(PC) Martinez v. Navarro ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JOSE ANTONIO MARTINEZ, 1:19-cv-00378-JLT-GSA-PC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER FOR CLERK TO FILE 12 PLAINTIFF’S SETTLEMENT OFFER vs. UNDER SEAL 13 NAVARRO, et al., (ECF No. 79.) 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 Jose Antonio Martinez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds with 20 Plaintiff’s original Complaint, filed on March 22, 2019, against defendants Sergeant Navarro and 21 Correctional Officer Navarro for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment.1 22 (ECF No. 1.) 23 On October 27, 2022 at 10:00 a.m., Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota presided over a 24 court-scheduled settlement conference, but the case did not settle. (ECF No. 63.) 25 26 1 On October(E( 13, 2020, the Court dismissed Defendants Kellog, Sellers, Stamphill, Landry, and 27 McConnell from this case based on Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims against them. (ECF No. 23.) On January 25, 2022, the Court granted summary judgment to Defendants Cruz and Mares and dismissed them from this case. 28 (ECF No. 47.) The case now proceeds against Defendants Sergeant M. Navarro and Correctional Officer Navarro, for use of excessive force against Plaintiff. 1 This case is now scheduled for a Pretrial Conference on March 27, 2023 at 1:30 p.m. before 2 United States District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston, with jury trial to commence on May 16, 2023 3 at 8:30 a.m. before Judge Thurston. (ECF No.67). 4 On March 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Plaintiff’s Settlement Option for 5 Defendants.” (ECF No. 79.) In the document, Plaintiff sets forth a settlement offer directed to 6 Defendants. (Id.) 7 Plaintiff is advised that the parties may participate together in settlement negotiations 8 without the Court’s assistance at any time. Plaintiff is advised that if he seeks a settlement with 9 Defendants without the Court’s assistance he should work directly with Defendants’ counsel. 10 However, settlement documents are considered confidential between the parties and 11 should not be filed with the Court on the public docket. Accordingly, the Court shall file 12 Plaintiff’s settlement offer under seal. 13 II. SEALING OF DOCUMENTS – LEGAL STANDARD 14 There is a “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including 15 judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 16 (1978). “This right is justified by the interest of citizens in ‘keep[ing] a watchful eye on the 17 workings of public agencies.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th 18 Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). “Nonetheless, access to judicial records is not 19 absolute. A narrow range of documents is not subject to the right of public access at all because 20 the records have ‘traditionally been kept secret for important policy reasons.’” Id. (quoting Times 21 Mirror Co. v. United States, 873 F.2d 1210, 1219 (9th Cir. 1989)). “Unless a particular court 22 record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting 23 point.” Id. 24 Two standards generally govern the sealing of documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 25 605 F.3d 665, 677 (9th Cir. 2010). “[J]udicial records attached to dispositive motions [are treated] 26 differently from records attached to non-dispositive motions. Those who seek to maintain the 27 secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of showing 28 that ‘compelling reasons’ support secrecy.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (citations omitted). In 1 contrast, a “‘good cause’ showing under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)] will suffice to 2 keep sealed records attached to non-dispositive motions.” Id. The reason for the two different 3 standards is that “[n]ondispositive motions are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the 4 underlying cause of action, and, as a result, the public’s interest in accessing dispositive materials 5 does not apply with equal force to non-dispositive materials.” Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678 (quotations 6 omitted). 7 III. ANALYSIS 8 Here, Plaintiff did not file his confidential settlement offer under seal, nor was it 9 accompanied by a motion to seal as required by Local Rule 141. Because the statement was not 10 filed in conjunction with a dispositive motion, only good cause is required to seal it. The Court 11 finds that this standard is met and will accordingly order the settlement offer be filed under seal. 12 “Confidential settlements benefit society and the parties involved by resolving disputes relatively 13 quickly, with slight judicial intervention, and presumably result in greater satisfaction to the 14 parties.” Kalinauskas v. Wong, 151 F.R.D. 363, 365 (D. Nev. 1993). “Sound judicial policy 15 fosters and protects this form of alternative dispute resolution.” Id. (citing Fed. R. Evid. 408 for 16 the proposition that it “protects compromises and offers to compromise by rendering them 17 inadmissible to prove liability”). 18 The need for confidentiality of settlement negotiations is without dispute. [T]he 19 presumption of public access to settlement conferences, settlement proposals, and settlement 20 conference statements is very low or nonexistent under either constitutional or common law 21 principles. Weighed against this presumption is the strong public policy which encourages the 22 settlement of cases through a negotiated compromise. . . . In a perfect world, the public would 23 be kept abreast of all developments in the settlement discussions of lawsuits of public interest. 24 In our world, such disclosure would . . . result in no settlement discussions and no settlements. 25 United States v. Glens Falls Newspapers, Inc., 160 F.3d 853, 855–56 (2nd Cir.1998). 26 Confidentiality of the mediation process encourages settlement. Id. at 858. 27 For these reasons, the Court shall order Plaintiff’s confidential settlement offer to be filed 28 under seal. 1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall file under seal 3 Plaintiff’s confidential settlement offer, ECF No. 79, filed on March 8, 2023. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: March 22, 2023 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28