09/2000).Employment discrimination action by a black fe-male plaintiff alleging disparate treatment basedon race and retaliatory discharge for filing acharge with the EEOC. The parties settled andwere ordered to submit to the court an executedstipulation of settlement and dismissal. A sealeddocument was placed in the vault, and the casewas closed.

Koujan v. EgyptAir Inc. (NY-E 1:00-cv-03661 filed06/20/2000); Smith v. EgyptAir (NY-E 1:01-cv-00180 filed 01/11/2001).Airplane actions transferred from the SouthernDistrict of New York for consolidation intomultidistrict litigation concerning the October 31,1999, crash of EgyptAir Flight 990 into the sea offthe coast of Nantucket Island (MDL 1344). InKoujan, the parties settled, and because the dece-dent was survived by three children under age 18,the allocation of the settlement funds with respectto the children required a court-ordered infantcompromise order. The court approved anamended infant compromise order submitted bythe plaintiff, and it was filed under seal. In Smith,the parties settled with respect to the deaths of theplaintiff’s parents and submitted the confidentialsettlement to the court for approval. The courtfiled the proposed order of final settlement anddistribution under seal. The case was dismissedwith prejudice.

Demarco v. Jo Mi Equities Corp. (NY-E 0:00-cv-04065 filed 07/13/2000).Employment discrimination suit by a formerwaitress, alleging sex discrimination, a hostilework environment as a result of sexual harass-ment, and retaliatory discharge. The plaintiff in-formed the court that the parties settled, and astipulation of settlement was signed by the plain-tiff, awaiting the defendant’s signature. The courtordered the case closed, and two weeks later asealed document was placed in the vault.

Globecomm Systems Inc. v. Gilat Satellite NetworksLtd. (NY-E 9:00-cv-04350 filed 07/26/2000).Patent infringement action alleging that the de-fendants were using or selling satellite data net-works embodying the plaintiff’s patented inven-tion. The parties agreed on a confidential settle-ment and agreed to dismiss the case with preju-dice. A sealed document was placed in the vaultfour days later, and the case was closed.

Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant (NY-E 9:00-cv-04693 filed 08/11/2000).RICO case. All documents in the case are sealed. Itinvolves one unnamed plaintiff and three un-named defendants. On August 8, 2002, the date oftermination, a sealed document “containing set-tlement and general release agreement” wasplaced in the vault. According to the docket sheet,this document was signed by the judge on No-vember 2, 2000. On the same day another sealed


C-72

document “containing stipulation of dismissalwith prejudice dated June 7, 2001” was placed inthe vault. All docket entries before a May 28, 2002,reassignment of the case to another judge stateonly “sealed document placed in vault,” but adocket entry for June 26, 2002, states that a sealeddocument placed in the vault contains briefs on amotion to preclude or compel, a motion for con-tempt and sanctions, and a motion for summaryjudgment, among others. It is not clear, therefore,whether the sealed settlement agreement appliedto only a subset of the defendants or the settle-ment agreement was scuttled in some way.

Wilkinson v. Audiovox Communication Corp. (NY-E9:00-cv-04749 filed 08/14/2000).Designated a civil rights action, this is an em-ployment discrimination case alleging age dis-crimination in an unexplained and sudden termi-nation. The parties settled, and the settlementterms were placed on the record under seal. Asealed document was placed in the vault. Theparties agreed to dismiss the case with prejudice.

Role v. Eureka Lodge No. 434 (NY-E 0:00-cv-04781filed 08/15/2000).Contract action alleging that an employer con-spired with a union to permit the plaintiff’swrongful discharge in breach of a collective bar-gaining agreement. It appears that during ascheduled settlement conference, the partiesreached a settlement agreement in open court.The court placed a sealed document in the vaultthe next day. The case was discontinued withoutprejudice. The plaintiff subsequently moved tovacate the settlement and reinstate the case, andto recuse the assigned judge with sanctions. Thecourt denied the motion, and the plaintiff soughta writ of mandamus from the court of appeals.The appellate court denied the writ. The case wasremanded to the district court in January 2004.

McDow-Drain v. County of Nassau (NY-E 2:00-cv-05339 filed 09/06/2000).Employment discrimination action by a femaleAfrican-American employee against the county,the county medical center, and three supervisorsemployed by the medical center for race discrimi-nation and retaliation. The parties settled, and theplaintiff signed the settlement agreement andsubmitted it to the court. The defendants re-quested that references to the settlement paymentbe detached and kept under seal. The courtagreed and filed the agreement under seal and

omitted any reference to the settlement paymenton the docket sheet. The court dismissed the casewithout prejudice in case the settlement agree-ment was not consummated.

Chilelli v. Schultz Metal Service Inc. (NY-E 2:00-cv-05893 filed 10/02/2000).Motor vehicle action against the owner and theoperator of a motor vehicle that collided with theplaintiff’s vehicle, causing severe and permanentinjuries. The parties settled on the record, thecourt ordered the case closed, and a sealed docu-ment was placed in the vault the next day. Oneday later the parties agreed to discontinue thecase without prejudice.

Santangelo v. First Fortis Life Insurance Co. (NY-E1:00-cv-06090 filed 10/11/2000).ERISA action alleging that the defendant wrong-fully terminated the plaintiff’s long-term disabil-ity benefits under her employer-sponsored policyissued by the defendant. The parties settled. Thedefendant moved to enforce the release and set-tlement agreement and enjoin the plaintiff fromviolating a confidentiality clause contained in theagreement. At a show-cause hearing, the plaintiffagreed to the settlement and signed the settlementagreement and stipulation of discontinuance withprejudice. The court sealed the tape of the hearingand closed the case.

Kwasnik v. Kingsbrook Jewish Medical Center (NY-E1:00-cv-06686 filed 11/08/2000).Designated a civil rights action, this is a case forage discrimination in employment by a 63-year-old physiatrist, alleging that the defendant hos-pital interfered with his participation in the ro-tating patient assignment system. The parties set-tled, and the settlement was placed on the record.The court ordered the transcript sealed, pursuantto the nondisclosure order in the settlement. Theparties agreed to dismiss the case with prejudice.

Golden v. Swift-Eckrich Inc. (NY-E 2:00-cv-06777filed 11/13/2000).Contract action alleging breach of an agreement toestablish a “Frank-in-a-Blanket” operation. Theparties settled, and a sealed document was placedin the vault the same day. The parties agreed todismiss the case with prejudice.


C-73

Stermer v. Board of Fire Commissioners (NY-E 2:00-cv-07677 filed 12/29/2000).Employment discrimination action by a femalevolunteer firefighter, alleging that she sufferedrepeated sexual harassment by members of thefire department and retaliation for her complaints.The parties settled, and the settlement was placedon the record under seal. The court indicated thatthe settlement was subject to approval by theBoard of Fire Commissioners. Following theboard’s approval, the parties agreed to dismissthe case with prejudice.

Neillands v. Global Computer Co. (NY-E 2:01-cv-01312 filed 03/05/2001).Employment discrimination suit by a female em-ployee, alleging sexual harassment and retaliatorytermination. The parties settled, and a sealeddocument was placed in the vault the next day.The parties filed a stipulation withdrawing thecomplaint with prejudice.

Fenelon v. Murachonian Export Co. (NY-E 2:01-cv-06288 filed 09/13/2001).Employment discrimination suit by a female em-ployee, alleging sex discrimination by her em-ployer in refusing to rehire her after she was laidoff. The parties settled and agreed to discontinuethe action. A week after the court closed the case,a sealed document referred to as the confidential-ity agreement was placed in the vault.

Bibbs v. Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment (NY-E 2:01-cv-06778 filed10/12/2001).Statutory action for breach of contract against theDepartment of Housing and Urban Developmentand a local housing authority concerning a 1970housing program lease. Before a jury trial began,the parties settled and the stipulation of settle-ment was placed on the record. The transcript wassealed as to the settlement terms. The case wasdismissed with prejudice.

Blume v. Target Stores Inc. (NY-E 2:01-cv-07749filed 11/20/2001).Labor litigation alleging violation of the FamilyMedical Leave Act by terminating the plaintiff forjob abandonment when she took leave to care forher son after he was in a serious car accident. Thecase settled, and the stipulation of settlement andconfidentiality agreement were entered on therecord. The transcript was sealed. The parties

agreed to dismiss the case with prejudice, and thecase was closed.

Nikon Inc. v. Mizco International Inc. (NY-E 2:01-cv-08559 filed 12/27/2001).Trademark infringement action concerning pho-tographic accessory products. The parties settledand agreed to dismiss the action with prejudice.The settlement agreement was filed under seal.

Ranpak Corp. v. Saluppo (NY-E 1:02-cv-01889 filed03/26/2002).Contract action against a former sales representa-tive and his current employer for solicitation ofcustomers and dissemination of trade secrets. Theparties settled during a settlement conference. Asealed document containing a stipulation and or-der was filed. The court entered a default judg-ment against the individual defendant and per-manently enjoined the defendant from disclosingthe plaintiff’s trade secrets for two years. The casewas closed pursuant to the sealed document andinjunction order.

Northern District of New YorkCourt documents are sealed upon motion, whichitself is filed under seal. N.D.N.Y. L.R. 83.13.Sealed documents remain sealed until orderedunsealed. Id.


Cases with Sealed Settlement AgreementsVan Limburg Stirum v. Whalen (NY-N 5:90-cv-01279 filed 11/27/1990).Securities action by individuals and limited part-nerships, alleging that the defendants sold nearlyworthless limited partnership units by means ofmisrepresentations and omissions. A confidentialsettlement agreement was reached between thedefendants and the partnership plaintiffs. Thesettlement agreement, the release, the notice ofproposed settlement, and all documents filed withthe court concerning the settlement were sealed.The court issued a final judgment approving thesettlement and requested that the plaintiffs filediscontinuance papers dismissing all pendingcauses of action. The case was closed.


C-74

ITT Commercial Finance Corp. v. Harsco Corp. (NY-N 5:91-cv-00793 filed 07/12/1991).Environmental action under CERCLA to recoverthe costs incurred in cleaning up property con-taminated by the previous owners’ use of theproperty for die cast manufacturing. Two defen-dants settled with the plaintiff. The court ap-proved their settlements and granted their re-quests to file the agreements under seal and dis-miss the contribution cross-claims. The non-settling defendants were ordered to maintain theterms of the agreements in confidence and couldonly refer to them in the context of the pendingmotions to approve the settlement. The plaintiffreached settlements with the remaining defen-dants on all outstanding claims and issues. Judg-ment was entered in favor of the plaintiff, and thecase was closed.

Saratoga Harness Racing Inc. v. Veneglia (NY-N1:94-cv-01400 filed 10/28/1994).Antitrust action by the owner of Saratoga Race-way against several horseman’s associations andtheir officers, alleging boycotts. The plaintiffagreed to dismiss one of the defendants. Theplaintiff and two of the remaining defendantsreached a settlement agreement and order, whichwere filed with the court and contained settle-ment terms. Less than two months later, theplaintiff settled with the remaining defendantsand agreed to dismiss the action with prejudice.Subsequently, the court ordered the settlementagreement, stipulation, and order to be sealed.Activity continued in the case over the plaintiff’scounsel’s claim for attorney fees, which eventu-ally was settled, and the case was closed.

Soriano v. New York (NY-N 1:98-cv-00076 filed01/14/1998).Civil rights action by a husband and wife, whowere formerly employed as corrections officers,against the state of New York, the New York De-partment of Correctional Services, and individualcorrections officers with supervisory authorityover the plaintiffs, alleging that they were sub-jected to various forms of race-based and sexualdiscrimination and harassment. A jury trial com-menced, but the parties reached a settlement inchambers, and the agreement was placed on therecord. The dollar amount was to remain confi-dential. The transcript as to the settlement termswas sealed and placed in the court vault. The in-dividual defendants were dismissed, and judg-ment was entered for the plaintiffs against theremaining defendants. The parties agreed to dis-

continue the action with prejudice as to these de-fendants.

Galusha v. New York State Department ofEnvironmental Conservation (NY-N 1:98-cv-01117filed 07/13/1998).Civil rights claim against the state of New York,the New York State Department of EnvironmentalConservation, and the Adirondack Park Agency,among others, for allegedly violating the Ameri-cans with Disabilities Act by denying the plain-tiffs and other qualified disabled citizens access toNew York parks in general and the AdirondackPark in particular, including areas to which accesspreviously had been available through the aid of amotorized vehicle. A settlement was reached byall parties and was placed under seal along with aproposed consent decree. In addition, the courtordered all past and ongoing settlement negotia-tions to remain under seal until the partiesreached agreement on the terms of the proposedconsent decree. After the parties resolved all out-standing issues, the consent decree and judgmentwas submitted to the court. The case was closed.

Granger v. Pierce (NY-N 9:98-cv-01495 filed09/22/1998).Civil rights action by six pretrial and post-trialdetainees against a county jail for housing in thegeneral population an inmate known to be in-fected with HIV. Two years after one plaintiffwithdrew from the case, the remaining partiessettled and submitted their settlement agreementand general release to the court for approval andsealing. The settlement agreement and generalrelease was placed under seal, and the case wasdiscontinued with prejudice.

Perruccio v. Wilder (NY-N 9:98-cv-01524 filed09/24/1998).Prisoner civil rights action by a former inmateagainst the county jail and two jail officers, alleg-ing civil rights violations, including ignoring theplaintiff’s medical needs, improperly discipliningthe plaintiff, and denying the plaintiff access toreligious services, bible study, and the law library.The parties settled and submitted to the court thesettlement agreement and general release as wellas a stipulation asking the court to seal it. Thecourt agreed. The parties agreed to discontinuethe case with prejudice.


C-75

Forden v. Bristol Myers Squibb (NY-N 1:99-cv-00907filed 06/10/1999).Employment discrimination action by a femaleformer employee alleging sex discrimination anddisparate treatment, including retaliatory conductfollowing her resignation because of a sexuallyhostile work environment. The parties agreed tosettle the case, the settlement terms were placedon the record, and the transcript was filed underseal. The parties apparently could not reach a finalagreement, and several letters were submitted tothe court under seal. The judge denied the plain-tiff’s oral application to enforce the settlementreached on the record. A jury trial was held, andthe jury rendered a verdict for the defendant.

Brown v. County of Oneida (NY-N 5:99-cv-01064filed 07/08/1999).Employment discrimination action by an African-American employee of the sheriff’s department,alleging race discrimination, including the filingof false criminal charges, aggravated disciplinaryaction, and disparate denial of promotional op-portunities. The parties settled prior to a jury ver-dict. The settlement terms were placed on the rec-ord during a settlement conference in chambers,and the court ordered the settlement terms to besealed. The court dismissed the case.

Cipolla v. County of Rensselaer (NY-N 1:99-cv-01813filed 10/27/1999).Civil rights action by two former county employ-ees after a jury acquitted them of official miscon-duct charges. The plaintiffs alleged witness tam-pering, making false statements to law enforce-ment officials, public defamation, and presenta-tion of knowingly perjured testimony to the grandjury and at trial. Four months after the courtgranted the defendants’ motion for summaryjudgment, the court vacated the judgment andreopened the case. The case settled, and the courtordered sealed the partial stipulation discontinu-ing the action between the plaintiffs and the indi-vidual defendants, the settlement agreement andrelease, and the stipulation discontinuing the ac-tion. Three months later the court unsealed thesedocuments, noting that there was no reason tokeep them sealed because the parallel criminalproceedings in state court were completed. Thecourt closed the case in light of the stipulations ofdiscontinuance signed by all parties.

LaGrange v. Ryan (NY-N 1:99-cv-02133 filed12/09/1999).Civil rights action against police officers and acity, alleging deprivation of personal property,use of unreasonable force upon arrest, violationsof due process during detention in the city jail,including denial of medication and medical care,and denial of communication with the plaintiff’sfamily and attorney. The plaintiff accepted thedefendants’ offer of judgment, which was madeon the record, and the transcript was sealed. Thedefendants moved to vacate the judgment ongrounds that the plaintiff violated an implied es-sential condition. The court stated, “It must benoted that the condition may violate or restrict thepublic’s right to important information.” Thejudgment was vacated. Prior to trial, the plaintiffrejected the defendants’ settlement offer madewithout any express or implied conditions. Be-cause of the plaintiff’s age, the fair amount of theoriginal judgment, and the plaintiff’s risk of losingat trial, and because the condition asserted by thedefendants in the initial offer of judgment was notessential to the defendants and the plaintiff’s vio-lation of the condition did not cause any harm tothe defendants, the court reinstated the originaljudgment disclosing the settlement terms andclosed the case.

Gajjar v. Union College (NY-N 1:00-cv-00718 filed05/08/2000).Employment discrimination action by an engi-neering professor who is a native of India againsta college and former dean of engineering, allegingrace and national origin discrimination and re-taliation, including denial of merit raises andpromotional appointments, ridicule and humilia-tion at faculty meetings, and false accusations ofabusing the machine shop. The court dismissed allclaims against the dean. The remaining partiesreached a confidential settlement agreement dur-ing a settlement conference, and the terms wereplaced on the record. The record was sealed. Theparties agreed to discontinue the case according toterms set forth in the stipulation and order of dis-continuance.

White v. Clear Channel Communication Inc. (NY-N1:00-cv-00750 filed 05/16/2000).Employment discrimination action by a femalefreelance reporter, alleging sex discrimination infailing to hire her as a full-time reporter. The casesettled during a settlement conference, and thecourt ordered the parties to redraft the settlementagreement and forward it to the court. The case


C-76

was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice ac-cording to the terms of an executed voluntarydismissal, which was filed under seal by the court.

Maines Paper & Food Service Inc. v. McGuire (NY-N3:00-cv-00870 filed 06/05/2000).Contract action alleging that a former employeesolicited the plaintiff’s customers for a new em-ployer. The case settled during a settlement con-ference, and the court granted the parties’ motionto seal the transcript. The court dismissed the caseas settled and sealed the order.

Kremer v. Gero Vita Laboratories (NY-N 1:00-cv-01329 filed 08/30/2000).Trademark infringement action by a doctor spe-cializing in rheumatoid arthritis, alleging that thedefendants published an advertisement for a die-tary supplement that made false representationsof the plaintiff’s endorsement of the supplementas a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis and relatedsymptoms. The case settled during a settlementconference, and the terms of settlement weresealed. The court dismissed the action as settled.

Yezzo v. Hartford Life Insurance Co. (NY-N 1:00-cv-01649 filed 10/27/2000).ERISA action against an employer and its insur-ance company or wrongful denial of long-termdisability benefits on the grounds that the plain-tiff’s stroke was a preexisting condition. Theplaintiff dismissed his claim against the employerand settled with the insurance company. The in-surance company moved to seal the stipulation ofsettlement, and the court agreed.

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. DePaulo (NY-N1:01-cv-00042 filed 01/08/2001).Contract action alleging that the defendant agentprocured the cancellation and replacement of theplaintiff’s insurance policies. The parties agreed toa confidential settlement that was to be submittedto the court. The case was dismissed with preju-dice. A sealed document was filed a week later.

Baker v. Maura (NY-N 1:01-cv-00525 filed04/11/2001).Motor vehicle action alleging that a child was se-riously injured crossing a highway when she wasstruck by an automobile driven by the defendantdriver, who was driving the wrong way in orderto go around a garbage disposal truck operated bythe defendant town. The case settled, and thecourt granted the parties’ sealed motion for set-

tlement. The parties agreed to dismiss the casewith prejudice.

Palmateer v. Golub Corp. (NY-N 1:01-cv-01210 filed07/30/2001).Employment discrimination action against theplaintiff’s employer and supervisors, allegingsexual harassment, age discrimination, and per-petuation of a hostile work environment. Theparties settled and agreed to dismiss the case withprejudice thirty-one days later unless the settle-ment was not consummated. Two weeks later adocument was filed under seal. There was nofurther activity in the case.

Matias v. Nevele Grande LLC (NY-N 1:01-cv-01247filed 08/06/2001).Pro se employment discrimination action allegingdiscrimination and termination on the basis of theplaintiff’s Brazilian national origin. The partiesapparently settled, because the docket sheetshows that pursuant to a sealed document thecourt ordered the confidential settlement agree-ment filed under seal. The confidential settlementagreement was filed under seal, and the case wasclosed the same day.

U.S. Foodservice Inc. v. Zehner (NY-N 3:02-cv-00821filed 06/21/2002).Contract action alleging that the plaintiff’s formersales representatives violated their contractualnonsolicitation and confidentiality obligationsafter they voluntarily resigned to go to work for adirect competitor of the plaintiff. The parties set-tled, and the settlement was placed on the record.The court granted the parties’ request to seal thetranscript. The court ordered the parties to workout settlement agreements and file a stipulation ofdiscontinuance. The court entered judgment dis-missing the action by reason of settlement.

Southern District of New YorkNo relevant local rule.

Statistics: 20,976 cases in termination cohort;948 docket sheets (4.5%) have the word “seal” inthem; 130 complete docket sheets (0.62%) werereviewed; actual documents were examined for 95cases (0.45%); 89 cases (0.42%) appear to havesealed settlement agreements.


C-77

Cases with Sealed Settlement AgreementsMaryland Casualty Co. v. W.R. Grace & Co. (NY-S1:88-cv-04337 filed 06/21/1988).Insurance case concerning insurance liability forenvironmental cleanup costs. The plaintiff and thedefendant agreed to dismiss the action betweenthemselves with prejudice. The case continued asto claims between the defendant and its insurers.The defendant agreed to dismiss with prejudiceall but one insurer through confidential settlementagreements and releases that allowed the court toretain jurisdiction to enforce all terms and provi-sions of the settlement agreements. Several docketentries indicate that a sealed document wasplaced in the court vault. The defendant and theremaining insurer agreed to dismiss all remainingclaims with prejudice, and the defendant foreverwaived coverage for these claims. The case wasclosed.

Knisley v. Kidder Peabody & Co. (NY-S 1:94-cv-03954 filed 05/26/1994).Consolidated securities class action allegingfraudulent public filings. The class was certified.A proposed stipulation of settlement was sub-mitted to the court along with a supplementalagreement, to be filed under seal, setting forthconditions under which the defendant couldwithdraw or terminate the settlement. A sealeddocument was placed in the vault the next day.The court issued a final judgment approving thesettlement and plan of distribution. The case wasdismissed with prejudice and closed.

Schonfeld v. Hilliard (NY-S 1:95-cv-03052 filed04/28/1995).Designated a contract action, this is a derivativesuit for failure to fund a supply agreement be-tween the defendant and the BBC after havinginduced the plaintiff and the BBC to enter into theinterim agreement to bring the BBC to the UnitedStates as a twenty-four-hour international newsand information network. The court granted thedefendant summary judgment and dismissed allof the plaintiff’s claims except a fraud claim. Thecourt of appeals affirmed in part and reversed inpart. Several months later the parties signed, andthe court approved, a settlement agreement. Asealed document had been placed in the vault fivedays earlier. The parties agreed to dismiss allclaims 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 productliability action) arising from the July 17, 1996,crash of TWA flight 800 from Kennedy Airport toParis, France, which was allegedly caused by afuel cell explosion. In each of these cases, theplaintiffs settled with the defendants and dis-missed their actions with prejudice. The docket

60. This consolidation includes thirty-three cases inour termination cohort: Dadi v. Trans World AirlinesInc. (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. TransWorld Airlines Inc. (NY-S 1:96-cv-08850 filed11/21/1996), Ostachiewicz v. Trans World Airlines Inc.(NY-S 1:96-cv-09489 filed 12/17/1996), Rades v. TransWorld Airlines Inc. (NY-S 1:97-cv-03652 filed05/20/1997), Brown v. Trans World Airlines Inc. (NY-S1:97-cv-03654 filed 05/20/1997), Rencus v. Trans WorldAirlines Inc. (NY-S 1:97-cv-04627 filed 06/23/1997),Ingenhuett-Quinn v. Trans World Airlines Inc. (NY-S1:97-cv-05195 filed 07/16/1997), Steward v. TransWorld Airlines Inc. (NY-S 1:97-cv-06271 filed08/22/1997), Johns v. Trans World Airlines Inc. (NY-S1:97-cv-06813 filed 09/15/1997), Schmitz v. TransWorld Airlines Inc. (NY-S 1:97-cv-06814 filed09/15/1997), Story v. Trans World Airlines Inc. (NY-S1:97-cv-07120 filed 09/24/1997), Pares v. Trans WorldAirlines Inc. (NY-S 1:97-cv-08048 filed 10/30/1997),Furlano v. Trans World Airlines Inc. (NY-S 1:97-cv-08049 filed 10/30/1997), Puhlmann v. Trans WorldAirlines Inc. (NY-S 1:97-cv-08732 filed 11/24/1997),Taylor v. Trans World Airlines Inc. (NY-S 1:98-cv-00239filed 01/14/1998), Chanson v. Trans World Airlines Inc.(NY-S 1:98-cv-01668 filed 03/06/1998), Feeney v. TransWorld Airlines Inc. (NY-S 1:98-cv-01670 filed03/06/1998), Richter v. Trans World Airlines Inc. (NY-S1:98-cv-01671 filed 03/06/1998), Alex v. Trans WorldAirlines Inc. (NY-S 1:98-cv-02986 filed 04/28/1998),Straus v. Trans World Airlines Inc. (NY-S 1:98-cv-02988filed 04/28/1998), Windmiller v. Trans World AirlinesInc. (NY-S 1:98-cv-03604 filed 05/20/1998), Lacailled’Esse v. Trans World Airlines Inc. (NY-S 1:98-cv-04304filed 06/18/1998), Von Hedrich v. Trans World AirlinesInc. (NY-S 1:98-cv-04863 filed 07/09/1998), Licari v.Trans World Airlines Inc. (NY-S 1:98-cv-04877 filed07/10/1998), Beaumont v. Trans World Airlines Inc.(NY-S 1:98-cv-04950 filed 07/13/1998), Ferrat v. TransWorld Airlines Inc. (NY-S 1:98-cv-04995 filed07/14/1998), Cayrol v. Trans World Airlines Inc. (NY-S1:98-cv-04997 filed 07/14/1998), Roger v. Trans WorldAirlines Inc. (NY-S 1:98-cv-05103 filed 07/17/1998),Karschner v. Trans World Airlines Inc. (NY-S 1:98-cv-05427 filed 07/30/1998), Baszczewski v. Trans WorldAirlines Inc. (NY-S 1:98-cv-06335 filed 09/09/1998),Bohlin v. Boeing Co. (NY-S 1:98-cv-06336 filed09/09/1998), and Loudenslager v. Trans World AirlinesInc. (NY-S 1:98-cv-06341 filed 09/09/1998).


