Navigators Specialty Insurance Company v. Guild Associates, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

NAVIGATORS SPECIALTY INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:14-cv-1676

Judge Algenon L. Marbley

v. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers

GUILD ASSOCIATES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

Defendant Bio-Energy (Washington) LLC (“BEW”) has filed an unopposed motion to

file under seal its motion to enforce Section 2 of the May 12, 2017 Confidential Settlement

Agreement. (ECF No. 231.) For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.

It is well established that “[e]very court has supervisory power over its own records and

files.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). A court’s discretion to seal

records from public inspection, however, is limited by “the presumptive right of the public to

inspect and copy judicial documents and files[,]” which the United States Court of Appeals for

the Sixth Circuit as described as a “long-established legal tradition.” In re Knoxville News-

Sentinel Co., Inc., 723 F.2d 470, 473–74 (6th Cir. 1983); see also Brown & Williamson Tobacco

Corp. v. FTC, 710 F.2d 1165, 1178–80 (6th Cir. 1983) (discussing the justifications for the

“strong presumption in favor of openness”). Therefore, “[o]nly the most compelling reasons can

justify non-disclosure of judicial records.” Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich.,

825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Sixth

Circuit has indicated that exceptions fall into two categories: (1) exceptions “based on the need

to keep order and dignity in the courtroom”; and (2) “content-based exemptions,” which “include

certain privacy rights of participants or third parties, trade secrets, and national security.” Brown

& Williamson Tobacco Corp., 710 F.2d at 1179 (citations omitted).

In addition, the Sixth Circuit has recently emphasized the public’s “strong interest in

obtaining the information contained in the Court record.” Shane Grp., Inc., 825 F.3d at 305

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also In re Nat’l Prescription Opiate Litig.,

927 F.3d 919, 939 (6th Cir. 2019) (“‘[T]he greater the public interest in the litigation’s subject

matter, the greater the showing necessary to overcome the presumption of access.’”) (quoting

Shane Grp., Inc., 825 F.3d at 305). Accordingly, district courts must consider “each pleading [to

be] filed under seal or with redactions and to make a specific determination as to the necessity of

nondisclosure in each instance” and must “bear in mind that the party seeking to file under seal

must provide a ‘compelling reason’ to do so and demonstrate that the seal is ‘narrowly tailored to

serve that reason.’” In re Nat’l Prescription Opiate Litig., 927 F.3d at 940 (quoting Shane Grp.,

825 F.3d at 305). If a district court “permits a pleading to be filed under seal or with redactions,

it shall be incumbent upon the court to adequately explain ‘why the interests in support of

nondisclosure are compelling, why the interests supporting access are less so, and why the seal

itself is no broader than necessary.’” Id. (quoting Shane Grp., Inc., 825 F.3d at 306).

The Settlement Agreement in this case previously was filed under seal. (ECF Nos. 81,

82.) Given the confidential nature of the settlement agreement, prior motions and filings relating

to the settlement agreement also have been filed under seal. (See, e.g., ECF Nos. 96, 104, 108,

219, 224, 227, 228.) Accordingly, consistent with the documented confidential nature of the

settlement agreement and for good cause shown, the current motion to enforce the settlement

(ECF No. 231) is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: June 22, 2021 /s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers

ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE