Opinion

Humpleby v. Winnebago Industries, Inc.

Court
District Court, S.D. Ohio
Filed
Oct 13, 2023
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 28.4%

The opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

Joshua Humpleby, :

: Case No. 1:22-cv-754

Plaintiff, :

: Judge Susan J. Dlott

v. :

: Order

Winnebago Industries, Inc., :

:

Defendant. :

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Motion under Seal

and Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Case. (Docs. 11, 12.) In this action, Plaintiff Joshua

Humpleby sued Defendant Winnebago Industries, Inc. for breach of warranties in connection

with the purchase of a recreational vehicle. (Doc. 3.) Less than four months after it was

initiated, the parties settled the suit pursuant to a settlement agreement. (Docs. 8, 10.) On April

3, 2023, the Court issued an Order dismissing the case with prejudice and stating that “any of the

parties may, upon good cause shown not later than July 3, 2023[,] reopen the action if the

settlement is not consummated.” (Doc. 10 at PageID 157.) Humpleby now moves to reopen the

case, several months after July 3, 2023, asserting that he did not become aware until September

14, 2023 that “Defendant intended to breach the settlement agreement.” (Doc. 12 at PageID

160.) He also moves to file under seal a motion to enforcement settlement agreement because it

“contains references to confidential material as well as exhibits that reference confidential

material or consist entirely of confidential material.” (Doc. 11 at PageID 158.)

Although Winnebago Industries has not had an opportunity to respond, the Court will

grant the Motion to Reopen. The Court explicitly “retain[ed] jurisdiction to enforce the

settlement agreement” in its April 3, 2023 Order. (Doc. 10 at PageID 157.) The Court does not

know at this juncture the terms of the settlement agreement or how it purportedly was breached.

Reopening the case does not signal that the Court has reached any decision, even any tentative

decision, as to the merits of Humpleby’s allegations.

Turning to the Motion for Leave to File Motion under Seal, the Court will deny

Humpleby leave at this time to file under seal its motion to enforce the settlement agreement. A

party moving to seal court records must overcome a significant burden: “[o]nly the most

compelling reasons can justify the non-disclosure of judicial records.” Shane Group, Inc. v. Blue

Cross Blue Shield, 825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting In re Knoxville News-Sentinel Co.,

723 F.2d 470, 476 (6th Cir. 1983)). More specifically, “in civil litigation, only trade secrets,

information covered by a recognized privilege (such as the attorney-client privilege), and

information required by statute to be maintained in confidence (such as the name of a minor

victim of a sexual assault), is typically enough to overcome the presumption of access.” Id. at

308 (cleaned up). The movant must “analyze in detail, document by document, the propriety of

secrecy, providing reasons and legal citations.” Id. at 305–306 (citation omitted). In ruling on a

motion to seal, the Court “must set forth specific findings and conclusions ‘which justify

nondisclosure to the public.’” Id. at 306 (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C.,

710 F.2d 1165, 1176 (6th Cir. 1983)). Where a party can show a compelling reason for sealing

all or a portion of a document, “the seal itself must be narrowly tailored to serve that reason.” Id.

at 305.

Humpleby has asserted only that the motion and supporting exhibits will contain

“confidential material.” (Doc. 11 at PageID 158.) This is wholly insufficient under Shane

Group to justify sealing, even in part, the proposed motion to enforce the settlement agreement.

The Court will allow Humpleby to refile its Motion for Leave to File Motion under Seal with

more specific justifications for why the motion to enforce the settlement agreement should be

filed under seal in whole or in part.

For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Reopen (Doc. 12) is GRANTED, and the

Motion for Leave to File Motion Under Seal (Doc. 11) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

TO REFILING.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

S/Susan J. Dlott

Susan J. Dlott

United States District Judge

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.