C-78

sheet for each of these cases indicates “sealeddocument placed in vault” either the same day assettlement or several days before or after settle-ment.

Holtz v. Rockefeller & Co. (NY-S 1:96-cv-09484 filed12/17/1996).Employment discrimination action by a femaleemployee alleging age and sex discrimination,including retaliatory discharge. The district courtgranted the defendants’ motion for summaryjudgment, and the court of appeals affirmed inpart and vacated in part. A little over a year later,the parties settled and agreed to dismiss the casewith prejudice. The docket sheet indicates asealed document was placed in the vault a monthlater.

Martinez-Torrejon v. Trustees of Columbia University(NY-S 1:97-cv-00503 filed 01/23/1997).Employment discrimination action by a formerassistant professor of Spanish national origin al-leging that the university discriminated againsthim based upon his sex, national origin, race, eth-nicity, and ancestry by denying him a promotionto the position of associate professor and not re-newing his appointment. The parties settled, andthe court ordered sealed the confidential settle-ment agreement and all documents filed in con-nection with the plaintiff’s application for attor-ney fees. The fee application was resolved, andthe court ordered the case closed.

Powell v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (NY-S1:97-cv-02439 filed 04/04/1997).Employment discrimination action by a blackman with AIDS against his employer, two super-visors, and two co-workers, alleging race and dis-ability discrimination, including denial of promo-tions, creating a hostile and oppressive work en-vironment, and threatening termination or demo-tion in retaliation for objecting to the defendant’sracist policies and practices. The court granted thedefendants summary judgment on some of theplaintiff’s claims. The case was dismissed withprejudice pursuant to a sealed stipulation of set-tlement.

Casper v. Lew Lieberbaum & Co. (NY-S 1:97-cv-03016 filed 04/28/1997).Employment discrimination action by three fe-male former employees, alleging sexual harass-ment, including demands for sexual favors. Theparties agreed to dismiss the action against one

defendant—the employer’s chief executive officer.The remaining parties agreed to settle their claimsand discontinue the case with prejudice. The courtdismissed the action with prejudice pursuant to asealed settlement agreement.

A.I.A. Holding SA v. Lehman Brothers Inc. (NY-S1:97-cv-04978 filed 07/08/1997).Fraud action by 276 plaintiffs against an invest-ment adviser. Twenty-two plaintiffs agreed todismiss their claims with prejudice. Five yearsafter the original complaint was filed and variousmotions were ruled upon by the court, the re-maining parties settled and agreed to dismiss thecase with prejudice. A sealed document wasplaced in the vault five days prior to the orderdismissing and closing the case.

Shepheard v. Pentagon Federal Credit Union (NY-S1:97-cv-07464 filed 10/08/1997).Action pursuant to the federal Fair Credit Re-porting Act and the Fair Debt Collection PracticesAct for wrongfully designating several of theplaintiff’s loan accounts as delinquent. The partiessettled, and the terms of the settlement agreementwere placed on the record. The transcript wassealed, and the action was dismissed with preju-dice. The case was closed.

Orce v. Wackenhut Corp. (NY-S 7:97-cv-09246 filed12/16/1997).Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act bythirty-nine nuclear power plant security officersfor unpaid overtime compensation. A confidentialsettlement agreement was reached and placedunder seal. The court entered judgment dismiss-ing 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 auto-matic flosser and plaque remover. The partiessettled, and the court ordered the settlementagreement filed under seal. The action was dis-missed with prejudice.

Koh v. Premier Equity Funds Inc. (NY-S 1:98-cv-04318 filed 06/19/1998).Securities class action alleging that class memberssuffered millions of dollars in damages by pur-chasing overpriced shares. The court certified theclass. A settlement was reached. The settlementagreement included a supplemental stipulationdefining the circumstances under which the de-


C-79

fendants could withdraw from the settlementagreement. One version of this supplementalstipulation was publicly available. A second ver-sion defining with greater specificity the circum-stances under which the defendants could with-draw from the settlement agreement was filedunder seal.

Fanelli v. Town of Harrison (NY-S 7:98-cv-07683filed 10/28/1998).Civil rights action alleging false arrest for FirstAmendment activities. The parties agreed to aconfidential settlement on the record, and thecourt ordered the transcript of the settlement pro-ceeding sealed. The parties agreed to discontinuethe action.

Joel A. v. Giuliani (NY-S 1:99-cv-00326 filed01/15/1999).Civil rights class action by young people in thedefendants’ custody and care who identify them-selves as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgenderedor are experiencing feelings or confusion abouttheir sexual orientation or gender. The defendantsoperate the New York City child welfare and fos-ter care system. The plaintiffs alleged discrimina-tion based on actual or perceived sexual orienta-tion and gender atypicality; failure to protect theclass from bias-related violence, harassment, andabuse; and failure to provide the class memberswith supportive environments in which they cansafely disclose and express feelings of same-sexattraction, discuss issues relating to sexual iden-tity, and develop healthy sexual identities. Theaction was not certified as a class action. The de-fendants agreed to pay $15,000 in full satisfactionof all claims of one of the six named plaintiffs. Theremaining five named plaintiffs settled with thecity defendants, and the court ordered the settle-ment agreement to be filed under seal “solely inorder to protect the confidentiality of the identityof settling plaintiffs.” The case was closed.

Jacob v. Porcari (NY-S 7:99-cv-01216 filed02/18/1999).Contract action alleging legal malpractice in fail-ing to advise the plaintiff of statutes of limitationon his civil rights claims of false arrest, maliciousprosecution, and use of excessive force against thepolice department. The parties settled on the rec-ord, and the court ordered the proceedings sealed.The parties agreed to dismiss the case with preju-dice.

Jack Schwartz Shoes Inc. v. Buffalino USA Inc. (NY-S7:00-cv-01007 filed 02/10/2000).Trademark infringement action with patentclaims, alleging that the defendant represented itsfootwear as looking “just like” the plaintiff’sshoes. The parties settled, and the settlementagreement was sealed and placed in the vault. Thecase was closed the same day.

Cassina SPA v. Strada Design Associates Inc. (NY-S1:00-cv-02852 filed 04/13/2000).Contract action for refusal to pay for furniture andinstallation services. A bench trial was held, andthe case settled. The parties entered on the recorda stipulation placing their confidential settlementagreement under seal. The court ordered the tran-script sealed, and the docket sheet indicates thattwo 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 foroffering customers access to the plaintiff’s soft-ware. The parties settled, and the court dismissedthe case without prejudice to restore it if settle-ment was not effectuated within thirty days. Thecase was closed. A month later a sealed documentwas placed in the vault. A month after that an-other sealed document was placed in the vault.

Franco v. Saks & Co. (NY-S 1:00-cv-05522 filed07/26/2000).Labor litigation under the Family Medical LeaveAct for wrongful replacement after the plaintiffreturned from an approved unpaid FMLA leaveto care for his dying father. The parties settled,and the court dismissed the case without preju-dice to restore it if settlement was not effectuatedwithin sixty days. A little over a year and a halflater, 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 computersoftware technology used for scanning hard-copydocuments. The parties settled and agreed to aconsent decree that incorporated a confidentialsettlement and license agreement, which was filedunder seal. The action was dismissed with preju-dice.


C-80

United States v. American Cyanamid Co. (NY-S 1:00-cv-06015 filed 08/14/2000).Environmental action by the EPA under CERCLAagainst the owner and operator of a landfill wherehazardous substances had been dumped andagainst the substance owners. The EPA settled itsclaims with the owners of the hazardous sub-stances, and the court entered a consent decree.The owners brought cross-claims against one an-other for contribution. The EPA settled with theowner of the landfill, and the terms of the settle-ment were embodied in a separate consent decree.Two years later the owners settled their cross-claims and agreed to dismiss them with prejudice.The court retained jurisdiction to decide whetherto enter a contribution bar order and to resolveany disputes in connection with the settlementagreement. A motion for entry of a contributionbar was brought, attaching the settlement agree-ment as an exhibit. A sealed document was placedin the vault a few days later. The motion for acontribution bar was denied, and no further ac-tivity occurred in the case.

Isler v. Mount Vernon Hospital (NY-S 7:00-cv-06048filed 08/15/2000).Medical malpractice and wrongful death action.The defendant hospital brought a third-partycomplaint against the plaintiff’s two private phy-sicians and the medical group sponsoring anHIV/AIDS clinical trial in which the plaintiff par-ticipated. The case settled. The order settling thecase with two of the plaintiff’s treating physicianswas filed under seal and placed in the vault. Theparties agreed to discontinue the case against alldefendants with prejudice.

Uptown Nails LLC v. Lemax World Inc. (NY-S 1:00-cv-06195 filed 08/18/2000).Trademark infringement action concerning artifi-cial nails and related products. The parties settled,and the court dismissed the case with prejudice.The court informed the parties that if they wishedthe court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the set-tlement agreement, they must submit it to thecourt. A month later, in an attempt to settle unre-solved issues in court-ordered mediation, theplaintiff asked the court to file under seal the con-fidential settlement agreement. The court sealed acopy of the settlement agreement and exhibits.The parties settled their issues through mediation.

Jeremy M. v. Giuliani (NY-S 1:00-cv-06498 filed08/30/2000).Civil rights action by a minor and his mother forretaining the child in foster care without a legalbasis. The parties settled, and the court issued aninfant compromise order approving the settle-ment. A sealed document was placed in the vault.Two months later the parties agreed to discon-tinue the action with prejudice, stating that theparties settled pursuant to a separate settlementagreement.

Messina v. Local 1199 SEIU (NY-S 1:00-cv-07375filed 09/28/2000).Case under the Labor–Management Reportingand Disclosure Act alleging that the plaintiff wasremoved as an elected delegate in reprisal for herzealous representation of union membership, as-sertion of free speech rights, and bringing ofcharges against an elected vice-president. Thecourt granted in part the defendants’ motion todismiss and motion for summary judgment. Theparties settled, and the court dismissed the casewithout prejudice to restore it if requested withinforty-five days. A sealed document was placed inthe vault a month later.

Jack Schwartz Shoes Inc. v. Skechers USA Inc. (NY-S1:00-cv-07721 filed 10/12/2000).Trademark infringement action with patentclaims concerning footwear that embodied thedesign claimed in the plaintiff’s patent. The courtgranted the plaintiff partial summary judgment asto infringement, awarded the plaintiff damages,and issued an injunction against the defendant.The defendant’s motion for summary judgmentwas denied as to patent infringement and grantedas to trade dress infringement. Several weeks laterthe parties settled all remaining claims, and thecourt discontinued the action. Although the de-fendant requested that the court file under seal astipulation and order of dismissal with prejudice,the court refused to take further action, statingthat the parties’ agreement of settlement need notbe filed. Despite this statement, one week later asealed document was placed in the vault.

Murphy v. Transitional Services Inc. (NY-S 1:00-cv-08169 filed 10/25/2000).Employment discrimination action by a malecounselor alleging that he was terminated for nothaving sex with his female director. The partiessettled, and the confidential settlement agreement


C-81

was sealed and placed in the vault. The case wasdismissed with prejudice.

Crooks v. Metro-North Railroad Co. (NY-S 1:00-cv-08420 filed 11/03/2000).Federal employers’ liability action by a signalmanfor on-the-job injuries. The parties settled, and asealed document was placed in the vault threedays later. The case was dismissed with prejudice.

McEachin v. Kerik (NY-S 7:00-cv-08998 filed11/27/2000).Prison condition action for multiple physical inju-ries resulting from an assault by prison staff andretaliatory segregation. The parties settled duringa settlement conference, and the court sealed thetape of the conference and placed it in the courtvault. The parties agreed to dismiss the actionwith prejudice according to the terms of thestipulation and order of settlement and discon-tinuance.

Reese v. Consolidated Edison Co. (NY-S 1:00-cv-09390 filed 12/11/2000).Employment discrimination action by a blackman for race discrimination, including denials ofpromotion. The parties settled, and the settlementconference transcript of the parties’ agreementwas sealed. The action was dismissed with preju-dice.

Gold v. Unumprovident Corp. (NY-S 7:00-cv-09854filed 12/29/2000).Insurance action for refusal to pay the plaintiffdisability benefits. The parties settled, and theterms of settlement were placed on the record.Because the settlement agreement ultimatelysigned by the parties contained a confidentialityprovision, the parties asked the court to seal thetape and transcript of the settlement conference.The court agreed to seal the tape. The case wasdiscontinued with prejudice and with leave toreopen it solely for the purpose of enforcing thesettlement.

Weisman v. Doremus Advertising Inc. (NY-S 1:01-cv-00080 filed 01/04/2001).ERISA action alleging failure to provide theplaintiff with the same benefits offered to otheremployees. A settlement agreement was reachedon the record, and the case was dismissed withprejudice. A sealed document was placed in thevault a little over a month after the case closed.

Archer v. City of New York (NY-S 1:01-cv-00402filed 01/18/2001).Designated a civil rights action, this is an em-ployment discrimination action by a female em-ployee against the sheriff’s office for sexual har-assment and retaliation. The parties settled duringa settlement conference, and the settlement termswere placed on the record. One month later asealed document was placed in the vault the sameday as the parties filed their stipulation and orderof discontinuance dismissing the action withprejudice.

SBAM Inc. v. U.S. Roads Inc. (NY-S 1:01-cv-01848filed 03/02/2001).Negotiable instrument action. The parties settledand discontinued the action. A sealed documentwas placed in the vault three days later. A littleover two months later, judgment was enteredagainst the defendant subject to the terms of thestipulation of settlement.

Cook v. Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP (NY-S 1:01-cv-02065 filed 03/12/2001).Employment discrimination action by an African-American woman against a law firm and partnerfor sexual harassment and retaliation. The partiessettled on the record during a settlement confer-ence and agreed to dismiss the case with preju-dice. A sealed document was placed in the vaultsix days after the case closed.

ON2 Inc. v. ECOIN Co. (NY-S 1:01-cv-03618 filed04/30/2001).Contract action concerning the exclusive right tomarket the plaintiff’s encoding and server tech-nologies to third parties in South Korea. The par-ties settled on the record during a settlement con-ference. The court dismissed the case with preju-dice and retained jurisdiction over the settlementpursuant to the terms of the settlement agree-ment. A sealed document was placed in the vault.

Pacific Sunwear of California v. Crest Inc. (NY-S1:01-cv-04072 filed 05/14/2001).Trademark infringement action concerning a lineof men’s, women’s, and children’s clothing. Theparties settled, and their stipulation of dismissalwas sealed. A sealed document was placed in thevault, and the court dismissed the case withprejudice.


C-82

Avon Products Inc. v. Kim (NY-S 1:01-cv-04163 filed05/16/2001).Trademark infringement action concerning cos-metic products and services similar to those soldby Avon. The parties settled and filed their set-tlement agreement and order under seal. The casewas discontinued with prejudice.

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. BermudaCablevision Ltd. (NY-S 1:01-cv-04748 filed06/01/2001).Action under the Communications Act of 1934 byseveral large motion picture studios and their af-filiates, alleging that a cable television provider inBermuda pirated encrypted satellite signals at anenormous profit. The parties settled and agreed todiscontinue the case with prejudice. Five monthslater the plaintiffs informed the court of their in-tention to file a motion to enforce the settlementagreement reached with the defendants. Shortlythereafter two sealed documents were placed inthe court vault. The parties met and finalized theirsettlement. They agreed to dismiss the case withprejudice.

CBC Holdings Inc. v. Medina (NY-S 7:01-cv-05168filed 06/11/2001).Action alleging violations of the Cable Communi-cations Policy Act of 1984 for use of an unauthor-ized converter-decoder. The parties settled duringa settlement conference, and the court sealed thetape of the conference. The parties agreed to theissuance of a consent injunction against the de-fendant and to discontinue the case with prejudiceaccording to the terms of the stipulation of dis-continuance.

Freeman v. City of New York (NY-S 1:01-cv-05360filed 06/14/2001).Civil rights action by an incarcerated prisoneragainst the city of New York and several correc-tional officers for verbal abuse, physical attack,and failure to provide medical attention. The casesettled on the record during a settlement confer-ence. The court ordered the tape of the conferencesealed, and the tape was placed in the vault. Theparties dismissed the action with prejudice.

Shieldkret v. Park Place Entertainment Corp. (NY-S1:01-cv-05471 filed 06/18/2001).Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act by afemale marketing employee of a gaming industrycompany, alleging violations of the Equal Pay Actfor deliberately paying her substantially less than

male employees. A jury trial was held, but theparties settled before the jury returned a verdict.The court ordered the order of discontinuance, aletter from the plaintiff, and an additional order tobe filed under seal. Two sealed documents wereplaced in the vault, and the case was closed.

Kattini v. Republic of South Africa (NY-S 1:01-cv-05648 filed 06/21/2001).Employment age discrimination action by a 64-year-old employee of the South African consulatein New York, alleging an attempt to force theplaintiff into involuntary retirement, demotion ofthe plaintiff from a permanent position to a tem-porary one, and termination. The parties settledand agreed to discontinue the action with preju-dice. The court placed a sealed document in thevault the same day. The parties were given 120days to restore the action if settlement was noteffected. Five months later another sealed docu-ment was placed in the vault. No further activityoccurred in the case.

Roach v. Young’s Equipment (NY-S 7:01-cv-05979filed 07/02/2001).Product liability action for a hand injury causedby a frame machine. The case settled, and thecourt ordered the tape of the settlement confer-ence to be sealed. The case was discontinued withprejudice.

Menaker v. Westchester Jewish Community ServicesInc. (NY-S 7:01-cv-06127 filed 07/06/2001).Employment discrimination case for sex and agediscrimination and harassment. The parties set-tled, and a stipulation of settlement was placed onthe record. The transcript was sealed, and the casewas discontinued with prejudice with leave toreopen it solely for the purpose of enforcing thesettlement.

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 andone defendant. Court-ordered mediation pro-duced a stipulation settling all issues in the case.A sealed document was placed in the vault thesame day the court ordered the case to be discon-tinued without prejudice.


C-83

Toumarkine v. Hollywood Media Corp. (NY-S 1:01-cv-06623 filed 07/20/2001).Employment discrimination action alleging pre-textual termination to conceal illegal age dis-crimination. The case settled on the record in opencourt and was discontinued with prejudice. Thecourt retained jurisdiction to enforce the settle-ment terms. A sealed document was placed in thevault two weeks later.

Charley v. Andin International (NY-S 1:01-cv-08302filed 09/05/2001).Employment discrimination action by a blackmale employee with kidney and skin cancer, al-leging discrimination based on race, color, anddisability, including wrongful termination andfailure to accommodate disabilities. The partiesreached a settlement agreement on the record,and a sealed document was placed in the vaulttwo days later. The parties agreed to dismiss thecase with prejudice.

Top Rank Inc. v. Kelepeses (NY-S 1:01-cv-08382 filed09/07/2001).Action for violation of the Cable CommunicationsAct and for copyright infringement in transmit-ting without authorization the plaintiff’s pay-per-view programs, including boxing matches. Theparties entered into an executed stipulation ofsettlement, which was filed by the court underseal. The court placed the sealed document in thevault and ordered the case dismissed with preju-dice 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 andmethods for making such fabrics. The partiesreached a settlement and agreed to dismiss thecase with prejudice, but only as to the allegationsof infringement concerning fabrics sold by thedefendants prior to the effective date of the set-tlement agreement. The stipulated order of dis-missal indicated that the settlement agreementwas filed along with the stipulation. Several dayslater a sealed document was placed in the vault.

Gund Inc. v. Ganz Inc. (NY-S 1:02-cv-00801 filed02/01/2002).Copyright infringement suit alleging that the de-fendants’ toy animals were substantially similar tothe plaintiff’s plush toys. The parties settled, andthe court granted their request to file their consentjudgment under seal because unrestricted access

to the consent judgment would result in inappro-priate disclosure of trade secrets and other pro-prietary information. The case was dismissedwithout prejudice to reopen it within thirty days ifthe settlement was not consummated.

Centre Group Holdings Ltd. v. American InternationalGroup Inc. (NY-S 1:02-cv-01955 filed 03/08/2002).Trademark infringement action concerning finan-cial and insurance services. The parties settledand agreed to dismiss the case with prejudice. Thestipulation of dismissal states that the terms of thesettlement agreement are attached and the courtretains jurisdiction to enforce it. The agreementwas not attached to the stipulation of dismissal, soit was probably the document the docket sheetindicated was filed under seal three days previ-ously.

McVicker v. Pactiv Corp. (NY-S 7:02-cv-02548 filed04/03/2002).Patent infringement case concerning garbagebags. The parties agreed to settle all claims anddismiss the action with prejudice. The court or-dered the taped settlement agreement sealed andplaced in the vault.

Mannain v. J-Len Inc. (NY-S 7:02-cv-02919 filed04/16/2002).Employment discrimination action by four femaleemployees for sex discrimination, including sex-ual harassment, a hostile work environment, andretaliation. The parties settled and submitted theirconfidential settlement agreement and release tothe court under seal. The case was dismissed withprejudice.

Clyde Otis Music Group v. MTV NetworksEnterprises Inc. (NY-S 1:02-cv-05326 filed07/11/2002).Copyright infringement action for unlawful airingof a musical composition. The parties reached asettlement agreement and agreed to dismiss thecase with prejudice. A sealed document wasplaced 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 tradesecrets. The parties settled and submitted to thecourt a settlement agreement set forth in a consentorder. The court granted the parties’ request tofile an attachment to the consent order under sealin order to protect the plaintiff’s highly sensitive


C-84

confidential and proprietary information. Thecase was dismissed with prejudice.

Western District of New YorkThe Western District of New York has a new localrule requiring a “substantial showing” to seal adocument, W.D.N.Y. L.R. 5.4(a), but this rule isnewer than the cases in this study. “Unless an or-der of the court otherwise directs, all sealeddocuments will remain sealed after final disposi-tion of the case.” Id. R. 5.4(f).

Statistics: 3,000 cases in termination cohort; 12docket sheets are sealed (0.40%)—the dispositioncodes for 10 of these cases suggest no sealed set-tlement agreements,61 and the disposition codesfor 2 of these cases suggest sealed settlementagreements;62 106 unsealed docket sheets (3.5%)have the word “seal” in them; 20 complete docketsheets (0.67%) were reviewed; actual documentswere examined for 12 cases (0.40%); 11 cases(0.37%) appear to have sealed settlement agree-ments.

