Medina v. Monterey County

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: April 16, 2024
• Docket: 5:24-cv-00053
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 NATHAN MEDINA, et al., Case No. 24-cv-00053-BLF

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE SETTLEMENT 10 COUNTY OF MONTEREY, et al., PETITIONS UNDER SEAL 11 Defendants. [Re: ECF No. 31, 32]

12 13 Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ administrative motions for leave to file the settlement 14 petitions of minors M.M. and N.M. under seal. ECF Nos. 31, 32. No party has filed an opposition 15 to the motions. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the motions. 16 I. LEGAL STANDARD 17 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 18 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of 19 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 20 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are 21 “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of 22 “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 23 1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed 24 upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. 25 In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local 26 Rule 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a 27 document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that 1 alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Further, Civil Local Rule 79-5 2 requires the moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” 3 Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(2). And the proposed order must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable 4 material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). 5 II. DISCUSSION 6 Because a settlement is “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action,” 7 the Court will apply the “compelling reasons” standard. See Ctr. For Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 8 1099; see also Patino v. Cnty. of Merced, No. 118CV01468AWISAB, 2020 WL 8617417, at *2 9 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2020) (applying the compelling reasons standard to a request to seal a 10 settlement petition of a minor plaintiff) 11 A. Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion Requesting Leave to File Settlement Petition of Minor Plaintiff M.M. Under Seal (ECF No. 31) 12 Plaintiffs filed an administrative motion for leave to file under seal the settlement petition 13 of M.M., a declaration and exhibits in support of the petition, and the proposed order. See ECF 14 No. 31. The Court initially denied without prejudice Plaintiffs’ motion because it was not 15 narrowly tailored. See ECF No. 27. Plaintiffs now seek to seal only the settlement amounts paid 16 by Defendant Wellpath, LLC. See ECF No. 31 at 2. Plaintiffs state that confidentiality is an 17 essential condition of the settlement, that there is limited public interest in the settlement amount 18 because this is a settlement between individuals, and that sealing the amounts will protect the 19 financial interests of the minor child from ill-intended solicitations. See id. at 3. No party has 20 filed an opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion. 21 The Court first notes that the fact that the parties have agreed to keep information 22 confidential is not a compelling reason to seal court records. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 23 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1138 (9th Cir. 2003); Patino, 2020 WL 8617417, at *2; but see Vuz v. 24 DCSS III, Inc., No. 320CV00246GPCAGS, 2021 WL 9406129, at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 16, 2021) 25 (finding good cause to seal settlement amounts where confidentiality of the settlement amount was 26 a negotiated term of the agreement). However, other courts in this district have found compelling 27 reasons to seal settlement amounts in individual settlements, especially where those settlements 1 involve minors. See, e.g., Huff v. Thousandshores, Inc., No. 21-CV-02173-HSG, 2022 WL 2 547109, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2022) (finding compelling reasons to seal a settlement amount in 3 an agreement involving a minor); Hummel v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc., No. 14-CV-03683-JSC, 4 2015 WL 13738406, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2015) (finding compelling for sealing a settlement 5 amount in an individual, as opposed to collective, settlement under the FLSA). 6 Under the circumstances of this case, the Court finds compelling reasons to seal the 7 settlement amounts based on the redactions proposed by Plaintiffs because the settlement amounts 8 are highly sensitive and sealing them will protect the interests of the parties, especially the minor 9 plaintiff. The Court further finds that the proposed redactions are “narrowly tailored to seal only 10 the sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). 11 The Court rules as follows:

12 ECF No. Document Portions to Seal Ruling 13 31-4 Revised Petition of Redactions GRANTED as containing highly Approval of Minor’s Proposed at ECF sensitive information, the release 14 Settlement M.M. No. 31-3 of which could cause a party harm. 15 31-7 Revised Declaration of Redactions GRANTED as containing highly JGG re Petition of Proposed at ECF sensitive information, the release 16 Approval of Minor’s No. 31-6 of which could cause a party 17 Settlement M.M. harm. 31-9 Revised Proposed Redactions GRANTED as containing highly 18 Order re Petition of Proposed at ECF sensitive information, the release Approval of Minor’s No. 31-8 of which could cause a party 19 Settlement M.M. harm. 20 B. Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion Requesting Leave to File Settlement Petition of Minor Plaintiff N.M. Under Seal (ECF No. 32) 21 Plaintiffs filed an administrative motion for leave to file under seal the settlement petition 22 of N.M., a declaration and exhibits in support of the petition, and the proposed order. See ECF 23 No. 32. The Court initially denied without prejudice Plaintiffs’ motion because it was not 24 narrowly tailored. See ECF No. 27. Plaintiffs now seek to seal only the settlement amounts paid 25 by Wellpath. See ECF No. 32 at 2. Plaintiffs state that confidentiality is an essential condition of 26 the settlement, that there is limited public interest in the settlement amount because this is a 27 1 the minor children from ill-intended solicitations. See id. at 3. No party has filed an opposition to 2 Plaintiffs’ motion. 3 As stated above, compelling reasons exist to seal settlement amounts in individual 4 settlements, especially where those settlements involve minors. See, e.g., Huff, 2022 WL 547109, 5 at *3 (finding compelling reasons to seal a settlement amount in an agreement involving a minor); 6 Hummel, 2015 WL 13738406, at *3 (finding compelling for sealing a settlement amount in an 7 individual, as opposed to collective, settlement under the FLSA). 8 Under the circumstances of this case, the Court finds compelling reasons to seal the 9 settlement amounts based on the redactions proposed by Plaintiffs because the settlement amounts 10 are highly sensitive and sealing them will protect the interests of the parties, especially the minor 11 plaintiff. The Court further finds that the proposed redactions are “narrowly tailored to seal only 12 the sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). 13 The Court rules as follows:

14 ECF No. Document Portions to Seal Ruling 15 32-4 Revised Petition of Redactions GRANTED as containing highly Approval of Minor’s Proposed at ECF sensitive information, the release 16 Settlement N.M. No. 32-3 of which could cause a party harm. 17 32-7 Revised Declaration of Redactions GRANTED as containing highly JGG re Petition of Proposed at ECF sensitive information, the release 18 Approval of Minor’s No. 32-6 of which could cause a party 19 Settlement N.M. harm. 32-9 Revised Proposed Redactions GRANTED as containing highly 20 Order re Petition of Proposed at ECF sensitive information, the release Approval of Minor’s No. 32-8 of which could cause a party 21 Settlement N.M. harm. 22 III. ORDER 23 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 24 1. Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion Requesting Leave to File Settlement Petition of 25 Minor Plaintiff M.M. Under Seal (ECF No. 31) is GRANTED. 26 2. Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion Requesting Leave to File Settlement Petition of 27 Minor Plaintiff N.M. Under Seal (ECF No. 32) is GRANTED. 1 of the date of this Order. 2 3 || Dated: April 16, 2024

BETH LABSON FREEMAN 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 a 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28