# MR DOE v. REGIONAL SCHOOL UNIT 21

> District Court, D. Maine · March 17, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10825052

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. Maine
- **Decided:** March 17, 2025
- **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/10825052

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE

MR. AND MS. DOE, )
both individually and on behalf of )
their minor daughter, JANE DOE, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) No. 2:23-cv-00466-JAW
)
REGIONAL SCHOOL UNIT 21, )
et al., )
)
Defendants. )

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO SEAL

In line with well-established precedent on the common law presumption of the
right of public access to judicial records, the court dismisses the defendants’
unopposed motion to seal a settlement agreement and orders the agreement
unsealed. For the same reason, the court also orders that the defendants’ motion and
brief in support of sealing the settlement agreement be unsealed.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 28, 2023, Mr. and Ms. Doe, each appearing individually and on
behalf of their minor daughter Jane Doe, filed a complaint against Regional School
Unit 21 (RSU 21 or the District); Dr. Terri Cooper, the District’s Superintendent; and
Anita Bernhardt, the District’s Assistant Superintendent (collectively, the
Defendants), Compl. (ECF No. 1), asserting claims under § 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the First Amendment to the
United States Constitution. Id. ¶¶ 167-82. That same day, Mr. and Ms. Doe filed a
motion for preliminary injunction. Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (ECF No. 5). On January 26,
2024, Dr. Cooper and Ms. Bernhardt (jointly, the Individual Defendants) filed a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Mot. to Dismiss for Failure to State a

Claim (ECF No. 22) (Defs.’ Mot.). On September 6, 2024, the Court dismissed the
Individual Defendants’ motion to dismiss and the Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary
injunction. Order on Mot. to Dismiss and Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (ECF No. 28).
The parties subsequently entered settlement negotiations. On December 11,
2024, the parties participated in a judicial settlement conference with the United
States Magistrate Judge at which they reached a settlement, and later filed a joint

application for approval of minor settlement. Min. Entry (ECF No. 38); Defs.’
Unopposed Mot. to Seal at 1 (ECF No. 43); Def.’s Unopposed Mot. to Seal, Attach. 1,
Joint Verified Appl. for Approval of Minor Settlement with Inc. Statement Pursuant
to D. Me. Loc. R. 41.2 (Joint Appl. for Settlement Approval). On January 29, 2025,
the Defendants filed an unopposed motion to seal the joint verified application for
approval of minor settlement that the Plaintiffs consented to, in which they further
requested a conference with the Court. Defs.’ Unopposed Mot. to Seal.

At a teleconference of counsel on February 24, 2025, the Court discussed with
the parties the Court’s obligation to follow the law on, among other things, the right
of public access to judicial records, despite the consented-to motion to seal. Min.
Entry (ECF No. 45). At the teleconference, Plaintiffs’ counsel acknowledged that
under the settlement agreement, the Plaintiffs had promised to allow confidentiality
to the extent permitted by law. At the same time, Plaintiffs’ counsel observed that
district court judges had issued decisions not allowing secrecy in minor settlement
cases, and Plaintiffs’ counsel brought this issue to the attention of Defendants’
counsel. Thus, Plaintiffs’ counsel was careful to say that they were not opposing the

Defendants’ effort to seal the settlement, but they also understood that this Court
was going to undertake an independent review and make its own decision.
Upon request, the Court allowed the Defendants to file a memorandum
responding to the Court’s concerns, id., and, in compliance with the Court’s directive,
the Defendants filed a supplemental memorandum in support of their motion to seal
on March 3, 2025. Defs.’ Suppl. Mem. of Law in Support of Mot. to Seal (ECF No. 46)

(Defs.’ Suppl. Mem.). The Court allowed the Plaintiffs to file a response, but
Plaintiffs’ counsel indicated by email that they did not intend to do so.
The Court issues this order to address the pending motion requesting an order
sealing the joint application for approval of minor settlement.
II. THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SEAL
A. The Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Seal
The Defendants’ unopposed motion to seal argues “a covenant of confidentiality

to the extent permitted by law” is “an essential element” of the parties’ settlement
agreement and accordingly asks the Court to permit the filing of the joint motion for
approval of minor settlement under seal. Defs.’ Unopposed Mot. to Seal at 1
(discussing Joint Appl. for Settlement Approval).
Turning to their legal arguments, Defendants contend, first, that there is no
clearly established right of public access to documents filed in civil cases under the
First Amendment. Id. at 2 (citing Courthouse News Serv. v. Quinlan, 32 F.4th 15, 20
(1st Cir. 2022)). Acknowledging that federal circuit courts have recognized the
presumptive right of public access to other aspects of a civil case, they allege “[i]n

none of these cases [cited by the First Circuit in Courthouse News] has a court
addressed the question of whether there is a presumptive right of public access to
documents reflecting a settlement.” Id. at 2-3 (collecting cases).
Next, Defendants argue that if there is a right of public access to settlement
documents, it is necessarily a qualified right and must consider factors such as
whether “the settlement implies ‘sensitive information about [a] minor[],’ [including]

the ‘severity and expected duration of [her] emotional and mental injuries.’” Id. at 3
(quoting Willis v. United States, CV 117-015, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 221109, at *5
(S.D. Ga. Dec. 26, 2019) (citation amended)).
Defendants proffer that the facts of this case overcome the presumption of
public access and warrant sealing “any documents that would reflect the terms of the
settlement in this case.” Id. (capitalization altered). They assert, first, that although
the Plaintiffs have proceeded under pseudonyms in this case, “the allegations in their

Complaint were previously [] made known to the public in the context of a meeting of
RSU 21’s School Board” and “[t]herefore there is a substantial likelihood that
members of the public viewing the court docket would be able to identify Mr. and Mrs.
Doe, and their minor child.” Id. at 4.
They allege, second, that “because Jane Doe’s condition was described in a
School Board meeting that was open to the public, disclosure of the amount of the
settlement could be interpreted by those viewing the court record as implying
‘sensitive information’ about the minor child’s emotional health.” Id.
Third, Defendants argue that disclosure of the settlement documents would

conflict with the policies reflected in the Federal Education Records Privacy Act
(FERPA) because (1) they “contain information directly related to [Jane Doe]”, and
(2) the settlement documents, when combined with the information previously made
public, “would allow a reasonable person in the school community, who does not have
personal knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to identify the student with
reasonable certainty,” thus making them “personally identifiable.” Id. (quoting

Belanger v. Nashua, N.H., Sch. Dist., 856 F. Supp. 40, 48 (D.N.H. 1994)).
Fourth, they argue “there is a risk that this settlement will be misconstrued
by any member of the community who becomes aware of its terms, and the agreed
confidentiality term will preclude any party . . . from correcting the resulting
misconception.” Id. at 5.
B. The Defendants’ Supplemental Memorandum
Responding to the concerns the Court raised about sealing at the February 24,

2025 telephone conference of counsel, Defendants first concede that “there is
substantial support in the case[]law for the proposition that sealing is not justified in
circumstances where the substance of the information that is the subject of a motion
to seal already appears in the part of the court record that is accessible to the public.”
Defs.’ Suppl. Mem. at 2 (citing Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 144 (2d
Cir. 2004) (a court need not engage in the futile exercise of trying to “make what has
thus become public private again”)). However, Defendants contend “there is a
fundamental difference between what a litigant says in a Declaration and a
settlement agreement made on behalf of a minor.” Id. Elaborating on their position,