Cases with Sealed Settlement AgreementsBurns v. Imagine Films Entertainment Inc. (NY-W1:92-cv-00243 filed 04/08/1992).Copyright case alleging use of the plaintiffs’ copy-righted screenplays in the motion picture Back-draft. As a discovery sanction, the court orderedthe defendants’ answers stricken and entered adefault judgment against the defendants; trial wasset on the question of damages. The parties settledall claims. The plaintiffs moved to enforce the con-fidential settlement agreement. The court orderedthe parties to resolve outstanding issues. Oneweek later the parties filed a stipulation and orderof dismissal with prejudice, requesting that thecourt vacate its prior judgment of liability in favorof the plaintiffs, which was based on the strikingof the defendants’ answers. On the day the casewas closed, a document was filed under seal. Thecourt agreed to vacate its prior judgment of liabil-ity.

Tops Markets Inc. v. Quality Markets Inc. (NY-W1:93-cv-00302 filed 04/02/1993).Antitrust action by a large supermarket chainagainst other supermarkets and a commercial de-veloper, who filed a counterclaim. The district

61. Two judgments on motions before trial, 1 vol-untary dismissal, 6 “other” dismissals, 1 “other” judg-ment.

62. One consent judgment, 1 case settled.

court bifurcated the case, and the jury returned aliability verdict against the plaintiff on all countsand in favor of the commercial developer on hiscounterclaim. The plaintiff settled the counter-claim with the developer. The plaintiff’s originalattorney was discharged, and he filed to have alien placed on the case until he was paid for hisservices. The district court denied the attorney’smotion for fees and a lien, and the attorney ap-pealed. The plaintiff moved to enter the settle-ment agreement with the developer into the rec-ord. The plaintiff sought to do this under seal topreserve a nondisclosure agreement. The courtagreed to seal the settlement agreement. The courtof appeals affirmed the district court’s denial ofthe attorney’s lien.

United States v. Genesee Valley Card (NY-W 6:97-cv-06502 filed 11/12/1997).Statutory action. The docket sheet is sealed. Thecase was dismissed as settled.

Airsep Corp. v. ICAR SPA (NY-W 1:00-cv-00089filed 01/26/2000).Contract action alleging that defects in capacitorsmanufactured and distributed by the defendantscaused oxygen concentrators manufactured andsold by the plaintiff to catch fire. The parties set-tled, and the court dismissed the case withoutprejudice, with leave to reopen it within sixtydays if settlement was not consummated. Twomonths later a document was filed under seal,and a final settlement conference was held to dis-cuss the status of settlement. No further activityoccurred in the case.

Weidner v. Town of Eden (NY-W 1:00-cv-00162 filed02/16/2000).Civil rights action concerning the plaintiffs’ realproperty. The case settled, the settlement termswere put on the record, and the court recordingwas sealed. The parties agreed to dismiss the ac-tion with prejudice, and the case was closed uponcourt approval of the dismissal.

Nevarez v. Pittsford Central School District (NY-W6:00-cv-06096 filed 03/06/2000).Civil rights action under the Americans with Dis-abilities Act against a school district, its board ofeducation, and a principal for discriminationagainst the plaintiffs and their disabled daughter.The parties settled, and the court placed the set-tlement terms on the record. The parties executedthe stipulation and order to dismiss in open court,


C-85

and the court sealed the stipulation. The case wasclosed.

Jeswald v. Frontier Central School District (NY-W1:00-cv-00824 filed 09/22/2000).Employment discrimination action by an obeseNative-American woman, alleging wrongful ter-mination on the basis of her race and disability bya school district. The defendant informed thecourt that the parties had settled. Five monthslater a document was filed under seal, and thecase was closed the same day.

Harms v. Dow Chemical Co. (NY-W 1:00-cv-01040filed 12/19/2000).Product liability action alleging that the dece-dent’s workplace exposure to the defendants’ vi-nyl chloride caused him to develop several ill-nesses, including liver cancer, which resulted inhis death. The defendants brought a third-partycomplaint against the decedent’s employer forcontribution. The case settled, and the courtsealed an order of settlement. All parties agreed todismiss all claims with prejudice, and the courtdismissed the case.

United States v. 2986 Tallman Road (NY-W 6:01-cv-06155 filed 03/23/2001).Case involving the drug-related seizure of prop-erty. The docket sheet is sealed. The case was re-solved by consent judgment.

Buchalski v. Dow Chemical Co. (NY-W 1:01-cv-00309filed 04/27/2001).Product liability action by a surviving wife alleg-ing that the decedent’s workplace exposure to thedefendants’ vinyl chloride caused him to developseveral illnesses, including angiosarcoma of theliver, which resulted in his death. The defendantsbrought a third-party complaint against the dece-dent’s employer for contribution. The case settled,and the court sealed tapes of a teleconference heldthree days later. About a week later the court is-sued a sealed order of settlement. All partiesagreed to dismiss all claims with prejudice, andthe court dismissed the case.

Roberts v. County of Erie (NY-W 1:01-cv-00565 filed08/09/2001).Employment action for sexual discriminationagainst the Erie County Sheriff’s Department by aformer nurse employee, alleging repeated in-stances of sexual harassment, discrimination, andretaliation. During a settlement hearing, the par-

ties settled, and the court ordered the proceedingssealed. The parties were ordered to exchange awritten settlement agreement and sign a generalrelease. The court dismissed the case, and theparties stipulated to dismiss all claims with preju-dice.

Eastern District of North CarolinaThe court amended its local rule on sealed docu-ments effective January 1, 2003. Absent statutoryauthority, court filings may be sealed only oncourt order obtained by motion. E.D.N.C. L. Civ.R. 79.2(a). Sealed documents must be delivered tothe court in red envelopes with three lines ofspecified text designating the date of filing andthat the document is to be filed under seal. Id. R.79.2(e). The docket designates “generically thetype of document filed under seal, but it will notcontain a description that would disclose its iden-tity.” Id. R. 79.2(c). “After the action concludesand all appeals have been completed, counsel ischarged with the responsibility of retrieving andmaintaining all sealed documents. Upon 10 daysnotice by mail to counsel for all parties, andwithin thirty days after final disposition, the courtmay order the documents to be unsealed and theywill thereafter be available for public inspection.”Id. R. 79.2(d).

Statistics: 2,808 cases in termination cohort; 143docket sheets (5.1%) have the word “seal” in them(but 57 of these merely have Crown Cork and SealCompany as a party); 12 complete docket sheets(0.43%) were reviewed; actual documents wereexamined for 4 cases (0.14%); 3 cases (0.11%) ap-pear to have sealed settlement agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement AgreementsLloyd v. Newton (NC-E 7:00-cv-00034 filed02/22/2000).Housing and accommodations action under theAmericans with Disabilities Act and state law forfailure to rent a hotel room to a disabled personwho had a service dog but who was not blind.The parties filed a consent protective order, andthe transcript of the settlement conference wassealed. The case ended in a stipulation of dis-missal. Because the complaint included a claim fornegligent supervision, settlement discussions mayhave included trade secrets on employee training.

Ramirez v. Beaulieu (NC-E 5:00-cv-00536 filed07/25/2000).Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act andstate law by carpenters for unpaid wages. The


C-86

parties reached a confidential settlement agree-ment and filed a joint stipulation of dismissal. Thestipulation specified that if the plaintiff notifiedthe court within ninety days that the defendantshad breached the agreement, then an attachedsealed consent order would become effective. Theninety days elapsed without such notice, and thecase was closed.

Watson v. Life Insurance Co. of North America (NC-E5:01-cv-00870 filed 11/07/2001).ERISA action for wrongfully denying disabilitybenefits to a processing clerk. The disabled bene-ficiary was represented by her mother, who hadpower of attorney. The case settled, and the courtapproved the settlement. A sealed settlementagreement was filed.

Middle District of North CarolinaSealed documents are sent to the records center inAtlanta along with the rest of the case file, where“[t]he confidentiality of sealed documents cannotbe assured.” M.D.N.C. L.R. 83.5(c). At the end ofthe case, after the opportunity for appeal is ex-hausted, the clerk sends the parties a notice thatthey may retrieve sealed documents.


Cases with Sealed Settlement AgreementsQueen v. rha Health Services Inc. (NC-M 1:00-cv-00101 filed 02/01/2000).Class action under the federal Fair Labor Stan-dards Act and state law by employees of a resi-dential facility for developmentally disabledadults, alleging that the employees working anight shift were required to remain on the prem-ises without compensation for eight hours of theireighteen-hour shifts. The court dismissed the statelaw claims as preempted by the federal claim. Thecase settled, and the parties filed a joint motionunder seal for an order approving the settlement.Such an order was granted, but the order saysnothing about the terms of the settlement.

Saine v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (NC-M 1:00-cv-00271 filed 03/20/2000).ERISA action by a drug sales employee to chal-lenge denial of short-term disability benefits formigraine headaches. The court granted the defen-

dants summary judgment on the ERISA claim, butdenied them summary judgment on a counter-claim for the return of mistakenly issued salarychecks. The parties settled the counterclaim beforetrial, but the plaintiff apparently violated the set-tlement agreement (before the case was dis-missed), so the defendant employer moved forenforcement of the agreement, attaching theagreement as a sealed exhibit. The plaintiff appar-ently violated the court’s order to enforce theagreement by failing to return money and salessupplies, 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 theparties settled their dispute and filed a stipulateddismissal.

Kurth v. BioSignia Inc. (NC-M 1:00-cv-00534 filed06/01/2000).Stockholders’ suit for wrongful cancellation of astock certificate allegedly worth $3.3 million. Theplaintiff received the certificate in exchange forlegal services provided to a CEO of a subsidiaryof the defendant. The defendant alleged that theCEO’s interest in the certificate never vested be-cause he was forced to resign, with a suggestionof wrongdoing. The case settled on the eve of trial,and the court sealed the transcript of the settle-ment conference. The plaintiff thereafter refusedto sign the settlement papers because of a termimpairing his ability to sell his stock, so the de-fendant filed a sealed motion to enforce theagreement. The plaintiff’s unsealed response in-cluded the agreement as an exhibit. The dis-agreement was resolved, and a copy of the settle-ment agreement was attached to an unsealedstipulation of dismissal.

Parks v. Alteon Inc. (NC-M 1:00-cv-00657 filed07/13/2000).Product liability case in which the plaintiff sueddrug companies, alleging that their experimentaldiabetes drug caused kidney failure. The partiesreached a confidential private settlement agree-ment, but one defendant apparently was late inmaking its settlement payment. The settlementagreement was filed under seal as an exhibit to amotion to enforce it. The case was dismissedwithout 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 blackplaintiffs sued their employer for race discrimina-


C-87

tion. One plaintiff had second thoughts about theconfidential settlement agreement and moved prose to set it aside. The defendant attached a sealedcopy of the settlement agreement to a motion toenforce it. The court ruled against the plaintiff’smotion and ordered her to pay a $3,600 sanctionto cover the defendant’s attorney fees to enforcethe 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 nursinghome for wrongful death resulting from the in-sertion of a feeding tube into a patient’s tracheainstead of her esophagus, resulting in her lungsreceiving feeding solution. The case was dis-missed pursuant to a sealed consent order.

Western District of North CarolinaLocal Rule 5.1(D)(4) states: “Unless otherwise or-dered by a court, any case file or documents un-der court seal that have not previously been un-sealed by court order shall be unsealed at the timeof final disposition of the case.” According to theclerk, sealed documents are not sent to the recordscenter. If there were an order to keep a documentsealed, the court probably would keep the wholefile, because there would be so few.

Statistics: 2,203 cases in termination cohort; 2docket sheets are sealed (0.09%)—both of thesecases’ disposition codes suggest no sealed settle-ment agreements;63 101 unsealed docket sheets(4.6%) have the word “seal” in them; 27 completedocket sheets (1.2%) were reviewed; actual docu-ments were examined for 14 cases (0.64%); 11cases (0.50%) appear to have sealed settlementagreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement AgreementsEstate of Carr v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp. (NC-W 5:99-cv-00023 filed 02/24/1999), consolidated withEstate 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 filed02/24/1999), Estate of Phillips v. Louisiana-PacificCorp. (NC-W 5:99-cv-00026 filed 02/24/1999), andEstate of Carr v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp. (NC-W 5:99-cv-00027 filed 02/24/1999).Consolidated motor vehicle tort action in whichfive decedents’ estates sued the alleged employers

63. One case transferred to another district, 1 vol-

untary dismissal.

of a logging truck driver. According to the com-plaints, the driver became distracted whilechanging a tape in his cab. He veered into on-coming traffic and ran a church van off the road.He then swerved back into the correct lane, andthe truck’s logs spilled, crushing the van’s fiveoccupants. The district court granted summaryjudgment to the defendants on the grounds thatthe driver was not their agent, and the plaintiffsappealed. The case settled on appeal. The courthad to approve the settlement agreement, becauseone of the plaintiffs was a minor representing herfather’s estate. Terms of the settlement agreementare under seal.

Delaney v. Stephens (NC-W 3:00-cv-00138 filed03/24/2000).Medical malpractice action by a three-year-oldboy for “cardiac arrest and cephalad hematoma”allegedly resulting from his mother’s physician’susing a “vacuum assisted delivery device” duringdelivery. More than two years later the court de-nied a motion to continue the trial date, and oneweek in advance of the scheduled trial date, adocument was filed under seal. A week later an-other document was filed under seal, and the casewas closed the following day, with the dispositionof the case coded as a consent judgment. A sealedsettlement agreement apparently was filed.

McKinney v. CVS Pharmacy Inc. (NC-W 1:01-cv-00124 filed 06/08/2001).Housing and accommodations action for refusalto permit a customer with a service dog to bringher dog into the store. The plaintiff alleged thatshe brought in the dog while filling a prescriptionand was rudely shooed away. A district managerallegedly told the plaintiff, “we don’t have to lethandicapped people in .!.!. if we don’t want to.”Subsequently the dog needed a prescription filled,and when the plaintiff visited the store to fill itshe was humiliated, injured, and prosecuted forviolating the store’s no-dog rule. The defendantsclaimed that the plaintiff was not disabled, thedog was not a service dog, and the dog was notsufficiently well-behaved. The case was dismissedpursuant to a sealed settlement agreement. Nearlytwo months later another document was filed un-der seal—apparently a motion by the defendantsto enforce the agreement. The plaintiff’s counselnotified the court that the plaintiff had not yetsigned the agreement or received the settlementcheck and that the plaintiff was no longer per-mitted to visit counsel at his office. Thereafter theplaintiff represented herself. Two additional


C-88

documents were filed under seal, at least one ofwhich was an order.

McGinnis v. Eli Lilly and Co. (NC-W 5:02-cv-00010filed 01/22/2002).Product liability action by a surviving husbandand three children claiming that Prozac causedthe decedent’s suicide. Prior to a mediation con-ference the parties settled, and four documentswere filed under seal.

J.M. Huber Corp. v. Potlatch Corp. (NC-W 3:02-cv-00034 filed 01/25/2002).Trademark action concerning a plywood substi-tute called oriented strand board. The case wasdismissed in reliance on a settlement agreement,which was sealed and filed as an exhibit to theorder dismissing the case. The order included thestatement that “[t]he parties .!.!. consent to theCourt retaining jurisdiction of this matter to en-force the terms of a confidential SettlementAgreement!.!.!.!.”

Estate of Neville v. United States (NC-W 1:02-cv-00029 filed 02/04/2002).Medical malpractice action alleging wrongfuldeath at a Veterans’ Administration hospital fol-lowing surgery to correct bile peritonitis, whichhad resulted from an earlier negligent Veterans’Administration hospital surgery. A mediator’sreport was filed under seal, and the case was dis-missed as settled.

Rasavong v. Fortis Benefits Insurance Co. (NC-W3:02-cv-00132 filed 03/29/2002).ERISA action challenging the defendant’s refusalto pay life insurance benefits on the grounds thatthe plaintiff was a suspect in her husband’s mur-der. The parties moved for approval of a confi-dential settlement agreement, which the courtordered filed under seal. The docket sheet, how-ever, does not show such a filing, but the courtdid approve the agreement. Unsealed documentsdisclose that the defendant paid the $370,000 in-surance claim in full to the plaintiff and that thiswas deemed in the best interest of her minor chil-dren, who would receive the payment themselvesif she were ineligible. It is not clear what term ofthe settlement agreement remains confidential.

District of North DakotaUnless the court orders otherwise, sealed docu-ments are returned to the parties filing them when

the case is over. D.N.D. L.R. 5.1(F)(1). If an entirefile is permanently sealed, then the court retainscustody of it. Id. R. 5.1(F)(3).

Statistics: 574 cases in termination cohort; 126docket 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 set-tlement agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement AgreementsJones-VanTassel v. Richland County (ND 3:99-cv-00060 filed 04/16/1999).Civil rights employment action by an emergencymanager against her former employer for wrong-ful termination based on sex. The transcript of thesettlement conference was sealed. The court re-tained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the set-tlement agreement.

United States v. BM&H Partnership (ND 3:99-cv-00163 filed 11/17/1999).Action under the Fair Housing Act by husbandand wife caretakers of an apartment complex forwrongful termination and eviction. The complaintalleged retaliation for aiding tenants in assertingtheir right to fair housing. The transcript of thesettlement conference was sealed. The court ap-proved the settlement on behalf of the plaintiffs’three minor children.

Steen v. United States (ND 4:00-cv-00040 filed03/21/2000).Personal injury action under the Federal TortClaims Act by an Air Force base maintenanceworker who was employed by a civilian contrac-tor, for sexual harassment and assault by a civil-ian employee who inspects the work of contrac-tors. During the settlement conference the courtagreed to keep the settlement amount under seal.About a month after the settlement conference,the government filed a motion to unseal the set-tlement amount of $30,000 because confidentialityprovisions in settlement agreements are contraryto the policy of the Department of Justice

Johnson v. Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. (ND 1:00-cv-00047 filed 04/10/2000).Personal injury action by a pharmaceutical salesrepresentative for wrongful termination based onhis felony conviction, which had been divulged tothe defendant prior to his employment. The par-ties settled at a pretrial conference. The court or-


C-89

dered that transcripts and any settlement docu-ments that contain monetary amounts be sealed.

Binstock v. The Finder (ND 1:00-cv-00087 filed07/14/2000).Personal injury action under the Family MedicalLeave Act and state law by a woman who wasunaware that she was entitled to twelve weeks ofmaternity leave and returned to work after fiveweeks so that she would not lose her benefits. Thecourt granted summary judgment on the state lawclaim of negligence. The transcript of the settle-ment conference was sealed.

Northern District of Oklahoma64

“No pleading, document, or record shall beplaced under seal without a prior, specific orderof the court finding good cause to do so.” N.D.Okla. L.R. 79.1(D).


Cases with Sealed Settlement AgreementsFirst National Bank and Trust Co. of Miami v. OttawaCounty Chapter of the American Cancer Society (OK-N 4:99-cv-00691 filed 08/18/1999).Contract action concerning the identity of therightful claimants of a $1.6 million residuary trustfund. The case settled. The clerk’s minutes indi-cate that the court ordered the settlement agree-ment and the agreed order for distribution offunds filed under seal. Shortly thereafter, twosealed documents were filed with the court.

Whelan v. Saint John (OK-N 4:00-cv-00109 filed02/07/2000).Medical malpractice action against a plastic sur-geon, alleging negligence and battery resulting inserious permanent injury. The case was dismissedas settled. The confidentiality order relating to thecase dismissal was filed under seal.


its good-cause rule.

Rogers v. Kaplan (OK-N 4:00-cv-00321 filed04/19/2000).Medical malpractice action on behalf of an in-competent person, alleging negligence in the ad-ministration of epidural anesthesia, which re-sulted in severe and permanent brain injury. Thecase was dismissed as settled. The settlementhearing transcript was sealed.

Ramsey v. Brighter Day Inc. (OK-N 4:00-cv-00593filed 07/18/2000).Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act forfailure to pay habilitation training specialists andsupervisors overtime compensation. The case wasdismissed as settled, and the confidential settle-ment agreement was filed under seal.

Doe v. City of Tulsa (OK-N 4:00-cv-00896 filed10/18/2000).Civil rights action alleging failure to take ade-quate precautions to avoid public disclosure ofthe plaintiff’s medical condition. The case wasdismissed as settled. The court ordered all mattersrelated to the case sealed except for the agreedjudgment, which discloses the amount of settle-ment to be $9,000. The sealed documents includethe complaint, settlement conference report, andadministrative closing order.

Raimond v. Toys “R” Us—Delaware Inc. (OK-N4:00-cv-01090 filed 12/29/2000).Product liability action on behalf of a minor whowas severely injured by a dangerously designedand manufactured water toy sold by the defen-dant. The case was dismissed as settled. Docu-ments related to the joint settlement report hear-ing, including the court’s order dismissing thecase, 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 recoverbenefits for injuries incurred during a soccermatch. The case settled. The court approved thesettlement and ordered the transcript of the set-tlement proceedings sealed.

Sandoval v. Travelers Property Casualty (OK-N 4:01-cv-00847 filed 11/15/2001).Insurance action by a surviving spouse allegingfailure to pay benefits for the decedent’s lethalinjuries sustained in an automobile accident thatwas caused by an uninsured motorist’s negli-


C-90

gence. The case settled. The court appointed aguardian ad litem for the decedent’s minor childand approved the settlement. The court order wasfiled under seal.

Ainsworth v. Bailey Inc. (OK-N 4:02-cv-00191 filed03/08/2002).Civil rights action on behalf of children, allegingrace discrimination by the defendant’s hotel. Thecase settled, and the court order approving thesettlement was sealed.

Impressions on Hold International Inc. v. AMFYOYOLLC (OK-N 4:02-cv-00216 filed 03/21/2002).Trademark infringement action alleging the at-tempted conversion of an on-hold message com-pany and the wrongful use of the company’sname. The defendants filed a counterclaim alleg-ing breach of contract. The case settled, and thecourt ordered the transcript of the settlement pro-ceedings sealed.

United States ex. rel Seneca-Cayuga Tribe ofOklahoma v. Humble Riggs & Associates LLC (OK-N4:02-cv-00239 filed 04/01/2002).Statutory action concerning the management of atobacco enterprise on United States property en-trusted to an Indian tribe. The case settled. Thecourt granted the plaintiff’s motion to seal certainfiled documents, including the settlement agree-ment.

Eastern District of PennsylvaniaNo relevant local rule.


Cases with Sealed Settlement AgreementsTara M. v. City of Philadelphia (PA-E 2:97-cv-01041filed 02/11/1997).Civil rights case involving a foster child who wassexually abused and seriously burned by her fos-ter parents. The plaintiff alleged that the fosterparents were not properly screened. After thechild was injured, the defendant failed to properlytreat the child’s physical and mental injuries. Athird-party complaint was filed by the Depart-ment of Human Services against the attorney whowas appointed counsel for the child. Another

third-party complaint was filed against the in-surer of the company with which the defendantcontracted to provide foster care services. A peti-tion for leave to compromise the minor’s claimsand the defendant’s response were sealed. Theorder of dismissal reported that the settlementamount was $4,310,000.

Lord v. Living Bridges (PA-E 2:97-cv-06355 filed10/14/1997).Personal injury case against an adoption agencythat falsely represented the background andhealth status of three Mexican minors adopted bythe plaintiffs. A sealed settlement agreement wasfiled.

Graco Children’s Products Inc. v. RegaldoInternational LLC (PA-E 2:97-cv-06885 filed11/10/1997).Patent case involving a “foldable play yard.” Thedefendant filed a sealed motion to enforce thesettlement agreement. Three months after themotion was filed, the court denied it as moot, be-cause the parties had filed a consent judgmentand voluntary permanent injunction. The consentjudgment noted that the defendant would pay theplaintiff a set amount, but the amount was notrevealed.

Keyes v. Deere & Co. (PA-E 2:98-cv-00602 filed02/06/1998).Product liability case involving a minor. Early inthe case the mother was removed as plaintiff anda guardian ad litem was appointed. The entirecase file is sealed. A settlement agreement isamong the sealed documents. The final entry onthe 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’ compensa-tion claim. The entire case was sealed. The plain-tiff filed a motion to enforce the settlementagreement. After a four-day jury trial, the casewas settled.

E.B. v. Easton Area School District (PA-E 2:99-cv-00256 filed 01/19/1999).Civil rights case involving a 13-year-old boy whowas assaulted by a teacher. The signed releaseand order permitting compromise of the minor’sclaims were sealed.


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 regis-ter, offer, and sell securities. A sealed settlementagreement was filed.

