Junker v. Mascoutah Community School District 19

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

BROOKE JUNKER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

) Case No. 3:22-cv-1962-DWD

MASCOUTAH COMMUNITY )

SCHOOL DISTRICT 19 BOARD OF )

EDUCATION and TODD GOBER, )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

DUGAN, District Judge:

Plaintiff is a female who was a senior on the Mascoutah High School girls’

volleyball team in the fall of 2021. (Doc. 1, pgs. 1, 4). Defendant Gober, who had been the

varsity head coach since 2014, allegedly subjected the team members to “demoralizing

and degrading activities.” (Doc. 1, pgs. 1-2, 4-6). Plaintiff eventually met with a counselor

at Mascoutah High School about her experience on the team. (Doc. 1, pgs. 2, 6). Defendant

Gober allegedly became aware of that meeting, and of the meetings of three other seniors

with the counselor, then “scolded” the four seniors and imposed conditions on their

ability to remain on the team. (Doc. 1, pgs. 8-10). Despite Plaintiff’s parent’s reports to

and meetings with Defendant Gober and/or other Mascoutah High School officials, the

Mascoutah Community School District 19 Board of Education (“District”) allegedly failed

to take action to protect Plaintiff or discipline Defendant Gober. (Doc. 1, pgs. 2, 8, 11-15).

Plaintiff filed a Complaint (Doc. 1) against Defendants, alleging: (1) violations of

Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, due to sex discrimination and retaliation by the District (Counts

I & 2); (2) violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 due to sex discrimination and infringements of

the right to free speech by the District (Counts III & IV); (3) violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983

due to sex discrimination and infringements of the right to free speech by Defendant

Gober (Counts V & VI); (4) violations of the Illinois Civil Rights Act (740 ILCS 23/1 et seq.)

due to sex discrimination and retaliation by the District (Counts VII & VIII); and (5) the

intentional infliction of emotional distress by each Defendant under Illinois law (Count

IX & X). Defendants motioned to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

On July 31, 2023, the Court denied Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 38). On

August 24, 2023, the Court was informed in a Report of Mandatory Mediation (Doc. 41)

that the case had settled, but additional time was needed to consummate the settlement.

The parties sought a 60-day order, which was entered on August 24, 2023. (Doc. 42).

On September 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Sealed Motion for Protective Order to File

Under Seal (Sealed Doc. 43), which seeks a protective order allowing sealed briefing of a

Motion to Enforce the Parties’ Settlement Agreement and Motion for Sanctions.1 Plaintiff

notes, after signing the Settlement Term Sheet, Defendant Gober and his wife filed a state

court lawsuit against Plaintiff and her parents in St. Clair County, Illinois. (Sealed Doc.

43, pgs. 2-3). That action allegedly “directly, intentionally, willfully, and wantonly

violated the terms of the Settlement Term Sheet, the mediation requirements of good faith

and civility, Federal Rule 13, and…Illinois’ Citizen Participation Act.” (Sealed Doc. 43,

pgs. 2-3). Plaintiff notes the state court lawsuit “has already picked up media attention,”

1Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement and Motion for Sanctions, which she seeks

to file upon the Court’s resolution of the instant Motion, was submitted as an Exhibit. (Sealed Doc. 44).

and she “must reveal certain details deemed confidential under the mediation and

settlement terms as well as…[a] state protective order” to effectively support a motion to

enforce the parties’ settlement agreement and motion for sanctions. (Sealed Doc. 43, pg.

3). Plaintiff’s request will purportedly “serve[] a legitimate and compelling interest of

protecting a bargained for and binding non-disclosure and non-disparagement

contracted interest.” (Sealed Doc. 43, pg. 3). The request will also allegedly avoid

disclosures of confidential information to the public and keep compliance with the non-

disclosure, non-disparagement, and confidentiality agreements. (Sealed Doc. 43, pg. 3).

Plaintiff did not indicate Defendants’ position on the Sealed Motion for Protective

Order to File Under Seal (Sealed Doc. 43). Therefore, on September 15, 2023, the Court

directed Defendants to file a Sealed Response to that Sealed Motion on or before

September 28, 2023. Defendants did so on September 27, 2023, indicating “they have no

objection to Plaintiff’s motion being file under seal and agree that the settlement

discussion and motion should be kept under seal.” (Sealed Doc. 49).

Now, secrecy in judicial proceedings is disfavored because, generally, it renders it

difficult for the public to understand why the case was brought, why it was litigated, the

interests at stake, and whether the outcome was proper. See GEA Group AG v. Flex-N-Gate

Corp., 740 F.3d 411, 419 (7th Cir. 2014). As a result, public access to the judicial record

constitutes a social interest and not solely a concern of the litigants. See id.; see also Goesel

v. Boley Intern. (H.K.) Ltd., 738 F.3d 831, 833 (7th Cir. 2013) (Posner, J., Chambers Opinion.)