Defendants explain that while a litigant’s allegations in a declaration “are assumed
to be self-serving,” a minor settlement agreement “is presumed to reflect
compensation that is at least fair . . . to the child, and it may bear little relation to a
parent-plaintiff’s description of the harm she thinks her child has suffered.” Id. at 2-
3. They contend this characterization is apt in the instant case because Ms. Doe
submitted a declaration in which she “subjective[ly] characterize[ed] . . . her

daughter’s anxiety and its effect on her ability to attend school.” Id. at 3 (citing
Pl[s].’[] Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Attach 1, Decl. of Ms. Doe in Support of Pl.’s Mot. for
Prelim. Inj. ¶¶ 23, 24, 34, 36, 38, 39, 44, 158, 159 (ECF No. 5)).
Referencing FERPA, Defendants continue that Jane Doe’s parents generally
have the right to disclose to the public information about their daughter’s education,
but the Defendants do not have the same right under FERPA and thus “must take
all measures within their power to avoid being seen as sharing with the public any

information about Jane Doe’s mental health and education progress.” Id. at 3-4.
Defendants are concerned that “[m]aking the settlement a public record could . . . be
construed by a member of the public as conveying the Defendants’ view that Jane Doe
has suffered emotional or educational issue,” which “would be problematic under
FERPA.” Id. at 4 (Defendants’ emphasis).
Next, Defendants proffer “[i]f the Court concludes that the public’s interest in
having access to information about the expenditure of government funds is a decisive
factor in whether or not to seal the Application for Approval of Minor Settlement, it

should be aware that only the Plaintiff[s’] attorney[’s] fees are to be paid from the
public coffers,” explaining “[t]he payment for the benefit of Jane Doe will come from
RSU 21’s liability insurance company [and] [t]he public has no heightened interest in
knowing how the insurance company spends its money.” Id. (Defendants’ emphasis).
In conclusion, Defendants ask for the Court’s permission to file the joint
application for approval of minor settlement under seal. Id. at 5.

III. LEGAL STANDARDS
The First Circuit has explained that there are “two related but distinct
presumptions of public access to judicial proceedings and records: a common-law right
of access to ‘judicial documents,’ and a First Amendment right of access to certain
criminal proceedings and materials submitted therein.” United States v. Kravetz, 706
F.3d 47, 52 (1st Cir. 2013) (quoting In re Providence J., 293 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2002)).
A. The First Amendment Right of Access

In its description of the First Amendment right of access, the First Circuit was
careful to observe that this right of access relates to “certain criminal proceedings
and materials submitted therein.” Id. (emphasis supplied). In Courthouse News, the
First Circuit wrote: “[n]either this court nor the Supreme Court has recognized any
right under the First Amendment to access documents filed in civil cases.” 32 F.4th
at 20.
At the same time, in Courthouse News, the First Circuit noted that the “parties
agree that there is a qualified First Amendment right in the public to access newly
filed complaints.” Id. Also in Courthouse News, the First Circuit cited Press-

Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 10-11 (1986), as suggesting that there is
such a right and El Dia, Inc. v. Hernandez Colon, 963 F.2d 488, 495 (1st Cir. 1992),
as suggesting there is not. The First Circuit then resolved the appeal based on the
parties’ agreement that the First Amendment applied. In El Dia, the First Circuit
wrote that it “seriously question[ed] whether Richmond Newspapers [Inc. v. Virginia,
448 U.S. 555 (1980)] and its progeny carry positive implications favoring rights of

access outside the criminal justice system.” 963 F.2d at 495.
Based on the unsettled state of Supreme Court and First Circuit authority and,
unlike in Courthouse News, an absence of agreement in this case as to the
applicability of the First Amendment to this civil action, the Court follows the
prudential practice of the First Circuit of “forgoing broad constitutional holdings
unless such holdings are unavoidable.” Sindi v. El-Moslimany, 896 F.3d 1, 30 (1st
Cir. 2018) (citing Hudson Sav. Bank v. Austin, 497 F.3d 102, 106 (1st Cir. 2007) and