Ruiz v. Metrobank of Philadelphia NA (PA-E 2:99-cv-00655 filed 02/08/1999).Contract action by a woman and her minor childinvolving default on a promissory note. The peti-tion to settle the minor’s claims was sealed. Amotion for sanctions included an exhibit revealingthat 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-Americanplaintiffs against their employer for race discrimi-nation. The transcript of a settlement hearing wassealed.

In re Air Crash Disaster Near Peggy’s Cove, NovaScotia on September 2, 1998 (MDL 1269 transferred04/07/1999).65

Airline cases claiming that an aircraft crashed be-cause of a malfunction in the in-flight entertain-ment center, killing 229 passengers and crewmembers. A stipulation and order was filed underseal in each member case on the same day that thecase was closed. 65

65. This multidistrict litigation includes 144 Penn-

sylvania Eastern member cases in our termination co-hort: Tschudin v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (PA-E 2:99-cv-02291 filed 05/04/1999); Dwek v. McDonnellDouglas Corp. (PA-E 2:99-cv-02293 filed 05/04/1999);Kalogridakis v. Swissair (PA-E 2:99-cv-02523 filed05/17/1999); Arnaldi v. Sair Group (PA-E 2:99-cv-02524filed 05/17/1999); Junod v. Swissair (PA-E 2:99-cv-02528 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. Swis-sair Transport Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-02586 filed05/19/1999); Librett v. Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E2:99-cv-03146 filed 06/21/1999); Neuweiler v. SwissairTransport Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-03147 filed 06/21/1999);Lee v. Sair Group (PA-E 2:99-cv-03148 filed06/21/1999); Harrity v. Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E2:99-cv-03245 filed 06/25/1999); Scott v. SwissairTransport Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-03753 filed 07/23/1999);Rizza v. Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-03948filed 08/04/1999); Wilson v. Swissair Transport Co.(PA-E 2:99-cv-04058 filed 08/11/1999); Rogers v. Swis-sair Transport Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-04193 filed08/19/1999); Rogers v. Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E2:99-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-04235filed 08/20/1999); Caripides v. Swissair Transport Co.(PA-E 2:99-cv-04236 filed 08/20/1999); Watson v. DeltaAirlines Inc. (PA-E 2:99-cv-04869 filed 09/30/1999);Estate of Tahmoush v. Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E2:99-cv-04971 filed 10/07/1999); Diba v. SwissairTransport Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-04972 filed 10/07/1999);Troyon v. Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-05236filed 10/22/1999); Estate of Colmery v. Swissair Group(PA-E 2:99-cv-05269 filed 10/25/1999); Estate of Klein-man v. Delta Airlines Inc. (PA-E 2:99-cv-05316 filed10/27/1999); Nelson v. Sair Group (PA-E 2:99-cv-05372filed 10/29/1999); Lamotta v. Interactive Flight Tech-nologies 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 (PA-E 2:99-cv-05623 filed 11/12/1999); Diasparra v. SwissairGroup (PA-E 2:99-cv-05624 filed 11/12/1999); Thomp-son v. Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-05773 filed11/19/1999); Estate of Kief v. Swissair (PA-E 2:99-cv-05775 filed 11/19/1999); Smith v. Swissair TransportCo. (PA-E 2:99-cv-05776 filed 11/19/1999); Conley v.Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-05778 filed11/19/1999); Mann v. Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E2:99-cv-05779 filed 11/19/1999); Estate of Gerety v.Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-05780 filed11/19/1999); McGinnis v. Interactive Flight Technolo-gies Inc. (PA-E 2:99-cv-05809 filed 11/22/1999); Dias-parra v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours and Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-05812 filed 11/22/1999); Alleaume v. SwissairTransport Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-05854 filed 11/23/1999);Monay v. Swissair (PA-E 2:99-cv-05855 filed11/23/1999); Dwek v. Swissair (PA-E 2:99-cv-05857filed 11/23/1999); Faherty v. Swissair Transport Co.(PA-E 2:99-cv-05858 filed 11/23/1999); Wight v. Swis-sair Transport Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-05860 filed11/23/1999); Fetherolf v. Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E2:99-cv-05861 filed 11/23/1999); Abady v. SwissairTransport Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-05997 filed 12/01/1999);Estate of Smith v. Swissair (PA-E 2:99-cv-06002 filed12/01/1999); Mcginnis v. Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E2:99-cv-06003 filed 12/01/1999); Hawkins v. SwissairTransport Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-06004 filed 12/01/1999);Amposta v. Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-06010filed 12/01/1999); Dalmais-Kitzinger v. SwissairTransport Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-06013 filed 12/01/1999);Brown v. Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-06014filed 12/01/1999); De Roussan v. Swissair TransportCo. (PA-E 2:99-cv-06019 filed 12/01/1999); Albertsen v.Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-06024 filed12/01/1999); Rizza v. Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E2:99-cv-06026 filed 12/01/1999); Levina v. SwissairTransport 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 Trans-port Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-06031 filed 12/01/1999); Estateof Ezell v. Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-06032filed 12/01/1999); Smith v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours


C-92

and Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-06033 filed 12/01/1999); Kasselv. E.I. Dupont de Nemours and Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-06035filed 12/01/1999); Boure v. Sair Group (PA-E 2:99-cv-06040 filed 12/01/1999); Valade v. Sair Group (PA-E2:99-cv-06043 filed 12/01/1999); Richard v. Sair Group(PA-E 2:99-cv-06044 filed 12/01/1999); Rossi v. SairGroup (PA-E 2:99-cv-06046 filed 12/01/1999); Burck-hardt v. Sair Group (PA-E 2:99-cv-06049 filed12/01/1999); Babolat v. Sair Group (PA-E 2:99-cv-06050filed 12/01/1999); Pavrette v. Sair Group (PA-E 2:99-cv-06052 filed 12/01/1999); Baconnier v. Sair Group (PA-E2:99-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 filed12/01/1999); Salakhoutdinov v. Sair Group (PA-E 2:99-cv-06059 filed 12/01/1999); Kenneth v. Sair Group (PA-E 2:99-cv-06060 filed 12/01/1999); Levina v. SwissairTransport 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 filed12/02/1999); Mendo Martínez v. E.I. Dupont de Ne-mours 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 Ne-mours 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 deNemours and Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-06094 filed12/02/1999); Hastie v. Sair Group (PA-E 2:99-cv-06100filed 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 filed12/02/1999); Mendo Martínez v. McDonnell DouglasCorp. (PA-E 2:99-cv-06119 filed 12/02/1999); Alleaumev. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (PA-E 2:99-cv-06150 filed12/03/1999); Thompson v. Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-06169 filed 12/06/1999); de la Soudiere-Gerety v. Interactive Flight Technologies Inc. (PA-E2:99-cv-06170 filed 12/06/1999); Scarboro v. McDonnellDouglas Corp. (PA-E 2:99-cv-06172 filed 12/06/1999);Estate of Mir-Alai v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (PA-E2:99-cv-06173 filed 12/06/1999); Estate of Benjamin v.McDonnell Douglas Corp. (PA-E 2:99-cv-06174 filed12/06/1999); Estate of Makarevitch v. McDonnellDouglas 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-E2:99-cv-06180 filed 12/06/1999); Schachter v. SairGroup (PA-E 2:99-cv-06181 filed 12/06/1999); Wilkinsv. 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 filed12/09/1999); Sheer v. Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E2:99-cv-06268 filed 12/09/1999); Houtait v. SwissairTransport 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-E2:99-cv-06418 filed 12/15/1999); Leite de Roussan v.McDonnell Douglas Corp. (PA-E 2:99-cv-06438 filed12/17/1999); Rizza v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (PA-E2:99-cv-06443 filed 12/17/1999); Levina v. McDonnellDouglas Corp. (PA-E 2:99-cv-06444 filed 12/17/1999);Levina v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (PA-E 2:99-cv-06446 filed 12/17/1999); St. George-Kreis v. McDonnellDouglas 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. InteractiveFlight Technologies Inc. (PA-E 2:99-cv-06497 filed12/21/1999); Burghardt v. Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-06537 filed 12/23/1999); Estate of Hoche v.Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E 2:00-cv-00011 filed01/03/2000); Beckett v. Sair Group (PA-E 2:00-cv-00130filed 01/10/2000); Estate of Springer v. Sair Group (PA-E 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 filed01/24/2000); Viollet v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (PA-E 2:00-cv-00419 filed 01/24/2000); Noceto v. McDonnellDouglas Corp. (PA-E 2:00-cv-00420 filed 01/24/2000);Viollet v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (PA-E 2:00-cv-00421 filed 01/24/2000); Kennett v. Interactive FlightTechnologies Inc. (PA-E 2:00-cv-00422 filed01/24/2000); Diasparra v. Interactive Flight Technolo-gies Inc. (PA-E 2:00-cv-00694 filed 02/08/2000); Suttonv. Interactive Flight Technologies Inc. (PA-E 2:00-cv-00695 filed 02/08/2000); O’Gara v. Sair Group (PA-E2:00-cv-00912 filed 02/18/2000); Rizza v. InteractiveFlight Technologies Inc. (PA-E 2:00-cv-01417 filed03/20/2000); Estate of Milne v. Swissair (PA-E 2:00-cv-02258 filed 05/01/2000); Estate of Ezell v. E.I. Dupontde Nemours and Co. (PA-E 2:00-cv-02259 filed05/01/2000); Estate of Hoche v. Swissair Transport Co.(PA-E 2:00-cv-02623 filed 05/23/2000); Estate of Iko-nomopoulou v. Interactive Flight Technologies Inc.(PA-E 2:00-cv-02676 filed 05/25/2000); Rizza v. SantaBarbara Aerospace Inc. (PA-E 2:00-cv-03558 filed07/13/2000); Estate of Coppola v. Swissair TransportCo. (PA-E 2:00-cv-04105 filed 08/14/2000); Kennett v.Santa Barbara Aerospace Inc. (PA-E 2:00-cv-05281 filed10/16/2000); Estate of Donaldson v. Swissair TransportCo. (PA-E 2:00-cv-05495 filed 10/30/2000); Froghi v.Swissair Transport Co. (PA-E 2:00-cv-05497 filed10/30/2000); Gabourdes v. Sair Group (PA-E 2:00-cv-05499 filed 10/30/2000); Scarboro v. Swissair (PA-E2:00-cv-05526 filed 10/31/2000); Makarevitch v. Swis-sair (PA-E 2:00-cv-05527 filed 10/31/2000); Guely v.Swissair (PA-E 2:00-cv-05528 filed 10/31/2000); Rizzav. E.I. Dupont de Nemours and Co. (PA-E 2:00-cv-05557filed 11/01/2000); Estate of Gerety v. Santa BarbaraAerospace 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 BarbaraAerospace Inc. (PA-E 2:01-cv-00092 filed 01/08/2001);Coop Generale d’Assurances SA v. McDonnell DouglasCorp. (PA-E 2:01-cv-00200 filed 01/16/2001); Hoche v.


C-93

Monument Builders of Pennsylvania Inc. v. CatholicCemeteries Association (PA-E 2:99-cv-02030 filed04/22/1999).Antitrust case involving restraint of trade andconspiracy to fix prices for monuments and mark-ers. A settlement agreement was filed, but theamount of the settlement was sealed. The plaintifffiled a motion to enforce the settlement agree-ment.

HomeNexus Inc. v. DirectWeb Inc. (PA-E 2:99-cv-02316 filed 05/05/1999).Trademark case involving theft and execution ofthe plaintiff’s business plan for a computer andInternet service. The plaintiff’s motion to dismissthe case with prejudice pursuant to a settlementagreement was sealed.

Valitek Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-03024 filed 06/15/1999).Copyright case in which the entire record wassealed. The court granted a joint motion to sealthe record of the negotiated settlement.

Talus v. D&L Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-03386 filed07/02/1999).Product liability action by the parents of an eight-year-old boy who suffered an eye injury whileplaying with a ‘“Stomp Rocket” toy. A sealed set-tlement agreement was filed. An order approvingthe petition to compromise the minor’s action re-veals a settlement amount of $400,000.

Spaziani v. Chester County Hospital (PA-E 2:99-cv-04172 filed 08/18/1999).Medical malpractice case involving the prematurebirth of the plaintiffs’ child, which resulted from amisdiagnosis of an infection. The plaintiffs’ sonwas born with cerebral palsy. The plaintiffs’ mo-tion to approve the settlement was sealed.

Mahoney v. Daisy Manufacturing Co. (PA-E 2:99-cv-04286 filed 08/25/1999).Product liability action by the parents of a 16-year-old boy who suffered a severe brain injurywhen he was shot in the head with an air gun by afriend. The plaintiffs alleged that the air gun wasdefective because a BB became lodged in the in-ternal parts of the gun and allowed numerous

Santa Barbara Aerospace Inc. (PA-E 2:01-cv-01722 filed04/09/2001).

rounds of air to be fired, which caused the user toerroneously believe the gun was empty. A third-party complaint was filed by the manufacturerand distributor against the person who fired theair gun. The petition to seal court documents re-lated to the settlement was granted.

Dunkin’ Donuts Inc. v. Shree Dev Donut LLC (PA-E2:99-cv-06655 filed 12/30/1999).Trademark case involving continued use of the“Dunkin’ Donuts” mark after termination of afranchise agreement. The consent judgment wassealed.

Holdsworth v. Allegheny University Medical Practicesat Hahnemann Hospital (PA-E 2:00-cv-02443 filed05/11/2000).ERISA and wrongful death action involving delayand denial of benefits to provide the plaintiff’sdecedent minor daughter with health care serv-ices to treat her cancer. The court order approvingthe settlement was filed under seal.

Villanova University v. Villanova Alumni EducationFoundation Inc. (PA-E 2:00-cv-03007 filed06/13/2000).Trademark case concerning an affiliation agree-ment. The tape of the settlement conference andthe order dismissing the case were sealed.

Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. v. Church of the LordJesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith (PA-E 2:00-cv-03320 filed 06/29/2000).Insurance case against a church, its officers, andother individuals. The entire case file is sealed.The last document filed was a stipulation of dis-missal.

Shumake v. Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc. (PA-E 2:00-cv-03427 filed 07/06/2000).Motor vehicle product liability action by the par-ents of a man who died in a car crash when therestraint system failed in a 1994 Toyota Tercel inwhich he was a passenger. A sealed settlementagreement was filed.

InterDigital Communications Corp. v. Lomp (PA-E2:00-cv-04579 filed 09/11/2000).Labor litigation case involving breach of an em-ployment contract. The plaintiff filed documentsunder seal three weeks before the case was dis-missed as settled. A sealed settlement agreementapparently was filed.


C-94

Dusewicz v. National Casualty Co. (PA-E 2:00-cv-04625 filed 09/12/2000).Insurance action by a mother and father and theirfour minor children against their health insurancecompany for denying coverage of the minors’Lyme disease. The plaintiffs’ petition to settle orcompromise a minor’s action was sealed.

Ford Motor Co. v. Cattco Marketing (PA-E 2:00-cv-04672 filed 09/14/2000).Trademark case involving infringement of the“MOTORCRAFT” mark in the defendant’s Website domain name. A sealed settlement agreementwas filed.

Windowwizards Inc. v. Window Wholesalers Inc. (PA-E 2:00-cv-04679 filed 09/14/2000).Trademark case alleging unfair competition inmaking disparaging remarks about the plaintiff’swindow product to potential customers. Threemonths after the case was dismissed, a sealedconsent 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 fe-male dietetic assistant based on sex, race, and agediscrimination. One day before the case was dis-missed, the record of a status conference wassealed.

Pilotti v. Bell (PA-E 2:00-cv-05695 filed11/08/2000).Employment action by a sales assistant againsther former employer for sexual harassment. Theplaintiff filed a sealed motion to enforce the set-tlement agreement. Three days later the plaintiffwithdrew the motion.

Estate of Bailey v. NBC News Productions Inc. (PA-E2:00-cv-05717 filed 11/09/2000).Product liability action by the estate of a man whodied when he fell 100 feet while installing a cableon a television tower. A third-party complaintwas brought against the manufacturer of the clipused by the decedent to attach his harness to thehoisting line. The petition for approval of settle-ment and the order approving settlement weresealed.

Booth v. Grand Pacific Finance Corp. (PA-E 2:00-cv-06034 filed 11/28/2000).Contract case involving breach of a graphic de-sign and printing services contract. The plaintifffiled a sealed motion to enforce the settlementagreement. The court denied the motion as moot,but the order contained settlement terms thatwere crossed out.

Susavage v. Bucks County Schools Intermediate UnitNo. 22 (PA-E 2:00-cv-06217 filed 12/08/2000).Civil rights action by the parents of a handi-capped child who died from injuries sustainedwhen she was strangled by an ill-fitting safetyharness while being transported to school. Thetape of the settlement conference was sealed.

McCollins v. Woods Services Inc. (PA-E 2:01-cv-00110 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 forthe mentally retarded. The plaintiffs’ petition toapprove the settlement and the order approvingsettlement were sealed.

Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Schmalz (PA-E 2:01-cv-00361 filed 01/24/2001).Contract action involving breach of an employ-ment agreement and misappropriation of tradesecrets. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Millard v. Nasoya Foods Inc. (PA-E 2:01-cv-01313filed 03/20/2001).Motor vehicle personal injury action by the estateof a man who was burned to death when the de-fendants’ tractor-trailer crashed into his car. Asealed settlement agreement was filed.

Slaymaker v. Rival Co. (PA-E 2:01-cv-03912 filed08/02/2001).Product liability action by the father of an 11-month-old boy who sustained serious burns as aresult of coming in contact with hot oil spilledfrom the defendant’s multi-cooker. The plaintiffalleged that the cooker had a design defect thatallowed it to slide off of surfaces. A sealed settle-ment agreement was filed.

Eisen v. Temple University (PA-E 2:01-cv-04165filed 08/15/2001).Employment action by a tenured mathematicsprofessor against his former employers, who fired


C-95

him when he refused to pass all students in a re-medial math class. The same day that the case wasclosed, a court order, presumably containingterms of the settlement, was sealed. The defen-dant filed a settlement statement the same day,stating that the plaintiff did not have evidence tosupport grade inflation.

Harris v. Rohm & Haas Co. (PA-E 2:01-cv-05184filed 10/12/2001).Employment action by an African-Americanwoman alleging race discrimination with respectto promotion and compensation. The defendantfiled a sealed motion to enforce the settlementagreement. The plaintiff’s response to the motionalso was sealed. The court granted the defen-dant’s motion to enforce.

Burgee v. Vision Quest Ltd. (PA-E 2:01-cv-05948filed 11/28/2001).Civil rights action by an African-American treat-ment family advocate, who suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, against his former em-ployer for discrimination based on age and dis-ability. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Ely v. Doylestown Lumber and Millwork Inc. (PA-E2:02-cv-00423 filed 01/25/2002).Employment action by a delivery driver againsthis former employer for age discrimination. Asealed settlement agreement was filed.

Medina v. Rose Art Industries Inc. (PA-E 2:02-cv-01864 filed 04/05/2002).Product liability action by the parents of a minorchild who suffered burns while playing with a“Creative Case Soap Making” art project. Theplaintiffs’ motion to settle and compromise theminor’s action was sealed.

Dougherty v. Dougherty (PA-E 2:02-cv-06683 filed08/09/2002).Civil rights action by the mother of a 13-year-oldboy who was grabbed by a police officer whilewalking home, verbally assaulted, beaten, andarrested for disorderly conduct and resisting ar-rest. The petition to settle or compromise the mi-nor’s claims was sealed.

Middle District of PennsylvaniaCourt documents are unsealed two years after thecase is over, unless good cause is shown. M.D.Penn. L.R. 79.5.

Statistics: 4,678 cases in termination cohort; 520docket 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 sealedsettlement agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement AgreementsGould Inc. v. A & M Battery & Tire Service (PA-M3:91-cv-01714 filed 12/23/1991).Environmental action seeking declaratory judg-ment under CERCLA for causing pollution on theplaintiff’s property. After a bench trial the courtordered that the defendants were responsible for25% of the cleanup costs. The plaintiff filed twomotions to enforce two settlement agreementswith three of the defendants. The two settlementagreements were filed as sealed attachments tothe motion. One motion was withdrawn, and thecourt ordered that the second settlement agree-ment could not be enforced because the attorneydid not have the authority to settle. The plaintiffwas awarded approximately $10 million by theremaining forty-two defendants. The plaintifffiled three sealed motions to enforce the settle-ment agreement against three of the remainingdefendants.

Havenstrite v. Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc. (PA-M3:93-cv-00120 filed 01/26/1993).Personal injury action that was consolidated withtwo other cases. The lead case involved an em-ployee of a battery-crushing and lead-processingfacility who suffered health problems when ex-posed to excessive quantities of lead. After thecases were consolidated all filings occurred in thelead case. The two companion cases involvedfamilies with residences near the processing facil-ity. After an eight-day bench trial, the courtawarded $130,000 to four children who sufferedfrom learning disabilities as a result of lead expo-sure. The plaintiffs’ claims of diminution of prop-erty value and loss of use and enjoyment weredismissed. Two other plaintiffs were awarded$145,000 for injuries caused by lead exposure. Theapproval of a partial distribution of funds wassealed.

Doe v. Chamberlin (PA-M 3:97-cv-01765 filed11/18/1997).Personal injury action by the parents of minorsages 15 and 16 who were photographed by thedefendants in sexually suggestive positions. Theplaintiffs filed a sealed motion to enforce the set-


C-96

tlement agreement. The court granted the motionto enforce a settlement amount of $350,000. Thetranscript of the hearing to enforce was sealed.

Van Arsdale v. Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc. (PA-M1:99-cv-02206 filed 12/22/1999).Product liability action involving the death of aman who suffered head injuries while operating aToyota fork-lift. A sealed settlement agreementwas filed.

First Union National Bank v. Solfanelli (PA-M 3:00-cv-00732 filed 04/21/2000).Statutory action involving an appeal of a bank-ruptcy judgment. The defendant had defaulted ona stipulation and security agreement with theplaintiff that was initiated during the defendant’sbankruptcy. The plaintiff decided to liquidatestock collateral that the defendant had pledged,but the defendant still owed $1,191,496. The de-fendant filed an adversary proceeding against theplaintiff, alleging that it violated the agreement,and the court ruled in favor of the defendant anddeemed the entire debt satisfied. The same daythat the case settled, two sealed documents werefiled.

Fessler v. Losch Plumbing & Heating Inc. (PA-M3:00-cv-01456 filed 08/14/2000).Statutory action under the Family and MedicalLeave Act by a husband and wife who werewrongfully terminated after they took time offafter the birth of their child. The tape of a settle-ment 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 aminor who was misdiagnosed by the defendantsand subsequently lost his right testicle. The plain-tiffs’ petition to approve distribution of funds wassealed.

Graham Packaging Co. v. Mooney (PA-M 1:00-cv-02027 filed 11/20/2000).Patent case involving “blown-finish hot fill con-tainers.” The last entry on the docket sheet notesthat all documents in the case were sealed. A jointsealed settlement agreement was filed.

Bosserman v. Lloyd-Silber Orthopedics Inc. (PA-M1:01-cv-02288 filed 12/03/2001).ERISA action by a woman against her former em-ployer for withholding $18,771 in principal fromher employee stock ownership trust account. Asealed settlement agreement was filed.

Mizerak v. Webster Trucking Corp. (PA-M 3:02-cv-00277 filed 02/20/2002).Motor vehicle case in which one defendant’s carstruck the plaintiffs’ van from behind while it wasstopped in traffic and then forced it into anotherlane of a highway, where it was hit by anotherdefendant’s tractor-trailer. This accident resultedin the death of the plaintiffs’ youngest child, in-jury to two other minor children, and a traumaticinjury that has left the father in a vegetative state.The court granted the plaintiffs’ sealed petition toapprove the settlement. The order noted that theallocation of $120,000 was to be used for the bene-fit of the father’s medical care.

Western District of PennsylvaniaNo relevant local rule.


Cases with Sealed Settlement AgreementsKoppers Co. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. (PA-W2:85-cv-02136 filed 09/16/1985).Insurance case involving a manufacturing com-pany’s coverage for chemical-waste liability.Shortly before trial, the plaintiff settled with mostof the insurance companies. At least some of thesesettlement agreements were confidential and filedunder seal. A jury awarded the plaintiff$70,072,341. The court reduced the verdict againstthe remaining defendants to account for the limitsof the insurance policies and the amounts of set-tlement.

Keystone Powdered Metal Co. v. Borg-WarnerAutomotive Morse TEC Corp. (PA-W 1:98-cv-00106filed 03/24/1998).Contract case involving breach of a confidentialityagreement and a supply agreement. A sealed mo-tion and six sealed documents were filed twodays before the case was closed.


