In Re: In the Matter of the Fort Totten Metrorail Cases Arising Out of the Events of June 22, 2009
960 F. Supp. 2d 2
| D.D.C. | 2013Background
- On June 22, 2009 two WMATA trains collided near Fort Totten, killing nine and injuring many; numerous consolidated civil suits followed (Misc. No. 10-314).
- WP Company, LLC (The Washington Post) moved to permissively intervene under Rule 24(b) to obtain access to multiple sealed docket entries, invoking common-law and First Amendment access rights.
- Sealed materials fell into three categories: (1) settlement documents submitted for court approval involving minor plaintiffs; (2) mediation-related filings (including a mediation tied to plaintiff Tawanda Brown and several defendants-only mediations); and (3) documents containing medical or other sensitive information about individual plaintiffs.
- The court applied the D.C. Circuit two-step common-law access test: (a) whether a filing is a judicial record (its role in adjudication), and (b) a Hubbard-factor balancing to determine whether the presumption of public access is overcome.
- Rulings: the Post was granted permissive intervention; minor settlement documents and both categories of mediation-related filings were ordered unsealed (with redactions/limited anonymity for minors); certain motions in limine and related medical-sensitive filings remained sealed; three pretrial filings that played no judicial role remained sealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether Post may intervene to seek access | Post: permissive intervention allowed to seek access to sealed court records | Defs: technical Rule 24(c) pleading deficiency; otherwise opposed access | Court: granted permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) for access purposes |
| 2. Whether minor-settlement documents are judicial records and must be unsealed | Post: common-law access applies; public interest in WMATA settlement terms; redactions OK for sensitive data | Defs: confidentiality was key to settlement; privacy and reliance interests for minors justify sealing | Court: documents are judicial records; public interest and §21-120(a) oversight weigh heavily for disclosure; unseal with redaction of medical information and redact minors’ names/birthdates per Rule 5.2(a) |
| 3. Whether mediation-related records should remain sealed (Brown mediation and defendants-only mediations) | Post: access warranted; much of the Brown-material already in public domain; defendants-only mediation materials became judicial records when defendants litigated their enforcement dispute | Defs: Local Rule 84.9/confidentiality agreements and policy favor shielding mediation communications; risk of chilling settlement | Held: Brown-related filings unsealed (material already public); defendants-only mediation records unsealed because defendants invoked the court to resolve a mediation dispute, subjecting those materials to public-access presumption |
| 4. Whether filings containing medical/sensitive plaintiff information must be unsealed | Post: seeks access but agrees to redact sensitive medical info | Pls/Defs: strong privacy interests, little public need; some pretrial filings played no judicial role | Court: motion in limine and order excluding sensitive minor info remain sealed; other pretrial filings that never played an adjudicative role are not judicial records and remain sealed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. El-Sayegh, 131 F.3d 158 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (defines "judicial records" based on role in adjudication)
- Washington Legal Found. v. U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, 89 F.3d 897 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (common-law right of access to court records)
- SEC v. Am. Int’l Grp., 712 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (discussion of scope of First Amendment right of access)
- EEOC v. Nat’l Children’s Ctr., Inc., 146 F.3d 1042 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (permissive intervention for public access purposes)
- EEOC v. Nat’l Children’s Ctr., Inc., 98 F.3d 1406 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (Hubbard-factor framework and presumption of public access)
- United States v. Hubbard, 650 F.2d 293 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (articulating six factors relevant to overcoming access presumption)
- Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) (common-law public access principle)
- Brown v. Advantage Eng’g, Inc., 960 F.2d 1013 (11th Cir. 1992) (holding confidentiality in settlements insufficient alone to justify sealing)
- Bank of Am. Nat’l Trust & Sav. Ass’n v. Hotel Rittenhouse Assocs., 800 F.2d 339 (3d Cir. 1986) (court approval of settlement is public and cannot be sealed merely to encourage settlement)
- Herrnreiter v. Chicago Hous. Auth., 281 F.3d 634 (7th Cir. 2002) (party waives confidentiality by asking court to enforce settlement; judicial records become public)