El Dia, 963 F.2d at 494). When faced with whether to rest on the First Amendment
issue in Kravetz, the First Circuit generally declined to reach the constitutional claim
and instead resolved the public access issue using the standards in the common law
right of access. 706 F.3d at 53.
B. The Common Law Right of Public Access
The First Circuit extensively discussed the right of public access in Kravetz
and reiterated that “[c]ourts have long recognized ‘that public monitoring of the
judicial system fosters the important values of quality, honest and respect for our

legal system.’” 706 F.3d at 52 (quoting In re Providence J., 293 F.3d at 9 (in turn
quoting Siedle v. Putnam Invs., Inc., 147 F.3d 7, 10 (1st Cir. 1998)). To uphold these
values, once it is determined that the document is a so-called “judicial record,” a
presumption that it is public applies. Id.
The First Circuit explained that a “judicial record” is a document that is
“submitted by parties to aid in the adjudication of” an issue before the court and that

is “meant to impact the court’s disposition of substantive rights.” Id.; accord United
States ex rel. Nargol v. Deputy Orthopaedics, Inc., 69 F.4th 1, 15 (1st Cir. 2023)
(stating judicial records are “those ‘materials on which a court relies in determining
the litigants’ substantive rights’”) (quoting Kravetz, 706 F.3d at 54). Thus, in Kravetz,
a criminal case, the First Circuit decided that there is a right of public access to
sentencing memoranda and support letters intended to influence a sentence. Id. at
56-59. The Kravetz Court rejected the argument that a judicial record need be

disclosed only if it actually influenced a judge’s decision. Id. at 58-59.
At the same time, the Kravetz Court observed that “[t]hough the public’s right
of access is vibrant, it is not unfettered. Important countervailing interests can, in
given instances, overwhelm the usual presumption and defeat access.” Id. at 59
(quoting Siedle, 147 F.3d at 10). In other words, while the presumption is broad,
there are exceptional circumstances that may counter it. However, the First Circuit
cautioned “‘only the most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial
records’ that come within the scope of the common-law right of access.” Id. (quoting
In re Providence J., 293 F.3d at 10 (in turn quoting FTC v. Standard Fin. Mgmt.

Corp., 830 F.2d 404, 410 (1st Cir. 1987)).
In balancing the competing interests in cases where the presumption of public
access applies, the district court should consider whether the “personal privacy
interests of third parties” are at stake. Id. at 61. “[P]rivacy rights of participants and
third parties are among those interests which, in appropriate cases, can limit the
presumptive right of access to judicial records.” Id. at 62 (quoting Standard Fin.

Mgmt. Corp., 830 F.2d at 411) (quotation marks omitted). The First Circuit directed
district courts to “weigh heavily” the privacy interests of third parties in the court’s
balancing analysis.
In addition, the First Circuit directed the district courts to “consider the degree
to which the subject matter is traditionally considered private rather than public.”
Id. (quoting United States v. Connolly (In re Boston Herald, Inc.), 321 F.3d 174, 190
(1st Cir. 2003)). “Financial records of a wholly owned business, family affairs,

illnesses, embarrassing conduct with no public ramifications, and similar matters
will weigh more heavily against access than conduct affecting a substantial portion
of the public.” Id. (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir.
1995)). Addressing sentencing letters in the criminal context, the First Circuit wrote
that “discussion of the ill health of members of the authors’ families, incidents of
domestic violence, and other domestic relations matters” involves “highly personal”
information and “appears to have no direct bearing on the public’s assessment of the
sentences imposed.” Id. at 62.
The Kravetz Court also discussed the right of public access to medical

information. Id. at 63. It began with the premise that “[m]edical information is . . .
‘universally presumed to be private, not public.’” Id. Even so, “[a]cknowledging the
presumptively private nature of medical information does not end the matter”
because “[t]he privacy interest in medical information is ‘neither fundamental nor
absolute.’” Id. (citation omitted). In this context, the Kravetz Court quoted the
Second Circuit in saying that “[c]ourts have long declined to allow public access