C-97

SGL Carbon Corp. v. Dupenn Inc. (PA-W 1:98-cv-00231 filed 08/12/1998).Personal property damage case involving misap-propriation of trade secrets, breach of an em-ployment contract, and breach of fiduciary duties.A sealed settlement agreement was filed as anattachment to the stipulation of dismissal. Thecourt retained jurisdiction to enforce the settle-ment agreement until the conclusion of the termsof the agreement.

CCL Container (Hermitage) Inc. v. Exal Corp. (PA-W2:98-cv-01786 filed 10/28/1998).Patent case involving infringement of a “methodof forming a metal container having an elongatedneck.” A joint sealed settlement agreement wasfiled.

Joseph v. Sears Roebuck & Co. (PA-W 1:99-cv-00013filed 01/20/1999).Personal injury action by the parents of a minorwho injured her face in the defendant’s storewhen she fell into glass shelving. The plaintiffs’motion for settlement was filed under seal.

T.M. v. Perry (PA-W 2:99-cv-00831 filed05/27/1999).Personal injury case involving the sexual abuse ofthe plaintiffs’ 11-year-old granddaughter by herminor cousin while visiting her aunt and uncleover the summer. The plaintiffs’ motion for set-tlement of the minor’s claims was filed under seal.

United States ex rel. Diehl v. Three Rivers FamilyHospice Inc. (PA-W 2:00-cv-00077 filed01/12/2000).Qui tam action under the False Claims Act forfraudulent Medicare billing against providers ofrehabilitative medical services. The plaintiff fileda settlement agreement as an attachment to a mo-tion to enforce. Two weeks later the court sealedthe 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 stu-dent who was suspended from school without ahearing for using the word “kill” in a talent showvideo. The parties filed a sealed motion for ap-proval of settlement. One month after the casewas dismissed, the court granted a newspaper’srequest to unseal the motion. The motion in-cluded a letter to the student’s parents stating that

the school district was “satisfied that violent ac-tion was not intended” by the plaintiff. The mo-tion for approval did not disclose any other termsof settlement.

Southwest Recreational Industries Inc. v. Turf USAInstallations Inc. (PA-W 2:00-cv-00342 filed02/23/2000).Designated a slander case, this case is really anunfair competition case that includes causes ofaction for commercial disparagement and defa-mation and involves a synthetic sports surfaceproduct. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Angelo v. General Motors Corp. (PA-W 2:00-cv-00871 filed 05/04/2000).Product liability case. The court granted a jointmotion to approve the minor’s settlement and sealthe record. All documents were sealed.

Benson v. First Energy Nuclear Operating Co. (PA-W2:00-cv-01101 filed 06/05/2000).Designated an employment discrimination case,this is really a class action under the Fair LaborStandards Act by power plant employees for fail-ure to pay overtime wages. A sealed settlementagreement was filed.

Aguirre v. Alamo Rent-A-Car Inc. (PA-W 2:00-cv-01374 filed 07/14/2000).Motor vehicle action by a woman injured in anaccident. The transcripts from two settlement con-ferences were sealed. The case was dismissed assettled twelve days after the second sealed settle-ment conference.

Performance Health Inc. v. Kustomer Kinetics Inc.(PA-W 2:00-cv-02323 filed 11/22/2000).Trademark infringement case involving “analge-sic balm” products. The defendant’s motion toenforce 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 whocommitted suicide while being held for publicdrunkenness and disorderly conduct at the de-fendant’s jail. In the order closing the case, thecourt noted that the case was settled and orderedthe parties to file a motion to approve settlement.Ten days later the plaintiff filed a sealed motion.


C-98

Smith v. City of Monessen (PA-W 2:01-cv-00744filed 04/26/2001).Civil rights case in which the police removed an11-year-old from the custody of her mother anddid not allow her mother to accompany herdaughter to the hospital. The police released theminor into the custody of a non–family member,who sexually abused her. The court denied thedefendant’s sealed motion to enforce the settle-ment agreement. The joint motion for dismissalnoted that the minor would receive $359.71 permonth for ten years after she turned 18. The set-tlement also provided for $4,000 for future burialof the mother and $9,200 for attorney fees.

APT Acquisition Corp. v. Southwest RecreationalIndustries Inc. (PA-W 2:01-cv-01893 filed10/10/2001).Designated a patent case, this case is really atrademark infringement case involving a polyu-rethane product. A sealed consent judgment wasfiled.

District of Puerto RicoNo relevant local rule.


Cases with Sealed Settlement AgreementsGeneradora de Electricidad del Caribe Inc. v. FosterWheeler Corp. (PR 3:94-cv-01405 filed 03/29/1994).Designated a personal injury action, this is really acontract action concerning a partnership to con-struct a $200 million electric plant in the Domini-can Republic. In their third amended complaint,the plaintiffs added a claim for development ofstress-related lupus by one of the principals. Sev-eral defendants filed counterclaims under seal.The case was dismissed pursuant to a sealed set-tlement agreement.

Guillemard Noble v. Sánchez Rodríguez (PR 3:94-cv-01961 filed 07/14/1994).Motor vehicle action for permanent brain injuryby a passenger in an automobile crash that killedthe driver. The plaintiff alleged that two defen-dants were racing their cars, and one of them hit afive-foot-tall mound of dirt, constructed by otherdefendants, causing the car to fly and hit the carin which the plaintiff was riding. The dirt mound

was created in excavation for a warehouse’s waterpipe, and the plaintiff named as defendants vari-ous entities associated with the excavation. Thedefendants filed cross-claims against each other.The plaintiff settled with all defendants pursuantto sealed settlement agreements, but the court wasasked to decide whether the warehouse owners’insurance policy covered the action. The courtdecided that it did not, and the warehouse ownersappealed. The court of appeals affirmed. An un-sealed order discloses that the warehouse owners’share of settlement obligations was $126,500.

Serrano Moran v. Toledo Davila (PR 3:96-cv-01383filed 03/29/1996).Civil rights action by the parents of a mentallyimpaired man who was beaten by the police dur-ing an arrest and later died of his injuries. Themedical malpractice claims against the hospitalwere dismissed. A sealed settlement agreementwas filed. The court granted a motion for dis-bursement of funds in the amount of $40,103 tothe plaintiffs.

Landrau Romero v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (PR3:96-cv-01470 filed 04/16/1996).Employment action for wrongful constructivetermination because of race. The case was dis-missed pursuant to a sealed settlement agreementapproved by the court.

Dominguez Cruz v. Suttle Caribe Inc. (PR 3:96-cv-01611 filed 05/20/1996).Statutory action for wrongful termination becauseof age. The court granted summary judgment tothe defendant on the federal claims and dismissedthe state claims without prejudice, but the court ofappeals reversed the summary judgment. Thecase settled on the eve of trial, but a dispute aroseover the terms of settlement, such as confidential-ity. An unsealed “motion in further support ofmotion for entry of judgment” discloses theamount of settlement to be $250,000. The partiesresolved their dispute by sealed stipulation.

Gines Vega v. Crowley American Transport Inc. (PR3:96-cv-01638 filed 05/24/1996).Motor vehicle action against the owner of a trailerhauled by a trucker who sped through a red lightand collided with a car, killing the car’s driverand three passengers and injuring the fourth pas-senger. The plaintiffs included the injured pas-senger and many relatives of the deceased andinjured, including minors. The trailer’s owner


C-99

filed a third-party complaint against the driver,the driver’s employer, the truck’s owner, the con-signee of the cargo, insurance companies, andconjugal partnerships of the individuals. Cross-claims and third-party complaints also were filed.The case was consolidated with three other re-lated actions. A sealed settlement agreement wasfiled. Unsealed documents indicate that the entirelitigation included several half-million-dollar set-tlements.

Herrera v. Ports Authority of the Commonwealth ofPuerto Rico (PR 3:96-cv-01743 filed 06/19/1996).Employment action by a chief of purchases clerkand her minor children against her former em-ployer for race and political discrimination. Asealed settlement agreement was filed.

Arrivi Cros v. Torres Rivera (PR 3:96-cv-02216 filed10/07/1996).Employment action by attorneys against thepresident of the Industrial Commission of PuertoRico for wrongful demotion and termination be-cause of political party affiliation. The case wasdismissed pursuant to sealed settlement agree-ments with each plaintiff. The plaintiffs subse-quently filed a motion to show cause why settle-ment payments were not made on time, and justover two weeks later the defendant deposited acheck for $125,000 with the court. The plaintiffsthen filed an unsealed motion for disbursement offunds, specifying individual settlements of$53,000, $40,000, and $32,000. The followingmonth the court issued checks for $53,175.08,$40,133.39, and $32,108.40.

Saavedra Rodriguez v. Enron Corp. (PR 3:96-cv-02443 filed 11/22/1996).Personal injury action consolidated with over 500other cases and including over 1,500 plaintiffsagainst a gas company for deaths and injuries re-sulting from a massive gas explosion. Additionalactions were filed in commonwealth court. Thelitigation is sometimes referred to as the Rio Pie-dras Explosion Litigation. The 632-page docketsheet catalogs 3,685 documents. Over the courseof the litigation, there were numerous settlements,and there appear to be some settlement agree-ments filed under seal. It appears that settlementamounts sum to several dozen million dollars.Some settlement payments were jeopardized byEnron’s bankruptcy.

San Antonio Mendoza v. WMS Industries (PR 3:97-cv-01717 filed 05/07/1997).Labor litigation by three casino employees againsttheir former employer for age discrimination andfailure to pay minimum wage. A sealed settle-ment agreement was filed. Eleven months laterthe court granted a disbursement of funds in theamount of $28,083 to one plaintiff and her minorchild.

González Sampayo v. Fuentes Agostini (PR 3:97-cv-01784 filed 05/20/1997).Civil rights action by two special agents of PuertoRico’s justice department against the departmentfor interfering with their investigation of a sena-tor’s drug trafficking and other organized crimeinvolvement. The case was dismissed pursuant toa sealed settlement agreement. An unsealed mo-tion for consignment states that the department ofjustice paid $50,000 in settlement. The court sub-sequently 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 ahuman resources director. The plaintiff allegedthat after the defendant’s Puerto Rico operationcame under the control of the defendant’s Mexi-can office, he was terminated because he was over40 (he was 46), he was Puerto Rican, and he had ahistory of chronic asthma and lymphoma. Thecase was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settle-ment agreement.

Caribe Shipping Co. v. Puerto Rico Ports Authority(PR 3:97-cv-01837 filed 05/30/1997).Bankruptcy withdrawal. A shipping companyfiled for bankruptcy and sought an injunctionagainst eviction by the port authority. The portauthority filed a third-party action against theshipping company’s principals for $1.2 million inback rent, penalties, and interest. The adversaryactions were withdrawn to the district court. Thecase was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settle-ment agreement.

Howe Investment Ltd. v. Perez & Compania de PuertoRico Inc. (PR 3:97-cv-01864 filed 06/05/1997).Contract action for $1.5 million unpaid in anagreement to buy stevedoring services stock op-tions for $4,250,000. The case was dismissed pur-suant to a sealed settlement agreement.


C-100

Valles Santiago v. General Motors Corp. (PR 3:97-cv-02209 filed 08/12/1997).Motor vehicle product liability case against themanufacturer and designer of a Chevrolet van.The plaintiffs’ van was parked in the emergencylane on a roadway and was struck behind by an-other car, which caused the fuel tank to explode.Two children died, and three other children andthree adults were seriously burned. The plaintiffsalleged a failure to warn and that the van had afaulty fuel system, bumper, and chassis because ofmanufacturing and design defects. A sealed set-tlement agreement was filed.

Pandolfi de Rinaldis v. Varela Llavona (PR 3:97-cv-02699 filed 11/18/1997).Civil rights action by an executive director forwrongful termination after he denounced his co-workers’ irregular use of council funds. A sealedsettlement agreement was filed. The court granteddisbursement of funds in the amount of $27,586 tothe plaintiff.

Mejías Miranda v. BBII Acquisition Corp. (PR 3:98-cv-01107 filed 02/06/1998).Labor litigation alleging wrongful terminationfollowing pregnancy complications. The case wasdismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement agree-ment approved by the court.

Colón v. Hospital Damas Inc. (PR 3:98-cv-01237 filed03/09/1998).Medical malpractice action alleging that a pa-tient’s treatment for a sore shoulder ultimatelyresulted in extensive brain surgery for a nonexist-ent tumor, which rendered the patient perma-nently comatose. The plaintiffs were the patient’swife, two minor sons, parents, brother, and sister.The sixteen defendants included physicians andcorporate medical service providers. Nine defen-dants settled for $4,000 each. After additional liti-gation, the remaining defendants settled for anadditional $2,250,000 total, and a sealed settle-ment agreement showing how much each defen-dant contributed was filed.

Batiste Perez v. Cruz (PR 3:98-cv-01267 filed03/16/1998).Civil rights action by three municipal officialsagainst the new municipal administration for po-litically motivated curtailments of responsibility.The case was dismissed pursuant to a sealed set-tlement agreement.

Portalatin v. Feliciano de Melecio (PR 3:98-cv-01336filed 04/01/1998).Employment action for wrongful constructivedischarge because of party affiliation. The casewas dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlementagreement.

Rosado v. Puerto Rico Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. (PR3:98-cv-01384 filed 04/09/1998).Contract action alleging that the defendant em-ployer induced the plaintiff to transfer from theemployer’s operations in Puerto Rico to opera-tions in Brazil without disclosing that he wouldlose substantial employment benefits. The casewas dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlementagreement.

Ramírez Cancel v. Loomis Fargo and Co. (PR 3:98-cv-01574 filed 05/27/1998).Civil rights action for the wrongful identificationof five adults and one minor as suspects in anarmed robbery. The case was dismissed pursuantto 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 responsibilityfor filing Medicare claims on behalf of PuertoRico’s health department against a company withthe responsibility for reviewing such claims. Theplaintiff alleged that the defendant sought illegalkickbacks for approving the claims. The defen-dants filed a counterclaim, alleging defamation.The case was dismissed as settled, and the plain-tiff filed a sealed motion to enforce it. The matterwas resolved, and the plaintiff’s principals werepaid $1,521,416.58 by docketed check.

Madre v. Ortíz Ramos (PR 3:98-cv-01594 filed06/01/1998).Civil rights action by a mother and her twodaughters, age four and six, for wrongful removalof the daughters to foster care, where they weresexually abused. All plaintiffs appeared by pseu-donyms. The case was dismissed pursuant to asealed settlement agreement. Docketed attorneyfees and expenses were $106,933.92.

Ramos Christian v. Ochoa Fertilizer Co. (PR 3:98-cv-01987 filed 08/28/1998).Employment action by an administrative managerfor wrongful termination. The plaintiffs includedthe employee, his wife, and their children. The


C-101

case settled on the morning scheduled for trial,and the court approved a sealed settlementagreement.

Colón Mulero v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. (PR 3:98-cv-02090 filed 09/29/1998).Motor vehicle product liability action for injuriessuffered when a Mitsubishi Expo’s air bags de-ployed in a low-speed head-on collision. Amonth-old baby riding in her mother’s arms be-came a quadriplegic. The mother also was injured.A second child and the woman’s mother alsowere in the accident and were plaintiffs in thecase. The case was dismissed pursuant to a sealedsettlement 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 (threefrom the Virgin Islands) that were transferred bythe MDL Panel to the District of Puerto Rico asMDL 1284. This case became the lead case andwas filed against the airline and engine manu-facturer of a plane that was forced to make anemergency landing after the engine caught fire.The plaintiffs were injured while exiting the planeusing the inflatable ramps. A sealed stipulationwas filed to approve the settlement agreements ofminor plaintiffs in two member cases.

Vázquez Casas v. Commercial DevelopmentAdministration (PR 3:98-cv-02198 filed10/22/1998).Designated a civil rights prisoner petition, this isreally an employment sex discrimination actionby the former director of the Commonwealth ofPuerto Rico’s Commercial Development Admini-stration’s Center in Caguas for wrongful termina-tion. The case was dismissed pursuant to a sealedsettlement 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 ar-mored truck driver against his union for breach ofa collective bargaining agreement by failing torequest arbitration or appeal his dismissal. Asealed settlement agreement was filed.

Meléndez Arroyo v. Cutler-Hammer de P.R. Co. (PR3:98-cv-02395 filed 12/14/1998).Labor litigation by a 58-year-old accountantagainst her former employer for age discrimina-

tion. The district court granted the defendantsummary judgment, but the court of appeals re-versed. The case subsequently was dismissedpursuant to a sealed judgment, which was fol-lowed by a sealed motion brought jointly by theparties and a sealed order.

Bernabel Díaz v. Detroit Diesel Allison Division (PR3:99-cv-01002 filed 01/04/1999).Product liability action by a Coast Guard engineerwho lost a thumb and three fingers from hisdominant hand while servicing a ship’s dieselengine. The case was dismissed as settled, andsettlement terms pertaining to payment to a mi-nor dependent were sealed.

Garcia Medina v. Compagnie Generale des Eaux (PR3:99-cv-01114 filed 02/02/1999).Designated a civil rights action, this really is anaction by a Puerto Rican woman claiming sex andnational origin discrimination in employment.The case was dismissed pursuant to a settlementagreement approved and sealed by the court.

Algarin Rodríguez v. Santiago Rivera (PR 3:99-cv-01178 filed 02/17/1999).Personal injury action by the wife of a man whowas killed when a truck carrying chemicals ex-ploded, blowing the truck’s doors into her hus-band’s car. The defendants include the truckdriver, the owner of the truck, the company thatprovided maintenance for the truck, the owner ofthe chemicals being transported, and the owner ofthe container in which the chemicals were stored.Both the truck driver and the maintenance com-pany filed cross-claims against all other defen-dants. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.An informative motion by the owner of thechemicals 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 chemistwho developed carpal tunnel syndrome and tho-racic outlet syndrome. The defendants filed a mo-tion to enforce a settlement agreement, specifyingthe amount of settlement to be $60,000. The casewas dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlementagreement, but the plaintiff filed a letter pro seasking the court’s help concerning some settle-ment terms. The case continues.


C-102

Rios Reyes v. Wackenhut Corrections Corp. (PR 3:99-cv-01306 filed 03/24/1999).Prisoner civil rights action by an incarceratedformer police officer, alleging that the defendantssubjected him to disparate and highly restrictiveconditions of confinement while in administrativesegregation and refused to transfer him to anotherfacility in direct violation of court orders. A sealedsettlement agreement was filed. The court grantedthe motion to disburse $8,500 in funds to theplaintiff.

Ojeda del Rio v. Pfizer Pharmaceuticals Inc. (PR 3:99-cv-01398 filed 04/13/1999).Designated a personal injury action, this is anemployment discrimination action by a chemicalplant worker, alleging failure to accommodate hisdiabetes, ulcers, and carpal tunnel syndrome. Theaction was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settle-ment agreement.

Figueroa Rodríguez v. Volkswagen of America Inc.(PR 3:99-cv-01422 filed 04/16/1999).Motor vehicle product liability action for compli-cations from a fractured arm, which resulted froma Volkswagen Golf’s airbag exploding in a fender-bender. The plaintiffs filed a sealed informativemotion on September 18, which the court granted“until October 19.” The parties filed a stipulationfor dismissal on October 3, and the case was dis-missed on October 18. The sealed motion proba-bly 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 work-ers against the manufacturer of a crane thatdropped a four-ton load on their legs, causingeach to lose a leg and suffer permanent disabilitiesin the remaining leg. The case was dismissed bysealed judgment pursuant to a settlement agree-ment.

Yannello v. Patriot American Hospitality Inc. (PR3:99-cv-01597 filed 06/01/1999).Personal injury action for a fractured ankle suf-fered by the plaintiff when using a Wave Runnerpersonal water craft at a resort. The plaintiff al-leged that the injury resulted from impropertraining for the plaintiff. The plaintiff also allegedimproper medical treatment of the ankle. The ac-tion was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settle-ment agreement. After the case was closed, theplaintiff filed a motion to seize assets of the renter

of the Wave Runner for nonpayment of its $15,000(12%) settlement contribution. (This implies thatthe total amount of settlement was $125,000.) Thedefendant paid $12,500 of the amount owed, andthe court subsequently issued a writ of attach-ment for the remaining amount due.

Santiago Marrero v. Laboy Alvarado (PR 3:99-cv-01601 filed 06/02/1999).Civil rights action for the group rape of a 17-year-old pretrial detainee who was improperly housedwith young adults. The minor appeared in courtpapers by his initials; his parents appeared bytheir full names. The case was dismissed pursuantto a sealed settlement agreement.

Muniz Suffront v. Bidot de Jesus (PR 3:99-cv-01616filed 06/04/1999).Civil rights prisoner petition for inadequate medi-cal care. After jury selection, the case was dis-missed pursuant to a sealed settlement agree-ment.

Hernández Alfonso v. San Juan Motors Co. (PR 3:99-cv-01620 filed 06/04/1999).Employment action by a salesman against hisformer employer for age discrimination. A sealedsettlement agreement was filed.

Lorenzo Carrero v. Caribbean Refrescos Inc. (PR 3:99-cv-01708 filed 06/25/1999).Employment action for wrongful termination andfailure to accommodate foot pain arising frompsoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. The case wasdismissed pursuant to a sealed judgment incorpo-rating terms of settlement.

Microsoft Corp. v. Computer Shack Inc. (PR 3:99-cv-01757 filed 07/06/1999).Copyright case for unlawful distribution and saleof counterfeit computer programs. The complaintwas temporarily sealed. The court awarded theplaintiff a partial judgment of $9,354. A sealedsettlement agreement was filed.

Majewska v. Bared & Sons Inc. (PR 3:99-cv-01770filed 07/08/1999).Employment action by a jewelry salesperson forsexual harassment. The case was dismissed pur-suant to a sealed settlement agreement approvedby the court.


C-103

Cruz Jiménez v. Mueblerias Delgado Inc. (PR 3:99-cv-01792 filed 07/14/1999).ERISA action for failure to notify the plaintiff ofhis COBRA rights upon his termination. The casewas dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlementagreement.

Carl v. Cohen (PR 3:99-cv-01810 filed 07/19/1999).Employment action by a naval base elementaryschool teacher for the school’s refusal to adminis-ter prescribed injections to alleviate the teacher’speriodic severe allergic reactions. The case wasdismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement agree-ment. The Defense Department’s unsealed noticeof satisfaction of judgment discloses that theplaintiff received $255,334 and her attorneys re-ceived $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 ac-tion against two credit report services for dam-ages arising from identity theft. Sealed documentswere filed after a motion to enforce a settlementagreement and a stipulation for entry of judg-ment. The case was dismissed pursuant to a pri-vate settlement agreement “to remain under seal.”

Ferretería Re-Ace Inc. v. Heil EnvironmentalIndustries Ltd. (PR 3:99-cv-01820 filed07/21/1999).Contract action concerning distribution of refuse-collection products. The case was dismissed pur-suant to a sealed settlement agreement.

López Rivera v. Ramos (PR 3:99-cv-01829 filed07/23/1999).Personal injury case alleging that the defendant,who was acting as a medical expert in anotherpersonal injury case, performed a medical exami-nation on the plaintiffs that included offensivetouching of private body parts. The defendantfiled a third-party complaint against his medicalmalpractice insurer. A sealed settlement agree-ment was filed.

Carmona Rios v. Aramark Corp. (PR 3:99-cv-01985filed 09/01/1999).Labor litigation for wrongful termination of afood services director because of age. The casewas dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlementagreement. An unsealed joint information motionof parties’ settlement efforts states that the settle-

ment conference judge recommended a settlementamount between $130,000 and $140,000.

Fernández Martínez v. Citibank NA (PR 3:99-cv-02009 filed 09/10/1999).Civil rights action by an account executive andher minor daughter against her former employerfor discrimination based on her physical disabili-ties. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Rodríguez v. First Hospital Panamericano Inc. (PR3:99-cv-02019 filed 09/13/1999).Employment action under the Americans withDisabilities Act for failure to hire the plaintiff as anursing director because of her lupus. The casewas dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlementagreement.

Mendoza v. Hospital Doctor’s Center of Manati (PR3:99-cv-02027 filed 09/14/1999).Medical malpractice action by the estate of awoman, including her minor child, who diedfrom complications following an improper intu-bation during a Caesarian section. The doctor’sinsurance company filed a third-party complaintseeking reimbursement of any payments made tothe plaintiff. A sealed settlement agreement wasfiled.

Nuñez González v. United Parcel Service Inc. (PR3:99-cv-02060 filed 09/22/1999).Employment action by a black Dominican UPSdriver for race and national origin discrimination.The case was dismissed pursuant to a sealed set-tlement agreement approved by the court.

