Ergler v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery LLC ( 2021 )

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 STEVEN R. ERGLER, an individual, CASE NO. C19-5608-JCC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, LLC, a Puerto Rico limited liability company, 13 Defendant. 14 15 This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ stipulated motion to seal (Dkt. No. 16 54). The parties move to seal unredacted copies of the Report of the Settlement Guardian ad 17 Litem (Dkt. No. 58), the Unopposed Petition for Approval of the Settlement (Dkt. No. 56), the 18 Proposed Order Approving Settlement (Dkt. No. 56-1), and the Declaration of Peter J. Mullenix 19 (Dkt. No. 57), all of which contain references to the settlement amount, costs, fees, and medical 20 lien totals. The parties have also filed versions of these documents with this information 21 redacted. (See Dkt. Nos. 59, 60, 61, 62.) 22 The Court starts from the position that “[t]here is a strong presumption of public access to 23 [its] files.” W.D. Wash. Local Civ. R. 5(g). This presumption applies particularly to “dispositive 24 pleadings.” Kamakana v. City and Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006); see 25 also M.F. v. United States, Case No. C13-1790-JLR, Dkt. No. 18 at 4 (W.D. Wash. 2013) 26 1 (finding that a motion to approve a settlement agreement is a dispositive pleading). To overcome 2 this presumption, there must be a “compelling reason” for sealing that is “sufficient to outweigh 3 the public’s interest in disclosure.” Id. 4 The Court finds two compelling reasons justify redacting the monetary amount of the 5 settlement agreement in this case. First, Plaintiff’s interest in keeping the settlement amount 6 private to avoid unwanted attention is a compelling reason that outweighs the public’s interest in 7 disclosure. Second, Plaintiff’s strong interest in settling this matter to obtain compensation for 8 his injuries is a second compelling reason that outweighs the public’s interest in disclosure. See 9 Hummel v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc., 2015 WL 13738406, slip op. at 3 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (“[I]n 10 individual actions such as this[,] the cost of litigation may prove prohibitive for a plaintiff taking 11 a case through trial, but defendants might well be dissuaded from settling if they know that the 12 amount of each settlement will be public.”). 13 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the parties’ motion to seal (Dkt. No. 54). The Clerk is 14 DIRECTED to maintain Docket Numbers 56, 56-1, 57, and 58 under seal. 15 DATED this 28th day of June 2021. A 16 17 18 John C. Coughenour 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26