M.G.M v. KEURIG GREEN MOUNTAIN, INC.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

M.G.M., a minor by and through his )

Guardian Ad Litem, KENDRA )

PATRICIA MABE, his mother, )

custodial parent and next friend, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) 1:22-CV-36

)

KEURIG GREEN MOUNTAIN, INC., )

and SOLOFILL, INC., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge.

The parties jointly move to seal their settlement agreement. Doc. 42. At a hearing

on September 20, 2022, the plaintiff further sought to introduce five exhibits under seal:

photos of the minor plaintiff’s injury and scarring (Exhibits 1 and 2); medical and billing

records related to the minor’s injury (Exhibits 3 and 4); and photos of the Keurig and

Solofill K-Cup that allegedly caused the injury (Exhibit 5). The motions to seal will be

granted except for the motion to seal Exhibit 5, which will be denied.

I. Public Notice

Before sealing judicial records, the district court must give the public notice and a

reasonable opportunity to challenge the request to seal. Va. Dep’t of State Police v.

Wash. Post, 386 F.3d 567, 576 (4th Cir. 2004). The public has had notice of the motion

to seal the settlement agreement, which has been on the public docket for three weeks.

See Stone v. Univ. of Md. Med. Sys. Corp, 855 F.2d 178, 181 (4th Cir. 1988) (discussing

use of docketing to comply with procedural requirements for sealing); Mears v. Atl. Se.

Airlines, Inc., No. 12-CV-613, 2014 WL 5018907, at *2 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 7, 2014) (“The

filing of a litigant’s motion to seal . . . is sufficient to provide public notice and

opportunity to challenge the request to seal.” (citing In re Knight Publ’g Co., 743 F.2d

231, 235 (4th Cir. 1984))). The public has also had adequate notice of the motion to seal

the exhibits, as that motion was made in open court and two weeks have passed since

then. No objections have been filed.

II. Legal Standard for the Public Right to Access

The public has a right of access to judicial records. Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns,

Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). Documents filed with the court are judicial records “if

they play a role in the adjudicative process, or adjudicate substantive rights.” In re

Application of the U.S. for an Order Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 2703(D), 707 F.3d

283, 290 (4th Cir. 2013). To the extent the court does not consider or rely on filed

documents to decide a motion, “the documents are not judicial records and no right of

access applies.” Trapp v. Suntrust Bank, 15-CV-937, 2016 WL 6833986, at *1

(M.D.N.C. Nov. 18, 2016); EEOC v. Loflin Fabrication LLC, No. 18-CV-813, 2020 WL

3845020, at *3 (M.D.N.C. July 8, 2020).

Here, the Court has reviewed and considered all of the documents in ruling on the

parties’ motion for court approval of the settlement. See Minute Entry 09/20/22.

Because the Court has considered these documents in ruling to approve the settlement,

they are judicial records. See Mears v. Atl. Se. Airlines, Inc., No. 12-CV-613, 2014 WL

5018907, at *2 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 7, 2014); Owino v. IBM Corp., No. 12-CV-1041, 2013

WL 2947146, at *2 (M.D.N.C. June 14, 2013) (“A settlement agreement requiring court

approval is a judicial record.”).

The right of public access to judicial records derives from the First Amendment

and the common law. Va. Dep’t of State Police v. Wash. Post, 386 F.3d 567, 575 (4th

Cir. 2004). When a party asks to seal judicial records, the Court “must determine the

source of the right of access with respect to each document,” and then “weigh the

competing interests at stake.” Id. at 576 (quoting Stone v. Univ. of Md. Med. Sys. Corp.,

855 F.2d 178, 181 (4th Cir. 1988)). “The distinction between the rights of access

afforded by the common law and the First Amendment is significant, because the

common law does not afford as much substantive protection to the interests of the press

and the public as does the First Amendment.” In re Application, 707 F.3d at 290

(cleaned up).

III. Analysis and Findings

A. Source of the Right of Access

Settlement agreements and exhibits associated with them have been reviewed

under both the common law right of access and the First Amendment right of access. See

Jeter Est. of Patterson v. Correct Care Sols., LLC, No. 19-CV-152, 2020 WL 13551437,

at *3 (M.D.N.C. July 16, 2020); Browne v. Pantry, Inc., No. 11-CV-587, 2011 WL

5119263, at *1 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 28, 2011); see also, e.g., Mears v. Atl. Se. Airlines, Inc.,

No. 12-CV-613, 2014 WL 5018907, at *2–3 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 7, 2014); Owino v. IBM

Corp., No. 12-CV-1041, 2013 WL 2947146, at *1 (M.D.N.C. June 14, 2013). The Court

need not decide today whether the documents at issue are covered by the common law

right of access or the stricter First Amendment right of access. The settlement agreement

and Exhibits 1–4 should be sealed even applying the more stringent First Amendment

right of access. And the photos of the Keurig and Solofill K-Cup should not be sealed,

even assuming the lesser common law burden applies.