Baez v. Puerto Rico Electrical Power Authority (PR3:99-cv-02139 filed 10/07/1999).Employment action by an electrician assistant forwrongful failure to promote him to a managerialposition because of his political affiliation. Thecase was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settle-ment agreement.

Cruz Montes v. Cooperativa de Seguros de Vida (PR3:99-cv-02158 filed 10/14/1999).Employment action for sexual harassment. Thecase was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settle-ment agreement.


C-104

Rosario Zayas v. Klosterman Baking Co. (PR 3:99-cv-02246 filed 11/10/1999).Employment action by a maintenance worker forsexual harassment by her supervisor. On the thirdday of a jury trial, the case was dismissed pursu-ant to a sealed settlement agreement.

Guerrero Torres v. Clean Harbors Inc. (PR 3:99-cv-02290 filed 11/24/1999).Designated a civil rights action, this really is anaction for employment discrimination on the basisof sex and pregnancy. The case settled just afterthe jury was impaneled and sworn. After the casewas dismissed, the plaintiff filed a sealed motionfor execution of settlement. The defendant’s un-sealed response and the plaintiff’s unsealed replyshow a dispute over confidentiality of the settle-ment. The defendant claimed that the plaintiffagreed to confidentiality, and the plaintiff claimedthat she did not. The dispute apparently was re-solved 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 forwrongful termination because of age. The casewas dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlementagreement.

Durieux Rodríguez v. Toledo (PR 3:99-cv-02344 filed12/10/1999).Civil rights action against police officers for agroup beating. The defendants claimed that thebeating was a figment of the plaintiff’s imagina-tion, and alleged that his severe facial injuries re-sulted from a motorcycle accident. The case wasdismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement agree-ment. The docket sheet shows that the plaintiffwas paid $150,300.99 and his attorney was paid$50,000.

Mario Rivera v. Zory’s Hallmark (PR 3:99-cv-02348filed 12/13/1999).Copyright case involving the unauthorized re-production of artwork. A sealed settlementagreement was filed.

Perez Rodríguez v. Irizarry Cancel (PR 3:99-cv-02407filed 12/27/1999).Civil rights action against police officers by a fa-ther, mother, and 14-year-old son for the warran-tless search of their house and seizure of fifteen

firearms and 1,169 munitions. The case was dis-missed pursuant to a sealed settlement agree-ment, but an unsealed motion to issue paymentdiscloses that the amount of settlement was$55,000; the parents received $33,916.67, their at-torney received $18,083.33, and the minor re-ceived $3,000.

Roman Castro v. Kelly Services Inc. (PR 3:99-cv-02430 filed 12/30/1999).Sex discrimination employment action for wrong-ful termination because of pregnancy. The casewas dismissed pursuant to a settlement agree-ment 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 prin-cipal and $18,043.81 in interest due on a $500,000Small Business Administration loan. The partiesinformed the court of settlement at a pretrialhearing, the tape of which the court orderedsealed. In a motion requesting more time to drawup settlement papers, the defendants stated thatthey had made one payment of $200,000 to theplaintiff and the first monthly installment of$4,500. The settlement agreement was subse-quently filed under seal. A dispute over settle-ment payments arose, and the plaintiff threatenedto foreclose on real property security for the loan,but the dispute was resolved and the case dis-missed.

Adorno Colón v. Toledo Davila (PR 3:00-cv-01101filed 01/25/2000).Civil rights action by a man and his son, whowere beaten by the police after the father’s carcrashed into a police car. A sealed settlementagreement was filed. An informative motion re-vealed that the plaintiffs received $125,000.

Sierra Reyes v. San Jorge Children’s Hospital (PR3:00-cv-01246 filed 02/25/2000).Medical malpractice case involving the death ofthe plaintiffs’ 11-year-old son from complicationsof improper anesthesia. The hospital filed a third-party complaint against the anesthesiologist. Asealed settlement agreement was filed. The mo-tion requesting disbursement of funds notes thatthe hospital paid $400,000 and the doctors paid$300,000. The decedent’s minor brother received$100,000 of the settlement.


C-105

Avian Technology International Inc. v. IndustriasAvicolas de Puerto Rico Inc. (PR 3:00-cv-01346 filed03/16/2000).Contract case involving breach of a purchasingagreement. On the second day of a jury trial, thesettlement was placed on the record under seal.

J.A. Rafael Doll Inc. v. Lowell Shoe Inc. (PR 3:00-cv-01352 filed 03/17/2000).Contract case involving breach of an exclusivesales representative agreement. A sealed settle-ment 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 hisformer employer for age discrimination. The courtdenied the defendant’s motion to enforce the set-tlement agreement, because the defendant neversigned it. Seven weeks later a sealed settlementagreement 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 har-assment by her supervisor. A sealed settlementagreement was filed. The court granted the dis-bursement of funds in the amount of $75,186 tothe plaintiff.

Mercado Negrón v. Toledo (PR 3:00-cv-01577 filed05/09/2000).Civil rights action by a man for unlawful arrestand conviction for the sale of cocaine against thearresting officers, prosecutor, and a jury memberwho he claimed knew him. (A key witness laterclaimed he was coerced.) Claims were dismissedagainst the prosecutor and juror. A sealed settle-ment 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 hisformer employer for discrimination based on hisage and disability. A sealed settlement agreementwas filed.

Rodríguez v. Morales Tefel (PR 3:00-cv-01731 filed06/09/2000).Copyright case involving illegal reproduction ofthe plaintiff’s songs. The defendant filed a coun-terclaim for breach of contract. A sealed settle-ment 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 bythe parents of a woman who died of injuries sus-tained in a car accident after she was transferredfrom the defendants’ hospital to another hospital.A sealed settlement agreement was filed. Thecourt granted a motion for disbursement of fundsin the amount of $100,000 to the plaintiffs.

Nazario Robles v. Raytheon Aerospace (PR 3:00-cv-01844 filed 07/10/2000).Labor litigation for wrongful termination becauseof age. The case was dismissed pursuant to asealed settlement agreement.

Dapena Thompson v. Municipality of San Juan (PR3:00-cv-01928 filed 07/19/2000).Employment action for wrongful demotion be-cause of political party affiliation. The case wasdismissed pursuant to a sealed settlement agree-ment, but unsealed documents disclose that theplaintiff received $150,807.63 and a job reclassifi-cation 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’slegal aid program, claiming adverse employmentactions related to the plaintiff’s support of a losingcandidate for mayor. The case settled, and themagistrate judge filed a sealed final settlementconference report stating the terms of the agree-ment. The plaintiff subsequently filed a motion toenforce it. The court responded by dismissing thecase pursuant to the sealed agreement. San Juanmoved to set aside the judgment on the groundsthat settlements by San Juan must be approved byits municipal assembly. The court agreed that le-gally required approval by the assembly meantthat the judgment had to be vacated, but the courtsanctioned San Juan $3,500 and sanctioned its at-torneys the same amount for raising the issue solate. The court’s order disclosed that the disputedsettlement agreement called for a raise in theplaintiff’s salary from $4,738 per month to $5,488per month. The case again settled during trial, anda sealed document was filed. An informative mo-tion subsequently disclosed that the assembly ap-proved the settlement at a public hearing.


C-106

Ruiz v. Home Depot (PR 3:00-cv-02082 filed08/24/2000).Employment action by a service representativewho was terminated by the defendant when sherequested an accommodation of fixed hours be-cause of her hepatitis C condition. The courtgranted the joint stipulation for voluntary dis-missal. The plaintiff filed a motion pro se to va-cate the judgment on the ground that she revokedthe settlement agreement. The defendant filed asealed settlement agreement along with its oppo-sition to the motion to vacate. The court deter-mined that the settlement agreement was not re-voked.

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 ofthe plaintiff’s 10-year-old daughter when the de-fendant’s out-of-control armored truck collidedwith a car in which the girl was a passenger. Thecase was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settle-ment agreement.

Cruz Osorio v. Northwest Security Management Inc.(PR 3:00-cv-02223 filed 09/21/2000).Employment action by a security officer for sexualharassment and wrongful termination because ofsex and pregnancy. The case was dismissed pur-suant to a sealed settlement agreement.

Santos Marín v. Kiewit Construction Co. (PR 3:00-cv-02470 filed 11/17/2000).Employment action by a field service engineer forwrongful termination because of Puerto Ricannational origin. The case was dismissed pursuantto a sealed settlement agreement.

Rosa Flores v. Kiewit Kenny Zachary (PR 3:00-cv-02471 filed 11/17/2000).Employment action by a construction worker forwrongful termination and harassment because ofPuerto Rican national origin. The action was dis-missed pursuant to a sealed settlement agree-ment.

Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Puerto Rico v. Dellsky RealtyCorp. (PR 3:00-cv-02540 filed 12/06/2000).Contract case in which the plaintiff sought reim-bursement of money spent on remodeling the de-fendant’s property. A sealed settlement agree-ment 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-02558filed 12/11/2000).Civil rights action by a police officer wrongfullyconvicted of selling drugs to an undercover offi-cer, who later was found to have participated inother sham prosecutions. The plaintiff served 2.5years of a 15-year sentence. The case was dis-missed pursuant to a sealed settlement agreementapproved by the court. An unsealed motion re-questing disbursement of funds states that theamount of settlement was $30,000. The docketsheet shows that the plaintiff received a check for$30,090.37.

Sánchez v. Pavarini Merit LP (PR 3:01-cv-01107filed 01/23/2001).Employment case filed under the Pregnancy Dis-crimination Act and ERISA by an administrativeassistant against her former employer for termi-nating her while out on maternity leave and fail-ing to comply with notice requirements concern-ing continuation of medical plan coverage. Asealed settlement agreement was filed.

Perez Corchado v. Puerto Rico Police Department (PR3:01-cv-01189 filed 02/14/2001).Designated a civil rights action, this is an em-ployment action by a policewoman for sexualharassment by her supervisor. The case was dis-missed pursuant to a sealed settlement agreementapproved by the court. Thereafter the court dis-bursed $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 em-ployment action alleging unwanted sexual ad-vances and adverse treatment because of preg-nancy. The action was dismissed pursuant to asettlement agreement, which appears to havebeen filed under seal.

RJO Inc. v. López (PR 3:01-cv-01284 filed03/09/2001).Trademark case involving the illegal use of the“Son By Four” mark by a recording company. Thedefendants filed a counterclaim for breach ofcontract. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.


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 offerwithdrawn by a defendant when he found outabout her disability. A sealed settlement agree-ment was filed.

Cortes Jiménez v. González Fernández (PR 3:01-cv-01419 filed 04/09/2001).Medical malpractice action against doctors whomisdiagnosed the plaintiff’s medical conditionand performed an unnecessary open-heart sur-gery. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.The court granted the motion for the authoriza-tion of funds for the plaintiff’s minor child in theamount of $10,000.

Santiago Ramos v. Rodríguez Otero (PR 3:01-cv-01444 filed 04/16/2001).Employment action by thirty-three employeeswho did not have their position renewed by thenewly elected mayor because of their political af-filiations. Two other plaintiffs who retained theirposition alleged that they were harassed becauseof their political affiliation. A sealed settlementagreement was filed.

Dupprey Valentín v. K-Mart Corp. (PR 3:01-cv-01540filed 05/01/2001).Employment action by a part-time customerservice representative against her former em-ployer for terminating her when she revealed shewas pregnant. A sealed settlement agreement wasfiled.

Rivera Requena v. Trailer Bridge Inc. (PR 3:01-cv-01575 filed 05/04/2001).Employment action by an area manager againsthis former employer for age discrimination. Asealed settlement agreement was filed.

Quinones v. American Airlines Inc. (PR 3:01-cv-01708 filed 05/30/2001).Airplane action by a woman who fractured herknee while on the defendant’s plane. The settle-ment conference report was sealed.

Rivera Berríos v. Alvarado (PR 3:01-cv-01763 filed06/07/2001).Medical malpractice action for a botched removalof wisdom teeth. The case was dismissed pursu-ant to a sealed settlement agreement.

Cortés v. First Bank of Puerto Rico Inc. (PR 3:01-cv-01776 filed 06/11/2001).Employment action for sex and age discrimina-tion. The case was dismissed pursuant to a sealedsettlement agreement approved by the court.

Rivera v. Puerto Rico Electrical Power Authority (PR3:01-cv-01784 filed 06/12/2001).Personal injury action by the wife of a man whowas electrocuted when the pole he was using topick fruit hit the defendant’s power line. The de-fendant filed a third-party complaint against theowner of the fruit trees that blocked the clear viewof the power line. A sealed settlement agreementwas filed.

Lebrón Santiago v. Qualex Caribe Corp. (PR 3:01-cv-01802 filed 06/14/2001).Civil rights action by a chemical driver against hisformer employer, who terminated him after hereturned from a work-related back injury and re-quested light duty. A sealed settlement agreementwas filed.

Ewing v. Rivera (PR 3:01-cv-01866 filed06/27/2001).Civil rights action by a man held in jail fortwenty-one days for wrongful arrest and prose-cution for rape. A sealed settlement agreementwas filed. The court granted the motion to consignfunds in the amount of $8,000 to the plaintiff.

Lopez Cuevas v. Acevedo Sevilla (PR 3:01-cv-01871filed 06/28/2001).Employment action for wrongful constructivedischarge in retaliation for jury service. The courtappointed counsel to represent the plaintiff anddismissed the action pursuant to a sealed settle-ment agreement.

Velez Virola v. Casiano Quiles (PR 3:01-cv-01890filed 07/03/2001).Employment action by an administrative officialwho was reassigned to another position withoutnotice because of his political affiliation. A sealedsettlement agreement was filed.

Fuladoza Alequín v. First Federal Finance Corp. (PR3:01-cv-01891 filed 07/03/2001).Employment action for wrongful termination be-cause of pregnancy. The case was dismissed pur-suant to a sealed settlement agreement.


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 abank employee for unpaid overtime compensa-tion. The case was dismissed pursuant to a sealedsettlement agreement.

Rodríguez Meléndez v. First Hospital Panamericano(PR 3:01-cv-02050 filed 08/06/2001).Labor action by a woman against her former em-ployer, who terminated her after she continued toask for time off to attend therapy for her carpaltunnel syndrome and to take her son to therapyfor his hyperactivity. A sealed settlement agree-ment was filed.

Microsoft Corp. v. SkyTalkwest Telecom LLC (PR3:01-cv-02127 filed 08/21/2001).Designated a contract action, this is an action forinfringement of computer software copyrights bya lessor of computer equipment. The complaintwas filed under seal, the court issued a temporaryrestraining order, the complaint was unsealed,and the parties filed a sealed, consented prelimi-nary injunctive decree. The case was closed thatday.

Gracia Delgado v. Calderón (PR 3:01-cv-02198 filed09/07/2001).Employment action by an administrator againsthis former employer, the governor of Puerto Rico,for political discrimination. A sealed settlementagreement was filed. The court granted the mo-tion to disburse funds in the amount of $135,000to the plaintiff.

Perez Salamán v. Banco Santander Puerto Rico (PR3:01-cv-02208 filed 09/12/2001).Employment action by a black bank employeeagainst his former employer for race discrimina-tion. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Rivera Bou v. Premier Farnell Co. (PR 3:01-cv-02373filed 10/15/2001).Employment action by a saleswoman against herformer employer for age discrimination. A sealedsettlement agreement was filed.

Colón Andujar v. Cooperativa de Ahorro y CreditoVegabajena Inc. (PR 3:01-cv-02378 filed10/15/2001).Designated a civil rights action, this is really anemployment action by an executive vice president

against her former employer for age discrimina-tion. A sealed stipulation for voluntary dismissalwas filed.

Quinones v. Castro Rios (PR 3:01-cv-02495 filed11/02/2001).Contract case involving breach of a performanceagreement by the defendants’ band. The plaintifffiled a civil suit in Ohio and was awarded a de-fault judgment of $77,786. The plaintiff filed thiscase to domesticate the judgment. A sealed set-tlement agreement was filed. Four months laterthe plaintiff filed a motion for attachment of thedefendants’ property, because they did not paythe settlement.

Medina Tejeda v. Dencarribbean Inc. (PR 3:01-cv-02518 filed 11/06/2001).Designated a product liability action, this is reallyan employment action by a black waitress againsther former employer for race discrimination. Asealed settlement agreement was filed.

Don King Productions Inc. v. Santana (PR 3:01-cv-02741 filed 12/28/2001).Statutory action against the owner of a bar whocharged customers to view a televised boxingmatch without a license agreement with theplaintiff. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Rodríguez v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (PR 3:02-cv-01193 filed 02/08/2002), consolidated withPerez Hernández v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico(PR 3:02-cv-01582 filed 04/16/2002).Employment actions by commonwealth employ-ees for wrongful termination in retaliation forsupporting a losing candidate for governor. Fourcases were consolidated. The actions were dis-missed pursuant to sealed settlement agreements,three of which were filed in the lead case and oneof which was filed in a member case. Docketsheets in the four cases indicate settlement pay-ments 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 em-ployment action for wrongful termination anddisability discrimination. The case was dismissedpursuant to a sealed settlement agreement.


C-109

Popular Inc. v. Popular Staffing Services Corp. (PR3:02-cv-02058 filed 07/11/2002).Trademark action concerning use of the name“POPULAR.” The action was dismissed pursuantto a sealed settlement agreement.

District of South CarolinaA new local rule proscribes the filing of a sealedsettlement agreement. D.S.C. L.R. 5.03(C).

Statistics: 8,126 cases in termination cohort; 311docket sheets (3.8%) have the word “seal” in them(but 136 of these merely have “seal” as the docketentry clerk identifier, and another 13 merely have“seal” in the party name); 25 complete docketsheets (0.31%) were reviewed; actual documentswere examined for 8 cases (0.10%); 8 cases (0.10%)appear to have sealed settlement agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement AgreementsDoe v. Florence School District No. 1 (SC 4:99-cv-01007 filed 04/08/1999).Civil rights action by a developmentally disabled15-year-old girl for rape by a school securityguard, who had been transferred to his currentposition from another school where he had beenaccused by parents of sexually harassing students.The court dismissed the case as settled andscheduled a settlement conference one week laterto approve the settlement agreement becausethere was a minor party. The settlement agree-ment is sealed.

Johnson v. Prime Inc. (SC 8:00-cv-01523 filed05/17/2000).Motor vehicle action against a truck driver andtrucking companies for wrongful death caused bythe truck’s colliding with traffic stopped for roadconstruction. The plaintiff dismissed the truckerand settled with the trucking companies, whoseliability insurer paid the settlement. The courtdismissed the action without prejudice and thenconducted a sealed settlement conference twoweeks later, at which it dismissed the action withprejudice after the terms of the settlement appar-ently were satisfied.

Seeling v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. (SC 3:00-cv-01893 filed 06/14/2000).Action under the Federal Employer’s Liability Actby a trainman for unspecified injuries allegedlyresulting from his employer’s negligence inmaintaining a safe working environment. Docu-ments filed in the case indicate the trainman mayhave fallen off a train. The judge issued an order

dismissing the case as “settled by the payment ofa sum of money” and sealing “the record of thissettlement, other than the fact of its existence.”

Curry v. Fripp Co. (SC 9:00-cv-02579 filed08/18/2000).Contract action for payment of a $4.5 millioncommission on facilitating the sale of a golf coursebusiness. The court dismissed the action withoutprejudice as settled, retaining jurisdiction for sixtydays to enforce the settlement agreement. Nearthe end of that sixty-day period, the plaintiff fileda motion to enforce the agreement, attaching asealed copy of the agreement. The defendants ap-parently missed the first settlement payment of$100,000 and raised objections concerning draftsof the settlement documents. Court documentsindicate that other material terms of the settle-ment agreement concern stock certificates and agolf course. Seven months after the motion to en-force was filed, the court dismissed the case withprejudice as fully resolved.

Fanning v. Columbia Housing Authority (SC 3:00-cv-02833 filed 09/12/2000).Housing action for disability discrimination. Theplaintiff alleged that she was wrongfully deniedpublic housing on the incorrect ground that shecould not live without assistance. The court dis-missed the action without prejudice as settled onFebruary 6, 2001, retaining jurisdiction for thirtydays to enforce the settlement. On March 20 thecourt dismissed the action as settled with preju-dice and ordered “these documents” sealed. OnApril 12 the court again dismissed the action withprejudice.

Williams v. Ford Motor Co. (SC 2:00-cv-03398 filed10/26/2000).Motor vehicle product liability action for wrong-ful death resulting from a Ford Aerostar van’srolling over. One plaintiff—who was not involvedin the accident—represented himself as well asthe estates of his late wife and his late 12-year-olddaughter, who were killed. The other plaintiff wasa 17-year-old son, who was injured. The courtdismissed the action as settled without prejudice,retaining jurisdiction for sixty days to enforce thesettlement. One month later the plaintiffs movedto reopen the case so that the court could approvethe settlement agreement with the minor plaintiff.The court approved the agreement. The amountsof the settlement and the plaintiffs’ attorneys’contingency fee were sealed, but unsealed records


C-110

show that 59% of the settlement went to themother’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-03803filed 12/05/2000).Motor vehicle product liability action alleging thatdefective designs of the roof and seatbelts of aJeep Grand Cherokee caused the death of thedriver and two passengers, and the injuries of twoadditional passengers, in a rollover caused by an-other vehicle. The plaintiffs representing estatesand a minor filed a sealed petition, which wasgranted, along with a sealed order approving asettlement. The court dismissed the action as set-tled without prejudice, retaining jurisdiction forsixty days to enforce the settlement agreement.Three months later the court granted a motionunder seal.

Davis & Small Decor Inc. v. Desperate EnterprisesInc. (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 plain-tiff filed a sealed “motion .!.!. to file under seal,and for sanctions, or to enforce settlement agree-ment.” The case was dismissed pursuant to anagreed order of injunction and dismissal perma-nently enjoining the defendant from selling signssimilar to the plaintiff’s.

District of South DakotaNo relevant local rule.

Statistics: 820 cases in termination cohort; 40docket sheets (4.9%) have the word “seal” inthem; 6 complete docket sheets (0.73%) were re-viewed; actual documents were examined for 0cases; no case appears to have a sealed settlementagreement.

Eastern District of Tennessee66

Court records may be sealed only upon a showingof good cause. E.D. Tenn. L.R. 26.2(b). Absent acourt order to the contrary, court records are un-sealed thirty days after the conclusion of the case.Id. R. 26.2(d). “All such orders shall set a date forthe unsealing of the Court Records.” Id.

Statistics: 3,128 cases in termination cohort; 249docket sheets (8.0%) have the word “seal” in them


(but 52 of these merely have the word “seal” in aparty name); 15 complete docket sheets (0.48%)were reviewed; actual documents were examinedfor 11 cases (0.35%); 8 cases (0.26%) appear tohave sealed settlement agreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement AgreementsKunis v. Murray (TN-E 3:98-cv-00365 filed06/18/1998).Securities action for fraudulent sale of unregis-tered securities. The case settled. The details of thesettlement agreement were sealed by the court’sgranting a protective order.

Gutierrez v. Bridgestone/Firestone Inc. (TN-E 3:98-cv-00484 filed 07/31/1998).Product liability action concerning the defectivemanufacture of a tire, which caused the tread toseparate and the vehicle to overturn, ejecting theplaintiffs from the car. The plaintiffs sustainedsevere injuries. One plaintiff died. The case set-tled. Each plaintiff received $2,777.78 from theFord Motor Company. The transcript of a minor’ssettlement hearing with regard to Bridge-stone/Firestone was sealed.

Walker v. Hospital of Morristown (TN-E 2:99-cv-00081 filed 02/23/1999).Medical malpractice action concerning negligentpulmonary care of a woman after the delivery ofher child via cesarean section. As a result, theplaintiff’s spouse suffered permanent brain dam-age, leaving her in a permanent vegetative state.She subsequently died. The case settled. The min-utes of the minors’ settlement hearing and thecourt order approving the minors’ settlementswere sealed for one year.

Monroe v. National Seating Co. (TN-E 3:99-cv-00363filed 07/09/1999).Employment discrimination action by a 51-year-old vice president for age discrimination andwrongful termination stemming from his refusalto sign allegedly fraudulent financial reports. Thecase was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settle-ment agreement.

Samaduroff v. Corrections Corp. of America (TN-E1:00-cv-00062 filed 02/25/2000).Civil rights action for the wrongful death of aninmate, alleging that a corrections facility’s failureto provide medically necessary methadone treat-ment resulted in the inmate’s suicide. The case


C-111

was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settlementagreement.