simply to cater to a morbid craving for that which is sensational and impure.” Id.
(quoting Amodeo, 71 F.3d at 1051).
C. Public Right of Access to Minor Settlement Agreements
The First Circuit has not directly addressed public access to motions for
judicial approval of settlement agreements. However, the Seventh Circuit considered
the issue in depth in Goesel v. Boley International (H.K.) Ltd., 738 F.3d 831 (7th Cir.
2013). After noting that settlement agreements reached without court assistance or

intervention are not treated as “judicial records,” the Seventh Circuit observed that
“settlement terms are of potential public interest only 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.” Id. at 834 (collecting cases from the Seventh and Eleventh
Circuits). The Goesel Court wrote that “[i]n all such cases the presumption of a right
of public access to court documents should apply.” Id. In Goesel, the Seventh Circuit
rejected a motion to seal the settlement document, id. at 835, and, “[f]ollowing Goesel,
courts in [the Seventh Circuit] have denied requests to seal judicially-approved
settlement agreements.” Gratton v. Cielo, Inc., No. 23-cv-1647-bhl, 2024 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 135178, at *6 (E.D. Wis. July 31, 2024) (collecting cases).
Goesel has also been followed in courts beyond the Seventh Circuit. See
Carrasquillo v. Bhatia-Gautier, 590 F. Supp. 3d 444, 451 (D.P.R. 2022); Kaufman v.
Jetson Elec. Bikes, LLC, No. 22-cv-3765, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11419, at *6-7 (E.D.
Pa. Jan. 23, 2024); Shannon Brewster as Adm’x of the Est. of Alan E. Brewster v. Larry
Strickland Trucking LLC, 2:24-cv-00096, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150531, at *1-4 (S.D.

W. Va. Aug. 22, 2024); Dilliner v. GM, LLC, Civ. Action No. 2:19-cv-00415, 2021 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 31337, at *9 (S.D. W. Va. Feb. 19, 2021); Bruning v. Chizek Elevator &
Transp., Inc., No. 4:16-CV-0342-DGK, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76409, at *2-3 (W.D.
Mo. May 19, 2017); Willis v. United States, CV 117-015, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
221109, at *4 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 26, 2019) (“Once a matter is brought before a court for
resolution, it is no longer solely the parties’ case, but also the public’s case”) (quoting
Brown v. Advantage Eng’g, Inc., 960 F.2d 1013, 1016 (11th Cir. 1992)).

D. Expenditure of Public Funds
As the settlement in this case involves the expenditure of public funds, “the
presumption of public access is ‘accentuated.’” Carrasquillo, 590 F. Supp. 3d at 450
(citing Standard Fin. Mgmt. Corp., 830 F.2d at 410). In Federal Trade Commission
v. Standard Financial Management Corp., 830 F.2d 404 (1st Cir. 1987), the First
Circuit wrote:
The appropriateness of making court files accessible is accentuated in
cases where the government is a party: in such circumstances, the
public’s right to know what the executive branch is about coalesces with
the concomitant right of the citizenry to appraise the judicial branch.

Id. at 410.

