# Navigators Specialty Insurance Company v. Guild Associates, Inc.

> District Court, S.D. Ohio · June 22, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10380321

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Ohio
- **Decided:** June 22, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10380321

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- discussing the justifications for the “strong presumption in favor of openness”

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10380321. Public record. Not legal advice.