Conner v. DTS Truck Division Co. (TN-E 2:00-cv-00150 filed 05/04/2000).Motor vehicle action for wrongful death causedby the defendant’s negligent driving of a tractor-trailer, which resulted in a violent collision. Theplaintiff’s husband sustained serious external andinternal injuries and died six days after the acci-dent. The case settled. A minor’s settlement con-ference and the court order approving the detailsof the minor’s settlement agreement were sealed.

Lee v. Harper (TN-E 1:00-cv-00381 filed11/10/2000).Motor vehicle action for wrongful death, whichoccurred when the defendant’s speeding car cata-pulted onto the decedent’s car, crushing him. Thecase was dismissed pursuant to a sealed settle-ment agreement.

Floyd v. Tennessee Secondary Schools AthleticAssociation (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’svoicing concerns about the coach’s temperamentand behavior. The case settled. The settlementagreement and the court order approving the mi-nor’s settlement, which detailed the settlementpayments, were sealed.

Middle District of TennesseeNo relevant local rule.


Cases with Sealed Settlement AgreementsCatalano v. Federal Extradition Agency, Inc. (TN-M3:97-cv-00790 filed 07/30/1997).Motor vehicle action for wrongful death as a re-sult of transporting prison inmates in a negli-gently maintained Ford Econoline Van, whichcaught on fire. Six companion cases also werefiled. The court designated this to be the lead case.Ford settled. The court approved the settlementon 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 tobe a minor involved in the other cases. A yearlater, the court approved another settlementagreement on behalf of the minor by sealed order.However, an unsealed order reveals that the in-surance company defendant had to pay the mi-nor’s guardian $80,000 to be used for college.

Bryant v. Potter (TN-M 3:98-cv-00872 filed09/18/1998).Labor action by a postal employee alleging sexualharassment and discrimination by the town post-master. The case settled, and the court ordered thesettlement agreement filed under seal. The plain-tiff filed a motion to reopen the case, alleging thatthe defendant failed to fulfill his obligations un-der the terms of the settlement agreement. Thecourt denied the plaintiff’s motion.

Murphy v. RMD Corp. (TN-M 3:99-cv-00886 filed09/15/1999); Murphy v. RMD Corp. (TN-M 3:99-cv-00907 filed 09/23/1999).Class action lawsuits pursuant to the Fair LaborStandards Act for failure to properly compensaterestaurant managers and service employees forovertime work. The cases settled, and the settle-ment agreements were filed under seal.

EEOC v. Strategic Outsourcing Inc. (TN-M 3:99-cv-00938 filed 09/30/1999).Age and sex discrimination employment actionon behalf of a sales manager. The case settled. Theplaintiffs filed a sealed motion to enforce the set-tlement agreement. The transcript of the originalsettlement conference later was filed under seal.

Pruitt v. Rutherford County (TN-M 3:99-cv-01155filed 12/10/1999).Section 1983 civil rights action on behalf of a mi-nor, alleging rape by another minor while theyboth were serving time in a juvenile detentioncenter. The case settled. The settlement agreementwas approved by the court and sealed.

Matiaz v. Eidson (TN-M 3:00-cv-00485 filed05/19/2000).Wrongful death action arising from the negligentdriving of a pickup truck, which resulted in thetruck’s rolling over and the plaintiff’s husband,who was riding in the bed of truck, being pinnedbeneath the vehicle. Passengers who were able toescape from the vehicle attempted for thirty min-utes to extricate the deceased. They then walkedover an hour to a telephone, called a friend, and


C-112

went home to change clothes before going to thepolice station to report the incident. A passerbywith a tractor arrived at the scene of the accidentand turned the truck upright. The defendant em-ployer, who had remained at the scene, thenthrew the man into a nearby pig pond. To preventthe body from floating to the surface, the defen-dant held the body down in the pond with a stick.Drowning was the cause of death. The case set-tled. The court approved a minor’s settlement andplaced the settlement agreement under seal.

United States ex rel. Bledsoe v. Community HealthSystems Inc. (TN-M 2:00-cv-00083 filed09/22/2000).Fraud action concerning Medicaid and Medicareclaims. The government declined to intervene.The plaintiff, relying on government settlementdrafts, maintained that the parties reached a set-tlement and filed under seal a motion to recognizethe settlement. The motion was denied, and thecase was dismissed.

Doe v. Aramark Educational Resources Inc. (TN-M3:01-cv-00245 filed 03/13/2001); Ridge v. AramarkEducational Resources Inc. (TN-M 3:01-cv-00281filed 03/23/01); Doe v. Aramark EducationalResources Inc. (TN-M 3:01-cv-00282 filed3/23/2001).Personal injury actions on behalf of minors, al-leging rape and sexual molestation by a teacher.The cases settled. The court approved the minors’settlement agreements and placed them underseal.

Heil v. Gotee Records Inc. (TN-M 3:01-cv-00284 filed03/26/2001).Trademark infringement action concerning rec-ords. The case settled. The court reporter filedunder seal the transcript of the settlement agree-ment announced in open court. The court foundno reason for the transcript to be maintained un-der seal in the file. Accordingly, the court orderedthe docket entry stricken and the transcript de-stroyed.

Clinard v. M.J. Halgard Construction (TN-M 3:01-cv-00467 filed 05/22/2001).Employment discrimination action for retaliatorydischarge after the plaintiff attempted to end heraffair with her supervisor. The case settled. Thesettlement agreement was filed under seal.

Chargois v. Troxell (TN-M 3:01-cv-00554 filed06/22/2001).Section 1983 civil rights action on behalf of a mi-nor, alleging sexual molestation by a teacher. Theplaintiff further alleged that the school principaland other school personnel were aware of thesexual relationship but failed to intervene on theminor’s behalf or notify her parents. The case set-tled. The court approved the minor’s settlementand sealed the settlement agreement.

Deuss v. Ebenezer Home of Tennessee Inc. (TN-M3:01-cv-00589 filed 06/29/2001).Class action pursuant to the Fair Labor StandardsAct, alleging that a nursing home failed to prop-erly compensate its employees, including the ac-tivities director and nursing technician, for over-time work. The case settled. The settlementagreement 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 concerninginvestment in an expo center. The case was dis-missed as settled. The defendant filed a sealedmotion to enforce the settlement agreement. Theplaintiffs filed for bankruptcy, which has stayedthe action.

Dolgencorp Inc. v. Big Lots Inc. (TN-M 3:01-cv-01533 filed 11/28/2001).Trademark infringement action. The case settled.The plaintiffs filed a sealed motion to enforce thesettlement agreement. A final settlement wasreached, and the clerk was directed to “terminateminutes for enforcement of settlement agree-ment.”

Fletcher v. Kolcraft Enterprises Inc. (TN-M 3:02-cv-00422 filed 04/25/2002).Personal injury action for the negligent manufac-ture of a stroller, which collapsed and severed thetip of a child’s finger. The case settled. The plain-tiff filed a sealed motion to approve the minor’ssettlement agreement. The court granted the mo-tion.


C-113

Western District of TennesseeNo relevant local rule.


Cases with Sealed Settlement AgreementsLammey v. Ford Motor Co. (TN-W 2:99-cv-02156filed 02/19/1999).Product liability action for the negligent manu-facture of a car, resulting in the car’s rolling out ofthe plaintiff’s driveway and rolling over the 3-year-old plaintiff’s head. The case was dismissedas settled. The court order approving the minor’ssettlement and settlement payment was sealed.

Doe v. City of Memphis Board of Education (TN-W2:99-cv-03075 filed 12/09/1999), consolidatedwith 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 andschool board to intervene on behalf of children toprevent emotional, physical, and sexual abuse bytheir special education teachers. The court ap-pointed a guardian ad litem for the minors. Thecases were dismissed as settled. The court ordersapproving the minors’ settlements and detailingthe payments to the plaintiffs were sealed.

Reed v. Corrections Corp. of America (TN-W 2:00-cv-02473 filed 05/26/2000).Section 1983 civil rights action for failure of a ju-venile detention center to prevent the plaintiff’ssuicide attempt, which resulted in severe andpermanent brain injury. The case settled. Thetranscript of the settlement hearing and the orderapproving the cash settlement were sealed.

Warner v. Owens (TN-W 2:01-cv-02250 filed03/28/2001).Motor vehicle action by a child arising from a caraccident, claiming that the uninsured defendantnegligently drove her car over the median andinto oncoming traffic. The plaintiff suffered severepermanent injuries to her head, face, mouth, teeth,and entire nervous system, which required exten-sive medical treatment. The case settled. The or-der approving the minor’s settlement and detail-ing payment was sealed.

Harper v. Gordon (TN-W 2:02-cv-02347 filed05/07/2002); Northfield Insurance Co. v. Gordon(TN-W 2:02-cv-02503 filed 06/21/2002).Harper is a personal injury action for wrongfuldeath by a father for the negligent driving of aday care center’s bus driver, which resulted in anaccident and the death of his son and severalother children. The plaintiff alleged that the busdriver, who had a history of drug use, allowed thebus to leave the road and strike highway struc-tures and that the defendants failed to provideproper safety restraints and procedures in and forthe bus.

Northfield Insurance is an insurance contract ac-tion against the owner of the day care center thathired the bus driver. The insurance companyclaimed that the accident was not covered underthe day care center’s policy.

The cases were dismissed as settled. Settlementagreements were sealed and filed in a relatedcase, Robinson v. Tennessee Department of HumanServices (TN-W 2:02-cv-2370 filed 5/13/02) (stillpending).

District of Utah67

The sealing of a court document requires ashowing of good cause. D. Utah L. Civ. R. 5-2(a).Absent an order to the contrary, sealed docu-ments are unsealed at the end of the case. Id. R. 5-2(f).

Statistics: 2,387 cases in termination cohort; 3docket sheets are sealed (0.13%)—all of thesecases’ disposition codes suggest no sealed settle-ment agreements;68 179 unsealed docket sheets(7.5%) have the word “seal” in them; 11 completedocket sheets (0.46%) were reviewed; actualdocuments were examined for 8 cases (0.34%); 8cases (0.34%) appear to have sealed settlementagreements.

Cases with Sealed Settlement AgreementsFlying J Inc. v. Comdata Network Inc. (UT 1:96-cv-00066 filed 07/01/1996).Antitrust action by a truck-stop company againsta credit company. The case settled. The plaintiffsfiled a motion to enforce the settlement agree-ment. Attached to the motion was a sealed exhibitcontaining the settlement agreement and release;however, the accompanying memorandum of

67. This district is included in the study because ofits good-cause rule.

68. One dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, 2 “other”dismissals.


C-114

support reveals that the defendants agreed toprovide the plaintiffs with unrestricted fuel-cardaccess to their point-of-sale devices at major truckstops.

Icon Health & Fitness Inc. v. Keys Fitness ProductsInc. (UT 1:97-cv-00114 filed 10/02/1997).Patent infringement action concerning treadmills.The case settled. The plaintiffs filed a motion toenforce the settlement agreement. The accompa-nying memorandum was sealed. Another docu-ment—perhaps the settlement agreement—alsowas filed under seal.

Scott v. Riddle (UT 2:99-cv-00042 filed01/25/1999).Class action alleging violation of the Fair DebtCollection Practices Act. The case settled, and thesettlement agreement was filed under seal. Anorder allows the class administrator to distributeunclaimed funds in the amount of $5,121.47 to acharity.

Iomega Corp. v. Castlewood Systems Inc. (UT 1:99-cv-00080 filed 07/06/1999).Patent infringement action by a data storagemanufacturer. The case settled. The defendantsfailed to fulfill their obligations under the settle-ment agreement. The plaintiffs filed a sealed mo-tion for entry of a stipulated judgment pursuantto the settlement agreement. The judgment laterwas unsealed. For the defendants’ failing to makethe $10,000 payment by the date specified in thesettlement agreement, the court awarded theplaintiffs $1,775,000 in damages plus attorneyfees.

Mohamed v. International Rescue Committee (UT2:00-cv-00588 filed 07/26/2000).Employment discrimination action. The case set-tled at mediation. A dispute arose regarding theamount of the settlement, and both parties filedmotions seeking to enforce the settlement agree-ment; however, only the defendant’s motion wassealed. The plaintiff’s motion notes that he wouldonly accept an after-tax offer of $24,000. The court,unable to determine if there was a meeting of theminds, denied the motions. The case ultimatelywas dismissed as settled.

Crosslin v. Hansen (UT 2:00-cv-00648 filed08/15/2000).Medical malpractice action arising from the negli-gent insertion of a feeding tube, resulting in the

plaintiffs’ daughter’s death. The case settled, andthe settlement agreement appears to be sealed.However, the docket shows a check in the amountof $39,000 payable to a third party claiming tohave a lien.

Financial Freedom International v. InternationalCredit Repair Services Inc. (UT 2:00-cv-00659 filed08/17/2000).Copyright infringement action concerning thereproduction of credit education materials. Thecase settled, and the settlement agreement wasfiled under seal.

Turner v. MacKenzie (UT 2:00-cv-00697 filed09/01/2000).Personal injury action concerning defamatorycomments posted on the Internet regarding theplaintiff’s professional competence and integrity.The parties entered into settlement discussions.Although the defendant maintained that parts ofthe discussions have appeared on the Internet, thecourt sealed all matters dealing with the settle-ment agreement. The defendant filed a sealedmotion to enforce the settlement agreement,which the court granted.

Eastern District of VirginiaNo relevant local rule. Practices vary among thedivisions: in Alexandria a document can be sealedby handwriting the word “sealed” on the docu-ment, but in Richmond a motion to seal is re-quired. The district’s rules committee will con-sider a proposed uniform rule this spring.


Cases with Sealed Settlement AgreementsUnited States ex rel. Groshans v. Unisys Corp. (VA-E1:02-cv-01589 filed 02/29/1996).Qui tam action under the False Claims Act forfalse billing in contracting for the Trident MissileProgram. The docket shows only the four docu-ments that the government asked to be unsealed,including an amended complaint. The case wasdismissed pursuant to a settlement agreement.Because of sealed docket entries, however, it can-not be determined with certainty that the agree-ment was filed.


C-115

America Online Inc. v. CN Productions Inc. (VA-E1:98-cv-00552 filed 04/16/1998).Statutory action under the Lanham Act, allegingthat the defendants sent the plaintiff’s subscribersunsolicited electronic mail containing the plain-tiff’s trademark along with information on porno-graphic Web sites, products, and services. Thedefendants were held in contempt for violating apermanent injunction. An additional sixteen indi-viduals and thirteen entities were held in civilcontempt for conspiring with the defendants toviolate the injunction. The plaintiff was awarded$6,904,712 in damages. The court sealed thememorandum opinion and judgment because itcontained details of the settlement amount. Theplaintiff filed a motion to partially unseal thejudgment and memorandum opinion to show thatthis type of public violation will be punished andsubstantial damages awarded. One month later aredacted version of the order was unsealed.

United States ex rel. Doe v. University of VirginiaHealth System (VA-E 1:01-cv-01691 filed07/16/1998).Qui tam action under the False Claims Act forfraudulent Medicare billing. A settlement agree-ment initially was filed under seal, but it, thecomplaint, and other documents were unsealedwhen the case was dismissed. The defendant paidthe United States $3 million and the relator$600,000.

Price v. Foster (VA-E 1:99-cv-00549 filed04/19/1999).Personal injury action for wrongful death result-ing from the defendants’ severing a hospital oxy-gen line. A sealed settlement agreement was filedand approved, and the order of approval statedthat the decedent’s three adult children eachwould receive $1,000 and the plaintiff’s attorneyswould receive $35,000. The guardian ad litem re-jected the settlement of $1,000 for the decedent’sminor grandchild. One month after the case wasdismissed, the plaintiff filed a motion to reconfirmapproval of the settlement agreement. The courtreconfirmed approval and awarded the minorgrandchild $5,000 to be used solely for educationand support.

Franklin v. First Union Corp. (VA-E 3:99-cv-00344filed 05/05/1999), consolidated with Franklin v.First Union Corp. (VA-E 3:99-cv-00610 filed09/07/1999).ERISA actions including RICO allegations con-cerning 401(k) plans of current and former bankemployees. The defendants denied liability, butagreed to pay $26 million to named plaintiffs anda class of approximately 150,000. The list of po-tential class members was filed under seal.

MCI Communications Corp. v. Essential VoiceComputing Inc. (VA-E 3:00-cv-00105 filed02/25/2000).Patent infringement action involving a telephone-based personnel tracking system. Three monthsafter a settlement agreement was reached, the de-fendants refused to execute the final documents.The plaintiff filed a motion to enforce the settle-ment agreement, and the court granted a motionto seal the motion because it contained settlementterms. The court ordered a consent judgment witha permanent injunction. The court retained juris-diction to enforce the consent judgment and per-manent injunction.

Advamtel LLC v. Sprint (VA-E 1:00-cv-01074 filed04/17/2000).Statutory action concerning collection of tele-communications charges, alleging that Sprintused ninety plaintiffs’ telephone lines withoutpaying applicable tariffs. Sprint filed a counter-claim for overbilling. A few plaintiffs dismissedtheir actions pursuant to confidential settlementagreements as the litigation proceeded. AfterSprint reached settlement agreements with allplaintiffs but one, it filed under seal a motion toenforce the settlement agreement. Disagreementswith the remaining plaintiff ultimately were re-solved, and the case was dismissed as settled.

Fordham v. OneSoft Corp. (VA-E 1:00-cv-01078 filed06/29/2000).Computer software copyright infringement ac-tion. An order concerning settlement proceedsstated that the defendant deposited $644,285. Theplaintiff filed a motion and memorandum underseal for disbursement of the settlement proceeds.One week later the plaintiff filed a suggestion ofbankruptcy. The court granted the plaintiff’s mo-tion for disbursement of settlement proceedseleven weeks later. The attorney in the case wasgranted a lien against the settlement funds, and


C-116

the court ordered that the attorney fees and ex-penses be paid out of the settlement funds.

Garcia v. Gloucester Seafood Inc. (VA-E 4:00-cv-00069 filed 06/30/2000).Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Actfor failure to pay minimum and overtime wages.The plaintiffs were Mexican citizens recruited towork at the defendants’ seafood-processing plant.The court dismissed the action as settled, retain-ing jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agree-ment. Approximately three months later the courtissued an agreed order to reopen the case for en-try of judgment pursuant to a sealed settlementagreement. Approximately three months later thecase was closed upon the court’s satisfaction thatsettlement payments had been made.

Alegre v. United States (VA-E 4:00-cv-00074 filed07/19/2000).Medical malpractice action for severe brain injuryresulting from improper treatment after routinesurgery at a Veterans Administration Hospital.The government admitted liability and agreed topay $950,000. The government’s attorney filedunder seal a motion to approve the settlementagreement, but unsealed documents disclose thesettlement agreement’s terms.

Doe v. Holcomb (VA-E 2:00-cv-00597 filed08/15/2000).Personal injury action for sexual molestation of aHeadstart student by a school bus driver. Anagreed protective order held confidential(1)!medical and psychological information aboutthe plaintiff, (2)!information concerning the crimi-nal investigation of the bus driver, and (3)!theidentity of the plaintiff. The court approved asealed settlement agreement.

Opsahl v. E*Trade Group (VA-E 1:00-cv-01501 filed09/06/2000).Contract action for breach of a corporate acquisi-tion agreement. After acquiring a company inwhich the plaintiff was a corporate officer withsignificant stock options, the defendants allegedlyfailed to timely file a registration statement withthe SEC, causing the plaintiff significant delay inhis ability to exercise his stock options. A sealedsettlement agreement was attached as an exhibitto the plaintiff’s motion to enforce. The motioninvolved disputed escrow arrangements. Six dayslater the plaintiff withdrew the motion to enforceand asked the court to destroy the sealed settle-

ment agreement or return it to the plaintiff’scounsel. In the final order of dismissal the courtordered that the settlement agreement remainpermanently sealed.

Bryant v. Southside Gin Inc. (VA-E 3:00-cv-00616filed 09/22/2000).RICO action by farmers, alleging that the defen-dants stole their cotton while it was being proc-essed at the defendants’ gins. A sealed settlementagreement was filed. A confessed judgment wasgranted in favor of some plaintiffs for $184,106. Inthe order of dismissal the court ordered that theplaintiffs “shall not pursue enforcement of theconfessed judgment.”

Zeller v. America Online Inc. (VA-E 1:00-cv-01603filed 09/27/2000).Employment discrimination action by a manageragainst his former employer for wrongful termi-nation resulting from his reporting sexual har-assment of co-workers. The case was dismissed assettled. One month after the case was dismissed,the defendant filed a motion to enforce the settle-ment agreement and attached a sealed settlementagreement as an exhibit. The plaintiff also filed amotion to enforce the settlement agreement. Areport and recommendation were filed under seal,and the court granted the defendant’s motion toenforce the settlement agreement.

Asbestos Multidistrict Litigation: Estate of Lott v.American Standard Inc. (VA-E 2:00-cv-03931 filed10/10/2000); Blackburn v. American Standard Inc.(VA-E 2:00-cv-03981 filed 10/19/2000); Estate ofChapman v. American Standard Inc. (VA-E 2:01-cv-04223 filed 02/01/2001); Estate of Smith v.American Standard Inc. (VA-E 2:01-cv-04291 filed02/09/2001); Estate of Johnson v. American StandardInc. (VA-E 2:01-cv-04343 filed 02/22/2001); Estateof Carpenter v. American Standard Inc. (VA-E 2:01-cv-04451 filed 03/26/2001); Dreyer v. AmericanStandard Inc. (VA-E 2:01-cv-04787 filed04/17/2001); Estate of Russell v. American StandardInc. (VA-E 2:01-cv-04977 filed 04/23/2001); Estateof Howell v. American Standard Inc. (VA-E 2:01-cv-05007 filed 04/23/2001); Estate of Dickey v.American Standard Inc. (VA-E 2:01-cv-05427 filed05/14/2001); Estate of Holland v. American StandardInc. (VA-E 2:01-cv-05431 filed 05/14/2001); Estateof Boyette v. American Standard Inc. (VA-E 2:01-cv-05511 filed 06/01/2001).Asbestos product liability litigation for the wrong-ful deaths of workers who were exposed to the


C-117

inhalation of asbestos and industrial dust and fi-bers. These cases were transferred by the MDLPanel to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania asMDL 875. All of the plaintiffs were represented bythe same law firm in Norfolk, Virginia. Claimswere dismissed against two of the defendants. Asettlement was reached with one of the defen-dants, and the petition for approval of the com-promised settlement was sealed. The order ap-proving the compromised settlement also wassealed.

Wyatt v. S. C. Jones Service Inc. (VA-E 3:00-cv-00720filed 11/01/2000).Employment discrimination action by a blackplaintiff who sued a former employer for wrong-ful termination. The defendant sought sanctionsagainst the plaintiff for filing a frivolous lawsuit,because the plaintiff had filed similar claims in thepast. The court ordered sanctions prohibiting theplaintiff from filing a civil action or filing pro sewithout prior approval of the court for five years.The plaintiff also was ordered to pay the defen-dants’ attorney fees and expenses. The courtgranted the defendants’ motion to dismiss andmotion for summary judgment. A sealed settle-ment agreement was filed eight days after thesanctions were imposed.

Cousino v. Sunbeam Corp. (VA-E 2:00-cv-00876 filed11/22/2000).Product liability action by two parents and theirfive-year-old daughter, alleging that an electricblanket caught fire. The court conducted a sealedsettlement conference and approved a sealed set-tlement agreement.

Haider v. American Honda Motor Co. (VA-E 1:00-cv-02079 filed 12/14/2000).Motor vehicle action for wrongful death in a traf-fic accident in which the driver of a Honda Ac-cord survived, but two passengers were killed. Amediation report was filed under seal. The defen-dants’ response to the plaintiff’s petition for ap-proval of the settlement agreement stated thatconfidentiality of the agreement was an essentialterm.

SY Technology Inc. v. System Studies and SimulationInc. (VA-E 1:00-cv-02129 filed 12/22/2000).Contract action for breach of a proprietary dataagreement by the defendant, who alleged that aformer employee used sensitive financial andtrade secrets to benefit his new company. After a

jury trial had commenced the parties reached asettlement. The case was dismissed, and the finalorder was placed under seal presumably becauseit contained terms of the settlement agreement.

