Goesel v. Boley International (H.K.) Ltd.
738 F.3d 831
7th Cir.2013Background
- Motions judge consolidated sealing motions for two appeals (Goesel and Massuda) and now rules on them.
- In Goesel, a minor's settlement required district court approval under Local Rule 17.1; judge approved the revised settlement with the law firm’s fee modification; the law firm appeals seeking sealing of settlement, fees, and costs.
- In Massuda, district court dismissed most fiduciary claims as derivative; redacted earlier settlement was filed under seal; defendants seek to keep the redacted agreement sealed in the Seventh Circuit.
- Public-access presumption: documents that affect disposition of federal litigation are presumptively open to public view.
- Presumption can be rebutted for trade secrets or compelling privacy interests; settlements disclosed if court approval is required or if terms appear in later litigation; otherwise many settlements don’t appear in court records.
- Massuda involves largely redacted terms with the redacted agreement not seen by the district judge; the Seventh Circuit notes the redacted content largely defeats the seal request; appendix contained a public copy of the redacted document, undermining the sealing request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should the Goesel settlement terms be sealed? | Law firm seeks sealing due to confidentiality | Public access should apply; no compelling reason to seal | Denied |
| Should the redacted Massuda settlement be kept under seal? | Defendants request seal in interests of confidentiality | Redacted terms largely reveal nothing; seal unnecessary | Dismissed as moot by the Seventh Circuit; redacted content largely unrevealed in record |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Specht, 622 F.3d 697 (7th Cir.2010) (presumption of public access applies to judicial records)
- Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (198/78) (public access promotes understanding of the judiciary)
- Baxter International, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 297 F.3d 544 (7th Cir.2002) (presumption applies to judicial records; public access)
- LEAP Systems, Inc. v. MoneyTrax, Inc., 638 F.3d 216 (3d Cir.2011) (settlement materials not always judicial records if no court action)
- Doe v. City of Chicago, 360 F.3d 667 (7th Cir.2004) (compelling privacy can justify non-disclosure)
- Doe v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United, 112 F.3d 869 (7th Cir.1997) (privacy rights may justify anonymity in litigation)
- Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant # 1, 537 F.3d 185 (2d Cir.2008) (privacy and sealing principles in sealed filings)
- Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133 (2d Cir.2004) (settlement terms disclosure considerations in some contexts)
- Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772 (3d Cir.1994) (public access considerations in settlements and records)
- Herrnreiter v. Chicago Housing Authority, 281 F.3d 634 (7th Cir.2002) (public-access and settlement disclosure considerations)