IV. DISCUSSION
Here, the parties move the Court to seal their minor settlement agreement.
Preliminarily, the Court observes that the Plaintiffs in this case have proceeded
under pseudonyms: Mr. and Ms. Doe on behalf of their minor daughter, Jane Doe.
Compl. ¶ 1. The Defendants have never challenged the Plaintiffs’ right to proceed in
this case under pseudonyms, nor has this Court. See Doe v. Mass. Inst. of Tech., 46
F.4th 61, 72 (1st Cir. 2022); Spurwink Servs., Inc. v. Doe, 2:25-cv-00026-JCN, 2025
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36841, at *1-4 (D. Me. Feb. 25, 2025). The First Circuit has
recommended use of redaction, which is similar to pseudonyms, to balance legitimate
privacy interests against the public right of access. Kravetz, 706 F.3d at 63.
Although some inquisitive or local individuals might be able to figure or ferret out
who the Plaintiffs are, there is no reason on this record for the Court to assume that
if they are so interested, they have not already done so based on what is already on
the docket. The cumulative information in the settlement agreement gives no reason
for the Court to conclude that it should be sealed.
Even though the right of public access applies to civil matters, it is “not
unfettered.” Kravetz, 706 F.3d at 59 (quoting Siedle, 147 F.3d at 10) (in turn
quoting FTC, 830 F.2d at 410). The United States Supreme Court in Warner
Communications wrote that the sealing of a settlement agreement, like other sealing
decisions, is “best left to the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be
exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.” P.R.
Land & Fruit, S.E. v. Municipio De Culebra, No. 09-2280 (ADC/BJM), 2018 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 221026 (D.P.R. Oct. 24, 2018), aff’d 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20203 (D.P.R. Feb.
5, 2019) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978)). To order
sealed or redacted an otherwise publicly accessible document, such as a settlement
agreement, the trial court is required to make “particularized findings of fact.” Id. at
*18 (quoting Kravetz, 706 F.3d at 59). Moreover, as the magistrate judge in Puerto
Rico Land & Fruit suggested, the parties may not simply file a settlement

agreement and expect it to be sealed without offering a basis for doing so. 2018 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 22106, at *18 (“The docket shows that a formal motion to seal this
agreement was never filed or supported by the parties”). Here, the Defendants have
properly moved for the Court to seal the minor settlement agreement. The question
is whether they have successfully supported their request.
First, Defendants contend the presumption of public access is overcome
because the settlement agreement includes information about Jane Doe, a minor.

Conceding that information about Jane Doe’s education and medical health is already
publicly available on the docket, they insist she could be more readily identified if the
settlement agreement is published unsealed. They argue, further, that the
information in the settlement agreement is different in kind from the subjective
statements Jane Doe’s mother made about her daughter in her declaration.
The Court is not persuaded. Based on the Plaintiffs’ counsel’s responses at the
teleconference, the Court is not at all certain that the Plaintiffs are actively pursuing
a sealing of the motion for court approval of the settlement. As explained by

Plaintiffs’ counsel, they agreed not to oppose the Defendants’ motion, but the Court
interprets Plaintiffs’ counsel’s statement as not independently pressing the Court to
seal the settlement. As such, the Court doubts that to the extent the Defendants are
attempting to have the court records sealed because of the privacy concerns not
pressed by the Plaintiffs themselves, the Defendants have standing to claim privacy
rights on behalf of opposing parties who may not be claiming them themselves.

Second, the complaint in this case, which is already publicly available, is
extremely detailed and provides significant information about Jane Doe’s education
and her medical history. The complaint contains one hundred and eighty-two
paragraphs. Compl. ¶¶ 1-182 (ECF No. 1). These one hundred and eighty-two
paragraphs reveal, among other details, Jane Doe’s age, her current and former
schools, the year she entered the Kennebunk school system, her homeroom teacher,
her Social Studies teacher, and it sets forth in depth the nature of her disability and

her efforts and the efforts of parents, her friends, and the school system to integrate
her into the school. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 12, 14, 22, 43. The extraordinarily detailed
complaint would be sufficient for anyone familiar with Kennebunk, a town of less
than 12,000 residents, to identify Jane Doe. Moreover, the complaint described an
opinion letter written by Jane Doe’s mother that was published in the Portland Press
Herald, described the contents of that letter, and revealed the date it was published.
Id. ¶¶ 15-19. Furthermore, as Defendants acknowledge in their motion to seal, the
complaint was buttressed by a detailed sworn declaration by Ms. Doe consisting of
forty-six pages and one hundred and fifty-nine paragraphs, again containing day-to-