Alley v. Core Inc. (VA-E 2:01-cv-00065 filed01/29/2001).Designated a product liability case, this is an ER-ISA action for wrongful denial of disability bene-fits to an employee for a work injury to a knee andsubsequent unsuccessful arthroscopic surgery.The case was consolidated with Alley v. Sicknessand Accident Disability Plan for Bell Atlantic Employ-ees (VA-E 2:01-00123 filed 02/26/2002). The courtawarded the plaintiff summary judgment, and theplaintiff moved for $53,432.50 in attorney fees and$2,770.97 in costs. The defendant appealed thesummary judgment. While the case was on ap-peal, it settled pursuant to a settlement agree-ment, which was filed under seal in district court.

Jappell v. American Association of Blood Banks (VA-E1:01-cv-002228 filed 02/09/2001).Personal injury action involving the wrongfuldeath of a woman who contracted HIV from thedefendant’s blood products. The complaint al-leged that the defendant failed to properly screenblood donors. A sealed settlement agreement wasfiled, and the case was dismissed as settled. Eightdays after the case was dismissed, the plaintifffiled a motion to enforce the settlement agree-ment. The hearing on the motion to enforce thesettlement agreement has not occurred.

Verizon Online Services Inc. v. McDonald (VA-E1:01-cv-00432 filed 03/19/2001).Statutory action under the Computer Fraud andAbuse Act, alleging that the defendants sent un-solicited electronic mail advertising goods andservices to the plaintiff’s subscribers. A sealedsettlement agreement was filed as an attachmentto the motion for stipulated judgment.

Breeden v. PYA/Monarch Inc. (VA-E 2:01-cv-00194filed 03/20/2001).Employment action for disability discriminationby a warehouse worker who was not relieved oflifting duty while he recovered from an off-workwrist injury. The action was dismissed as settled,but nearly four months later the plaintiff filed asealed motion to enforce the settlement agree-ment, which subsequently was sealed by agreedorder. The motion to enforce was denied by asealed order.


C-118

Vance v. Everly Funeral Homes Inc. (VA-E 1:01-cv-01048 filed 07/05/2001).Employment action in which an assistant man-ager sued a former employer for sexual harass-ment and constructive termination. The plaintifffiled a sealed motion to enforce the settlementagreement. The defendant’s memorandum in op-position to the settlement agreement also wassealed. The case was dismissed as settled.

Canon USA Inc. v. Lease Group Resources Inc. (VA-E1:01-cv-01086 filed 07/10/2001).Contract action seeking nearly $5 million in pay-ment for the provision of several hundred photo-copiers to the federal government. The partiesmoved for dismissal pursuant to a settlementagreement and asked the court to appoint a mag-istrate judge as special master to supervise thesettlement, “[g]iven the complex nature of thesettlement obligations, the period of time overwhich they will be performed, and the possibilitythat the resolution of disputes will require factualdeterminations and legal analysis.” The memo-randum in support of the motion, presumablycontaining a copy of the settlement agreement,was sealed. But the 23-page settlement agreementwas filed unsealed as an exhibit to two enforce-ment motions subsequently filed by the defen-dant. The court continues to oversee the agree-ment.

Estate of Bui v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (VA-E 2:01-cv-00612 filed 08/13/2001).Motor vehicle product liability action for wrong-ful death resulting from a wheel coming off aDodge van carrying church group youths. Thedecedent’s estate sued manufacturers of the van,the wheel, and the tire. The estate filed a sealedpetition for approval of a settlement agreement,which initially was approved by sealed order andsubsequently approved by unsealed order afterthe decedent’s sisters in Vietnam had been givennotice of the agreement. An unsealed Vietnamesetranslation of the settlement agreement suggeststhat the settlement was for $282,500—$82,500from the van manufacturer, $140,000 from thewheel manufacturer, and $60,000 from the tiremanufacturer.

Fredley v. Huthwaite Inc. (VA-E 1:01-cv-01337 filed08/29/2001).Employment discrimination action alleging thatthe defendants paid the plaintiff less than hermale counterparts for equal work. The plaintiff

filed a motion to enforce a settlement agreementtwo weeks after the case was settled and filed thesealed settlement agreement as an exhibit. In theirresponse to the plaintiff’s motion, the defendantsreported that they attempted to pay the plaintiff$14,500 by check, but she wanted cash. The courtordered the case dismissed as settled because theparties had reached an agreement.

Hoffstaetter v. Gwaltney of Smithfield Ltd. (VA-E2:01-cv-00665 filed 08/31/2001).Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Actby employees of a pork-processing and hog-slaughtering facility for failure to pay overtimewages. A sealed settlement agreement was filed.

Automall Online Inc. v. American Express TravelRelated Services Co. (VA-E 1:01-cv-01705 filed11/08/2001).Contract action for breach of a rewards participa-tion agreement. After a jury trial had commenced,the parties settled. The settlement was placed onthe record under seal pursuant to a confidentialityorder.

Leavitt-Imblum v. McNeil (VA-E 2:01-cv-00942 filed12/18/2001).Copyright infringement action alleging that thedefendants incorporated the plaintiffs’ cross-stitchpatterns into a computer program, allowing usersto stitch uncountable copies of the plaintiffs’ de-signs without payment of royalties. The settle-ment agreement was filed under seal.

Drexler v. Aeon Knowledge Inc. (VA-E 1:02-cv-00174filed 02/01/2002).Statutory action under wiretapping law for mis-appropriation of the Internet domain name“wonderful.com,” which was registered by anindividual for his personal use. The case was dis-missed pursuant to a sealed settlement agree-ment.

Fenelus v. Dav-El Capital City Inc. (VA-E 1:02-cv-00417 filed 03/21/2002).Designated a civil rights action, this is an em-ployment discrimination action by a black chauf-feur for discrimination, assault and battery, andconstructive termination. The plaintiff filed a mo-tion and memorandum under seal to enforce thesettlement agreement. The case was dismissedbefore the court ruled on the motion.


C-119

Western District of VirginiaA standing order “governs the unsealing ofdocuments,” but a presiding judge may make ex-ceptions. Sealing of a document generally may beconsidered “only upon written motion.” W.D. Va.L.R. Part XIII.A. Documents generally “are to beunsealed within thirty (30) days from the date ofthe order to seal.” Id.


Cases with Sealed Settlement AgreementsSales v. Grant (VA-W 6:96-cv-00027 filed04/01/1996).Civil rights action by two assistant election regis-trars for the City of Lynchburg, who alleged thatthey were not reappointed to their positions be-cause they are Democrats. The court awarded thedefendants judgment as a matter of law at theclose of evidence in a jury trial, but the court ofappeals reversed. After a second appeal, a secondjury awarded one plaintiff $55,000 in compensa-tory damages and $40,000 in punitive damagesand the other plaintiff, $57,000 in compensatorydamages and $35,000 in punitive damages. Fol-lowing the trial the parties settled the action pur-suant to a sealed settlement agreement incorpo-rated by reference into an unsealed consent de-cree. Although the defendants denied liability,they agreed to pay each plaintiff $26,000 plus tenyears of periodic payments in accordance with theagreement, with payments totaling close to$400,000. Thereafter the court awarded the plain-tiffs $814,893 in attorney fees and $28,893.19 inexpenses for the five-and-a-half years of litigationin this case. The court destroyed the sealed set-tlement agreement eight months later.

Thompson v. Town of Front Royal (VA-W 5:98-cv-00083 filed 11/04/1998); Blackman v. Town of FrontRoyal (VA-W 5:99-cv-00017 filed 03/19/1999).Employment race discrimination actions by apublic works laborer and a public works carpen-ter, who alleged overt and severe racism againstAfrican-Americans by the director of publicworks and another supervisor. Parties agreed to asettlement at a settlement conference before amagistrate judge, who filed the terms of settle-ment under seal for review by the district judge,who in turn dismissed the action as settled.

Weber v. Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (VA-W3:98-cv-00109 filed 11/17/1998).Environmental action by twenty-six plaintiffsagainst operators of a landfill dump. The defen-dant filed a motion for a protective order againstdiscovery of material the defendant claimed wasprotected by attorney–client privilege and as at-torney work product. A few months later sealeddocuments were filed, including reports and rec-ommendations and orders. One sealed documentwas labeled “order and settlement agreement.”But the action by most of the plaintiffs was dis-missed pursuant to a lengthy settlement agree-ment that was filed unsealed. Two separate orderseach dismissed the action as settled as to a pair ofplaintiffs. Documents pertaining to an inter-pleader action by a third party refer to settlementwith 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-cv-00096 filed 02/11/1999) and Macher v. TravelersCommercial Insurance Co. (VA-W 7:99-cv-00097filed 02/11/1999).Insurance actions for a pattern of unreasonablepractices by an adjuster. After mediation by amagistrate judge, a sealed memorandum of set-tlement was filed and the case was dismissed.

Rogers v. Pendleton (VA-W 7:99-cv-00164 filed03/16/1999).Civil rights action against two police officers forunlawful search and seizure when the officersresponded to a noise complaint concerning theplaintiff’s party. A sealed document was filed thesame day as a stipulation of dismissal.

Carter Machinery Co. v. Time Collection SolutionsInc. (VA-W 7:99-cv-00255 filed 04/15/1999).Contract and fraud action for a faulty payrollsystem. The defendant filed a counterclaim forunpaid bills. A memorandum of settlement wasfiled under seal, and the case was dismissed fourand a half months later. Four months after that,the parties were ordered to remove sealed materi-als.

Dean v. Crescent Mortgage Corp. (VA-W 3:00-cv-00035 filed 04/19/2000).Truth in lending action for the defendant’s refusalto let the plaintiff rescind a $400,000 loan securedby the plaintiff’s home. After a settlement confer-


C-120

ence before a magistrate judge, a sealed settlementagreement was filed.

Green v. Ford Motor Co. (VA-W 3:00-cv-00049 filed06/01/2000), consolidated with Carey v. FordMotor Co. (VA-W 3:00-cv-00050 filed 06/01/2000).Consolidated motor vehicle product liability ac-tions against Ford and U-Haul for the wrongfuldeaths of the driver and a passenger of a U-Haultruck. The truck burst into flames—allegedly be-cause of a design defect—in a rollover accidentapparently caused by the driver’s falling asleep atthe wheel. Ford filed a cross-claim against U-Haulfor destroying the damaged truck without lettingFord inspect it. The parties reached a confidentialsettlement agreement, which the court had to ap-prove because Virginia law requires court ap-proval of wrongful death settlements. (An actionby an additional passenger who survived alsowas consolidated, but approval of the settlementin that case apparently was not necessary.) Sev-eral 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 Germanmanufacturer of mining equipment. The defen-dant’s North American distributor alleged thatgearboxes sold to a third party were defective.The defendant filed a counterclaim for 767,520.96DM and $155,312 US in unpaid bills, plus addi-tional damages. Four days after the court deniedthe defendant’s motion for partial summaryjudgment on two of the plaintiff’s five claims, asealed document was filed and the case wasclosed as settled.

Lashea v. Ringwood (VA-W 7:00-cv-00556 filed07/12/2000).Prisoner petition against a prison nurse, chal-lenging the quality of medical care for appendici-tis. The case settled, and on the same day that astipulation of dismissal was filed a sealed docu-ment 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 apart-ment complex for false and misleading statementsabout the condition, occupancy rate, and profits ofthe complex. On the eve of trial, an unsuccessfulsettlement conference was held in the morning,and a sealed settlement conference was held in theafternoon. Approximately three weeks later, a

stipulated dismissal was filed, and a sealeddocument was filed a week and a half after that.This sealed document most likely contained termsof the settlement agreement.

Hale v. Elcom of Virginia Inc. (VA-W 3:00-cv-00085filed 09/28/2000).Class action under the Fair Labor Standards Actagainst the CBS television affiliate in Richmondfor denial of overtime compensation to televisionannouncers. The parties settled and filed theirsettlement agreement under seal for the court’sapproval pursuant to the court’s order “and ap-plicable law.” The dismissal order disclosed thatone provision of the settlement agreement wasthat the plaintiff’s attorney not represent “simi-larly-situated individuals in future litigationagainst the defendants.”

Advance Stores Co. v. Exide Corp. (VA-W 7:00-cv-00853 filed 11/03/2000).Breach of contract action by an auto parts retaileragainst a motor vehicle battery wholesaler. Thecase was litigated under a protective order, andmany sealed documents were filed. The actionwas dismissed as settled the same day that asealed settlement agreement was filed. Threesealed documents were filed three months later,and then an unsealed response to the defendant’smotion to enforce the agreement was filed. Sixsealed documents of renewed litigation followedtwo to three months later, and the matter ulti-mately was dismissed again as settled.

Bryant v. Delta Star Inc. (VA-W 6:00-cv-00113 filed12/11/2000).Employment action, originally filed pro se, fordiscrimination on the basis of age and disability.The plaintiff ultimately obtained representation,and her case was consolidated with two othersagainst the same defendant. The court dismissedthe disability discrimination claims as not firstpresented to the EEOC, and the cases went to trialon the age discrimination claims. A memorandumof settlement pertaining to all three cases wasfiled under seal but docketed only for the leadcase, and the lead case was dismissed.

Ebelt v. Dotson (VA-W 4:01-cv-00025 filed05/04/2001).Personal property damage action against a cardealer for odometer fraud. The parties filed asealed document one day, and a sealed motion to


C-121

dismiss the next day. On the third day, the courtdismissed the action as settled.

Comsonics Inc. v. TVC Communications Inc. (VA-W5:01-cv-00053 filed 06/20/2001).Patent infringement case concerning a portablesampling spectrum analyzer. A sealed settlementand licensing agreement was filed under seal, andthe case was dismissed as settled.

American Red Cross v. Central Virginia SafetyConcepts LLC (VA-W 3:01-cv-00068 filed06/22/2001).Contract action against former employees whostarted a competing health training business forimproper use of confidential business informa-tion. A consent order of dismissal ordered the de-fendants to refrain from soliciting new businessfrom 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 qualityinspector at a tire plant against a supervisor forsexual harassment and against their employer forfailure to stop it. After the case was referred to amagistrate judge for mediation, two sealed docu-ments and a sealed motion to dismiss were filed,followed by an order to dismiss the action as set-tled.

Epperly v. Southstar Corp. (VA-W 7:01-cv-00654filed 08/27/2001).Employment action by a person with epilepsy forwrongful failure to rehire because of disability. Amemorandum of settlement was filed under seal,and the case was dismissed.

Palmer v. Shire Richwoods Inc. (VA-W 7:01-cv-00739filed 09/26/2001).Employment action by a male 47-year-old recov-ering alcoholic with a brain tumor, alleging dis-crimination on the basis of age, disability, and sex,and violation of the Family and Medical LeaveAct in his employer’s replacing him with ayounger, healthier woman. The case was dis-missed pursuant to a sealed memorandum of set-tlement.

Teamsters National Automobile Transporters IndustryNegotiating Committee v. Hook Up Inc. (VA-W 7:02-cv-00035 filed 01/10/2002).Labor action alleging that the closing of a truckdistribution terminal violated the Worker Ad-justment and Retraining Notification Act by notgiving employees sixty days’ notice. The case wasdismissed pursuant to a sealed memorandum ofsettlement, which was subsequently destroyed.

Phi Delta Theta International Fraternity v. Phi DeltaAlpha (VA-W 3:02-cv-00028 filed 03/05/2002).Designated a trademark infringement action, thisis an action by the international Phi Delta Thetafraternity against an expelled University of Vir-ginia chapter, which changed its name to PhiDelta Alpha, but continued to suggest associationwith Phi Delta Theta, such as by referring to itsmembers as “Phi Delts.” The chapter was expelledfor serving alcohol, which resulted in the hospi-talization of an underage student. The case wasdismissed pursuant to a sealed “sketch settlementagreement.” The unsealed consent order dis-missing the action states that the settlement didnot include an award of damages.

Reyes-Ibarra v. Miller (VA-W 7:02-cv-00681 filed05/23/2002).Action by migrant agricultural workers under theMigrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Pro-tection Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act forimproper wages, working conditions, and noticeof labor regulations. The plaintiffs were hired tocreate Christmas decorations from evergreens.The action was dismissed pursuant to a sealedmemorandum of settlement.

Younger v. FWC Inc. (VA-W 6:02-cv-00038 filed06/19/2002).Employment discrimination action for sexual har-assment and retaliatory discharge. The case wasdismissed pursuant to a sealed memorandum ofsettlement.

Eastern District of WashingtonNo relevant local rule.

Statistics: 1,355 cases in termination cohort; 70docket sheets (5.2%) have the word “seal” inthem; 3 complete docket sheets (0.22%) were re-viewed; actual documents were examined for 2cases (0.15%); 2 cases have sealed settlementagreements (0.15%).


C-122

Cases with Sealed Settlement AgreementsUnited States ex rel. Carbaugh v. WestinghouseHanford Co. (WA-E 2:96-cs-00171 filed03/19/1996).Qui tam action under the False Claims Act forfraudulently billing for workers’ fringe benefits. Asealed settlement agreement was filed.

Lohr v. Komatsu Electronic Materials (WA-E 2:00-cs-00225 filed 06/29/2000).Product liability case in which two employeeswere seriously injured and one was killed when apressure line exploded. Three minor plaintiffs inthe case had guardians ad litem. The court sealedfive documents filed during the thirty days pre-ceding the filing of the recommendation by theguardians ad litem and ordered that “counselshall file all further pleadings concerning settle-ment of this matter under seal.” A stipulation or-der dismissing the case gives no additional infor-mation.

Western District of Washington69

“There is a strong presumption of public access tothe court’s files and records which may be over-come only on a compelling showing that the pub-lic’s right of access is outweighed by the interestsof 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 thecase is over, if the entire record is sealed, the file isdestroyed, id. R. 5(g)(5)(D); if part of the record issealed, then sealed documents are returned tosubmitting parties, id. R. 5(g)(5)(C).


Cases with Sealed Settlement AgreementsCostco Wholesale Corp. v. Commonwealth InsuranceCo. (WA-W 2:98-cv-01454 filed 10/14/1998).Contract action involving an insurance coveragedispute for losses suffered by the plaintiff for ex-cessive soil settlement at the plaintiff’s warehouse.A cross-claim was filed against the architect andthe engineer who were responsible for the design,planning, and construction of the warehouse. A


settlement was reached with the engineer. A mo-tion for setoff of the amount paid by the settle-ment was filed under seal. A stipulated protectiveorder noted that the settlement agreement wasconfidential. The plaintiff was awarded$10,845,740 from the insurance company. The de-cision was affirmed on appeal.

MetroNet Services Corp. v. U.S. WestCommunications Inc. (WA-W 2:00-cv-00013 filed01/05/2000).Antitrust case challenging the defendant’s mo-nopoly over local and long-distance telecommu-nication services. The plaintiff filed a motion un-der seal to enforce the settlement agreement. Thecourt denied the plaintiff’s motion. The courtgranted the defendant’s motion for summaryjudgment. The case currently is under appeal.

Kim v. Méndez (WA-W 2:00-cv-00071 filed01/14/2000).Employment action by a Korean cook against hisformer employer and two former co-workers forrace discrimination and retaliation. A guardian adlitem was appointed to oversee the interests of theplaintiff, who was hospitalized for psychiatriccare. The court granted a partial summary judg-ment for one of the co-worker defendants. A jointstipulated agreement provides that the terms ofthe settlement agreement remain confidential. Thecourt approved and sealed the guardian ad litemreport.

Supnick v. Amazon.com Inc. (WA-W 2:00-cv-00221filed 02/11/2000).Class action involving Web navigation softwarethat gave the defendant access to users’ names,passwords, and other confidential information. Asealed settlement agreement was filed. One weekafter the settlement agreement was filed, it wasunsealed. The defendant agreed to modify itssoftware so that it does not collect confidentialinformation. The defendant agreed to pay $1.9million to named plaintiffs and a class of ap-proximately 47,500, and $100,000 to a fund thatwill provide grants to university-based programswith Internet public policy issues.

Lambert v. Henderson (WA-W 3:00-cv-05165 filed03/21/2000).Employment discrimination action by a blackmailman against his former employer for refusingto provide light-duty work for him after his sur-gery. Minutes of the settlement were placed on


C-123

the record under seal during the settlement con-ference.

Savage v. Combined Insurance Co. of America (WA-W 3:00-cv-05319 filed 06/01/2000).Labor litigation involving failure to pay commis-sions on the sale of Medicare supplemental poli-cies. The settlement agreement was placed on therecord under seal during the settlement confer-ence.

White v. Johnston & Culberson Inc. (WA-W 2:00-cv-00982 filed 06/07/2000).Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act forfailure to pay overtime wages. A sealed settle-ment agreement was filed. The court approvedthe settlement.

Gorchoff v. North Shore Agency (WA-W 2:00-cv-01329 filed 08/07/2000).Class action under the Fair Debt Collection Act forfailing to provide the name of the original creditorin a collection letter and for threatening to takeaction not legally allowed by the defendant. Thecase was dismissed as settled, and the order ofdismissal was filed under seal. A sealed settle-ment agreement apparently was filed.

Precor Inc. v. Brunswick Corp. (WA-W 2:00-cv-01392 filed 08/17/2000).Patent infringement case involving a patent for atreadmill. Six weeks after the case was dismissed,the defendant filed a motion under seal to enforcethe settlement agreement. The court granted thedefendant’s motion.

Chance v. Avenue A Inc. (WA-W 2:00-cv-01964 filed11/20/2000).Class action by persons who were secretly trackedby the defendant as they surfed the Internet. Thedefendant’s motion for summary judgment wasgranted. The plaintiffs appealed, but later volun-tarily dismissed the appeal. The court granted ajoint motion for preliminary approval of the classaction settlement that was filed under seal.

Chilbeck v. Deere & Co. (WA-W 3:01-cv-05287 filed05/29/2001).Product liability wrongful death case involving aman who suffocated when his tractor tipped over,pinning him between the tractor’s rollover pro-tective structure and the ground. The decedent’sminor child was represented by a guardian adlitem, whose report on the settlement was sealed.A joint stipulation was filed that the settlementdocuments be filed under seal.

In re Arctic Rose LLC (WA-W 2:01-cv-01360 filed08/31/2001).Statutory action in admiralty by owners of a fish-ing vessel for exoneration from or limitation ofliability arising from an accident that resulted inthe deaths of thirteen people. Seven guardian adlitem reports were filed under seal and approvedby the court for the decedents’ minor children.The order authorizing settlement was filed underseal.

The Federal Judicial Center

BoardThe Chief Justice of the United States, ChairJudge Pierre N. Leval, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second CircuitJudge Terence T. Evans, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh CircuitJudge James A. Parker, U.S. District Court for the District of New MexicoJudge Sarah S. Vance, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of LouisianaJudge Bernice B. Donald, U.S. District Court for the Western District of TennesseeChief Judge Robert F. Hershner, Jr., U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of

GeorgiaMagistrate Judge Robert B. Collings, U.S. District Court for the District of MassachusettsLeonidas Ralph Mecham, Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. CourtsDirectorJudge Barbara J. RothsteinDeputy DirectorRussell R. Wheeler

About the Federal Judicial Center

The Federal Judicial Center is the research and education agency of the federal judicialsystem. It was established by Congress in 1967 (28 U.S.C. §§ 620–629), on the recommen-dation of the Judicial Conference of the United States.

By statute, the Chief Justice of the United States chairs the Center’s Board, which alsoincludes the director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and seven judgeselected by the Judicial Conference.

The Director’s Office is responsible for the Center’s overall management and its rela-tions with other organizations. Its Systems Innovation & Development Office providestechnical support for Center education and research. Communications Policy & Designedits, produces, and distributes all Center print and electronic publications, operates theFederal Judicial Television Network, and through the Information Services Office main-tains a specialized library collection of materials on judicial administration.

The Judicial Education Division develops and administers education programs andservices for judges, career court attorneys, and federal defender office personnel. Theseinclude orientation seminars, continuing education programs, and special-focus work-shops.

The Court Education Division develops and administers education and training pro-grams and services for nonjudicial court personnel, such as those in clerks’ offices andprobation and pretrial services offices, and management training programs for courtteams of judges and managers.

The Research Division undertakes empirical and exploratory research on federal ju-dicial processes, court management, and sentencing and its consequences, often at therequest of the Judicial Conference and its committees, the courts themselves, or othergroups in the federal system.

The Federal Judicial History Office develops programs relating to the history of thejudicial branch and assists courts with their own judicial history programs.

The Interjudicial Affairs Office provides information about judicial improvement tojudges and others from foreign countries and identifies international legal developmentsof importance to personnel of the federal courts.

Robert Timothy Reagan, Shannon R. Wheatman, Marie Leary ... · Sealed Settlement Agreements in...

Documents

Transcript of Robert Timothy Reagan, Shannon R. Wheatman, Marie Leary ... · Sealed Settlement Agreements in...