B. The Settlement Agreement

The First Amendment right of access to judicial records “yields only in the

existence of a ‘compelling governmental interest . . . [that is] narrowly tailored to serve

that interest.’” In re Application of the U.S. for an Order Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section

2703(D), 707 F.3d 283, 290 (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting Va. Dep’t of State Police v. Wash.

Post, 386 F.3d 567, 575 (4th Cir. 2004)); see also Press-Enter. Co. v. Super. Ct., 464

U.S. 501, 510 (1984); Rushford v. New Yorker Mag., Inc., 846 F.2d 249, 253 (4th Cir.

1988); Syngenta Crop Prot., LLC v. Willowood, LLC, No. 15-CV-274, 2017 WL

1745531, at *2 (M.D.N.C. May 4, 2017). In determining whether the motion to seal

should be granted, the Court evaluates whether the information sought to be sealed is

confidential, whether disclosure would result in actual harm and the degree of that harm,

whether the motion is narrowly tailored, and whether the interests in non-disclosure are

compelling and heavily outweigh the public’s interest in access to the information. See

e.g., Doe v. Pub. Citizen, 749 F.3d 246, 270 (4th Cir. 2014) (holding “unsubstantiated or

speculative claims of harm” were insufficient to justify a seal); Syngenta Crop Prot., LLC

v. Willowood, LLC, No. 15-CV-274, 2017 WL 6001818, at *3 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 4, 2017)

(noting that the court would consider the degree of harm that disclosure would likely

cause). Courts must also consider less drastic alternatives to sealing. Va. Dep’t of State

Police, 386 F.3d at 576.

As a condition of the settlement, the parties agreed to keep the settlement

agreement confidential. It is well-established that the parties' agreement is an insufficient

reason to seal judicial records. See, e.g., Martin v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 940 F. Supp.

2d 277, 280 (D.S.C. 2013); Browne, 2011 WL 5119263, at *2; White v. Bonner, No.

10-CV-105, 2010 WL 4625770, at *2 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 4, 2010). It is, however, an

appropriate fact to consider.

The parties also contend that the “[t]he privacy and confidentiality interests” of

both sides support sealing. Doc. 42 at 2. Courts and legislatures have historically

protected the privacy rights of minors. E.g., New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 756–57

(1982); M.P. v. Schwartz, 853 F. Supp. 164, 168 (D. Md. 1994); cf. United States v.

Guerrero, 693 F.3d 990, 1003 (9th Cir. 2012). And the Supreme Court has confirmed

that “safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor” is a compelling

governmental interest. See Globe Newspaper Co. v. Super. Ct., 457 U.S. 596, 607

(1982); cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a)(3). Accordingly, many “[c]ourts have held that

compelling governmental interests require the sealing of documents relating to minors in

general.” Mears, 2014 WL 5018907, at *3 (collecting cases).

Common sense suggests that public disclosure of the settlement amount could

expose the minor to scam artists, financial predators, and other fraudsters. Moreover, the

information already in the public record (such as his mother’s name) could provide an

entry point for such criminals to make inroads with this vulnerable plaintiff and prey on

him when he becomes of age. These are legitimate concerns. The potential for use of the

information for an improper purpose is a factor that supports sealing. In re Knight Publ’g

Co., 743 F.2d 231, 235 (4th Cir. 1984).

The public has no general interest in knowing the specifics of the settlement

agreement or the settlement amount; cases are settled confidentially with adults all the

time. Most persons and companies in personal injury suits, like both parties here, usually

prefer for settlement information to remain private; individual plaintiffs prefer it so that

their personal financial information is kept private and defendant businesses prefer to

keep their settlement practices confidential in order, for example, to avoid scam claims.

While the public does have an interest in knowing whether or not the Court has

appropriately protected the interests of the minor in evaluating the settlement and its

related terms, the record in this case otherwise establishes the close attention the Court

has paid to the settlement and its details and is sufficient for the public to evaluate the

propriety of the Court’s approval. See, e.g., Doc. 45. The settlement agreement itself is

not necessary.

