Rogers v. Low Income Investment Fund

Background

Brian F. Rogers sued the Low Income Investment Fund and named employees, alleging that the Fund did not hire him because of his race. The opinion says Rogers described his case as based on his qualifications exceeding those of the hired candidate and on the racial makeup of the Fund’s San Francisco office. The defendants identified as one part of their position that the employee who sent Rogers the rejection email was of the same race as Rogers.

Rogers, who was representing himself, filed a settlement offer addressed to the defendants. He said the offer was confidential and submitted it as proof that he had attempted to settle the case. The court also noted that the defendants had answered the complaint and had not asserted counterclaims.

Sealing the Settlement Offer

The court held that the settlement offer was not confidential merely because Rogers called it confidential. Rogers had filed it publicly and had not filed the administrative motion required to request sealing. Because Rogers was representing himself and the filing could implicate third-party interests, the court relaxed the local rule requiring a sealing motion to be filed at the same time as the document.

Any party seeking to seal the settlement offer or its attachments had to file an administrative motion to seal by September 9, 2024. Supporting sworn declarations could be filed by September 13, 2024. A motion had to identify each portion proposed for redaction or sealing and explain the private or public interests supporting the request, the harm that would result from disclosure, and why a less restrictive approach would not work. The court warned that failure to follow these requirements or unreasonable requests could lead to complete rejection of the request.

The court emphasized the presumption that court documents affecting the outcome of a case are publicly accessible. It stated that parties seeking to seal this settlement offer would need to propose narrowly tailored redactions supported by compelling reasons.

Settlement and Case Disposition

The court also explained that the settlement offer did not operate as an offer of judgment that could limit the defendants’ liability if they declined it. Under the rules cited by the court, that type of offer is available to defendants, not the plaintiff. The court further stated that, because the defendants had appeared and had not asserted counterclaims, Rogers could no longer dismiss the action alone; dismissal would require the parties’ agreement under the rule discussed in the order.

Judge Alsup ordered that any party wishing to seal the settlement offer follow the stated deadlines and requirements. The order did not rule on the merits of Rogers’s employment-discrimination claims, did not order dismissal, and did not decide whether any portion of the offer would ultimately be sealed.