(“[P]ublic access to the judicial record…enable[s] interested members of the public,

including lawyers, journalists, and government officials, to know who’s using the courts,

to understand judicial decisions, and to monitor the judiciary’s performance of its

duties.”). Indeed, documents affecting the disposition of federal litigation are

presumptively open to public view, and courts are not bound by the litigants’ agreement

to seal documents from the public record. See GEA Group AG, 740 F.3d at 419-20 (quoting

In re Specht, 622 F.3d 967, 701 (7th Cir. 2010)); accord Goesel, 738 F.3d at 833. The

aforementioned presumption can be overridden, however, by competing interests that

demonstrate good cause, such as those related to trade secrets and, in some cases,

settlement agreements. See GEA Group AG, 740 F.3d at 420; Thomas v. ooShirts, Inc., No.

21-cv-2519, 2022 WL 4367441, *4 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 20, 2022). Further, the presumption only

applies to materials forming the basis of the parties’ dispute and the Court’s resolution,

as opposed to “other materials that may have crept into the record.” See Goesel, 738 F.3d

at 833 (quoting Baxter Int’l, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d 544, 548 (7th Cir. 2002)).

If a settlement agreement is made without court action, i.e., without approval,

disapproval, or approval with modifications, then “there will rarely be a good reason to

require that its terms be made public,” as nothing would be revealed about judicial

activity. See id. at 834 (citing LEAP Systems, Inc. v. MoneyTrax, Inc., 638 F.3d 216, 220 (3d

Cir. 2011); Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 143 (2d Cir. 2004); Pansy v. Borough

of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 781 (3d Cir. 1994)). However, “when judicial approval of the

terms is required, or they become an issue in a subsequent lawsuit, or the settlement is

sought to be enforced,” the settlement terms are of potential public interest. See id.

(Emphasis added.) (citing Herrnreiter v. Chicago Housing Authority, 281 F.3d 634, 636-37

(7th Cir. 2002); Jessup v. Luther, 277 F.3d 926, 928 (7th Cir. 2002); Union Oil Co. v. Leavell,

220 F.3d 562, 568 (7th Cir. 2000); Brown v. Advantage Engineering, Inc., 960 F.2d 1013, 1015-

16 (11th Cir. 1992)); accord Bank of America, N.A. v. Cartwright, No. 21-cv-184, 2022 WL

4368525, *5 (N.D. Ind. Sept. 6, 2022). Judge Posner was of the opinion, in Goesel, that “the

presumption of a right of public access to court documents should apply” in all such

cases. See Goesel, 738 F.3d at 834. It is important to note, too, that it is generally inadequate,

as a basis for sealing documents from the public record, for the parties to merely note that

they have a confidentiality agreement. See id. (“In neither case have they offered any

reason for secrecy except that they have a confidentiality agreement. Obviously that’s

insufficient.”); Thomas, 2022 WL 4367441, *4 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 20, 2022) (stating “simply

designating information as confidential is insufficient to permit under-seal filing” in a

case where that was “the only reason” provided by the defendant for maintaining the

documents in question under seal); Lenzner v. Von Briesen & Roper SC, No. 21-cv-133, 2021

WL 6197839, *1 (E.D. Wisc. Dec. 30, 2021) (“This court previously has cited Seventh

Circuit law emphasizing ‘that the parties must give the court a reason for not disclosing

the documents beyond the fact that they don’t want them disclosed.’ ”); Gonzales v. Home

Nursery Inc., No. 14-cv-1140, 2016 WL 6705447, *1 (S.D. Ill. Sept. 22, 2016) (stating in case

where a settlement agreement contained a confidentiality clause, “[t]he mere fact that the

parties agreed to keep matters mum can’t alone override the interest of the public—that

kind of hole would render the right to public documents a dead letter”).

Here, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to show good cause for the sealing of

filings related to any potential Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement and Motion

for Sanctions (Sealed Doc. 44). Aside from passing references to media attention, the only

bases provided to the Court for that relief are the existence of non-disclosure, non-

disparagement, and confidentiality agreements between the parties as well as associated

concerns.2 As the above authorities make clear, those bases alone are insufficient to

outweigh the public’s interest in these judicial proceedings, i.e., in the Court’s decision on

any motion to enforce a settlement agreement. Accordingly, the Sealed Motion for

Protective Order to File Under Seal (Sealed Doc. 43) is DENIED without prejudice. If

Plaintiff seeks to file the Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement and Motion for

Sanctions, then neither that filing nor any responses and replies may be sealed.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2023

s/ David W. Dugan

_________________________

DAVID W. DUGAN

United States District Judge

2There is no suggestion that the filings related to the Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement

and Motion for Sanctions should be sealed due to potentially sensitive details about the Complaint’s claims.