day details about Jane Doe, her medical history, and her interaction with the school
system. See Pl[s.’] Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Attach. 1, Decl. of Ms. Doe in Support of Pls.’
Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (ECF No. 5).
The Court is not convinced that the brief statements in the verified application
for approval of minor settlement should be viewed differently than the allegations in
a complaint or the facts in a sworn declaration. If anything, a settlement application

is more ambiguous than the alleged facts in a complaint or the sworn contents of a
declaration. It implicitly contains evaluations of the prospects of success at trial; the
cost, time, and trouble of a successful prosecution or defense of the case; the provable
damages; and the impact of a trial on the minor, to name a few factors. The notion
that some people may misconstrue the settlement—either deliberately or not—is
pure speculation. Furthermore, the possibility of public misconstruction is part of
the cost of the expenditure of public funds to resolve any litigation subject to court

approval and is, moreover, not grounds for sealing.
Even if the Court were to credit the Defendants’ argument that facts presented
in a different light in a complaint and sworn declaration as opposed to a settlement
agreement somehow warrants the agreement’s sealing, the reality is that what is
already publicly available about this case overwhelms the modicum of information in
the settlement agreement. Indeed, in the joint verified application for approval of
minor settlement contains almost no information about this case. Its “information
concerning Jane’s damages,” for example, consists of only two sentences, contains
almost no personal information about Jane Doe, and by the Court’s reckoning,

includes no information not already made public by the Plaintiffs. See Joint Appl. for
Settlement Approval at 2. By contrast, this entire case has revolved around the
specific facts of this minor’s education, her medical history, and her Individualized
Education Plan.
By the Court’s read, the only information in the settlement agreement not
already publicly available is the settlement amount. See Kravetz, 706 F.3d at 63

(“[T]he interests in privacy fade when the information involved already appears on
the public record”) (quoting Cox Broad. Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469, 494-95 (1975)).
The Defendants seek to keep this amount from the public view out of concern that
members of the public may infer something about the parties’ respective liability and
the Defendants’ disregard for their obligations under FERPA.
The Court is again unpersuaded. First, as already noted, it is not convinced
that the settlement amount reveals anything about Jane Doe that has not already

been made public. Second, the settlement amount is precisely the type of information
to which the right of public access most strongly attaches, because it reveals the
expenditure of public funds. See Carrasquillo, 590 F. Supp. 3d at 450; Standard Fin.
Mgmt. Corp., 830 F.2d at 410. Third, it would be an unusual case where a court
should properly concern itself with what members of the public might do with
information about a settlement. Kravitz, 706 F.3d at 64 (“[A] fear of adverse publicity
. . . is insufficient to defeat public access”). Apart from being highly speculative and
a factor the Defendants could have (and should have) considered before agreeing to
enter into the settlement, members of the public are free to draw their own separate

conclusions about the settlement. Instead, the Court’s concern, pursuant to the First
Circuit’s holding in Kravetz, is whether the presumptive right of public access to a
judicial record is overcome by “[i]mportant countervailing interests.” Id. at 59
(quoting Siedle, 147 F.3d at 10).
In short, the Court firmly rejects the Defendants’ attempts to enlist the Court
in its efforts to hide from the public its expenditure of public funds.

V. CONCLUSION
The Court DISMISSES without prejudice Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to
Seal (ECF No. 43) and accordingly ORDERS Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Seal,
Attachment 1, Joint Verified Application for Approval of Minor Settlement with
Incorporated Statement Pursuant to D. Me. Loc. R. 41.2 (ECF No. 43-1) be
UNSEALED. As the ground for the automatic sealing of the Defendants’ motion and
brief in support of sealing the settlement agreement is now moot, the Court also

ORDERS Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Seal (ECF No. 43) and Defendants’
Supplemental Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Seal (ECF No. 46)
UNSEALED.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this 17th day of March, 2025

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10825052. Public record. Not legal advice.