The Court finds that under the circumstances of this case, there is a compelling

governmental interest in protecting the private financial information of the minor, and

that this outweighs the public’s right of access to the settlement agreement. Further, the

Court finds that sealing the amount is narrowly tailored. There is no less drastic

alternative to sealing the amount that would protect the privacy interests of the minor.

There is nothing illuminating in the wording of the settlement agreement, which merely

contains the usual release language common for all settlements in North Carolina.

For the same reasons, the Court will seal the Order containing the settlement

amount. Doc. 44. The order with the settlement amount redacted is available on the

public record, Doc. 45, and is sufficient to meet the public’s interest.

Weighing the public’s right of access and the parties’ privacy interests, the Court

will grant the parties’ motion to seal the settlement agreement and settlement amount.

These can be unsealed when the minor is well-grown and the risks of harm are

significantly reduced if not non-existent.

C. Photos of the Minor’s Injury and Scar & the Minor’s Medical Records

The parties ask the Court to seal photos of the minor’s injury and resulting scars

(Exhibits 1 and 2) and the minor’s medical and financial records associated with the

accident (Exhibits 3 and 4). As discussed supra, protecting the privacy of minors is a

compelling interest.

Outside the litigation context, a person’s medical records are not public records

and generally may not be disclosed. Indeed, civil and criminal penalties are available in

some circumstances for disclosing medical records without authorization. Courts in this

circuit often seal medical records that contain personal and sensitive information, at least

when the records themselves “would have little value in furthering the public oversight of

the judicial process.” Bell v. Shinseki, No. 12-CV-57, 2013 WL 3157569, at *9

(M.D.N.C. June 20, 2013), aff’d, 584 F. App’x 42 (4th Cir. 2014) (per curiam)

(unpublished); see also Moore v. Wash. Hosp. Ctr., No. 11-CV-3742, 2012 WL 2915165,

at *7 (D. Md. July 16, 2012) (collecting cases). Photos of body parts and injuries are also

generally private, unless the person being photographed chooses to make them public.

That is not the case here, where the minor’s guardian specifically asks that the

photographs be kept private.

Because the parties resolved this case between themselves, the public has little to

no legitimate interest in knowing the details of the minor’s medical care and medical

bills, nor in seeing the photographs of the minor’s injury and resulting scar. As such, the

Court finds that the compelling interest in the minor’s privacy outweighs the public’s

right of access to these materials. Disclosing the information could subject the minor to

scrutiny and violate his privacy. The Court also concludes that, given the nature of these

materials, no lesser alternative to sealing would adequately protect the minor. Finally,

the Court finds that sealing the photographs and medical records is narrowly tailored to

protect the compelling interest at stake here. Sealing all of these records until the minor

is well grown is appropriate.

D. Photos of the Keurig & Solofill K-Cup

As discussed supra, it is not clear in the Fourth Circuit whether exhibits filed in

support of a motion for court approval of a settlement are subject to the First Amendment

right of access or the common law right of access. At a minimum, the common law right

of access attaches. See In re Application, 707 F.3d at 291. Because the Court finds that

the parties have not met their burden to support sealing under this right of access, it will

deny the motion to seal the photos of the Keurig and the Solofill K-Cup.

“To substantively overcome the common law presumption of access . . . a court

must find that there is a significant countervailing interest in support of sealing that

outweighs the public’s interest in openness.” Id. at 293 (cleaned up). Here, the parties

ask these photos to be sealed because 1) there is a confidentiality provision in their

settlement agreement, 2) the photos may reveal the identity of the defendants, and 3) it is

easier to seal everything presented at the hearing rather than sealing some documents and

not others. None of these are convincing reasons to seal the photographs.

First, the parties’ agreement is an insufficient reason by itself to seal judicial

records. See discussion supra at p. 5. Second, the public docket and many pleadings

identify the defendants, whose names appear on all filings, and the complaint itself

identifies the coffee maker and filter at issue, which is the only real information available

in the photographs. And it is no trouble to not seal one exhibit. The motion to seal the

photos of the Keurig and the Solofill K-Cup is denied.

It is ORDERED that:

1. The consent motion to file the settlement agreement and amount under seal,

Doc. 42, is GRANTED, and the Clerk SHALL maintain Doc. 43 and Doc. 44

under seal until October 4, 2047.

2. The motion to seal Exhibits 1—4 received into evidence at the September 20,

2022 hearing is GRANTED, and the Clerk SHALL maintain these exhibits

under seal until October 4, 2047.

3. Any motion to extend the seal SHALL be filed no later than April 4, 2047.

4. The motion to seal Exhibit 5 is DENIED.

This the 7th day of October, 2022.

bake DI T JUDGE