Farris v. Avon Products, Inc.

Background

Diane Farris brought the action individually and as executor of John Gallo’s estate. She filed materials asking the court to approve settlements with certain defendants in a wrongful-death action. Farris moved to seal or partially redact the motion for distribution and related exhibits. The requested redactions covered the settling parties’ identities, the settlement amount, attorney-client communications and agreements, attorney’s fees, case expenses, confidential financial information, and individuals’ personal identifying information.

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan had previously denied an earlier sealing motion without prejudice and allowed Farris to submit a renewed motion with a proper basis for sealing. Farris later renewed the motion, which was decided by Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn.

Court’s Analysis

The court treated the motion for distribution as a judicial document because it was submitted for court approval of settlement amounts, attorney’s fees, and case expenses. Judicial documents are generally presumed accessible to the public. The court found the presumption especially strong here because it had to determine whether the settlement amounts, fees, and expenses were fair, reasonable, and adequate. Public access allowed people to understand and monitor the court’s approval of the wrongful-death settlements.

The court rejected Farris’s arguments that disclosure could disadvantage future settlement negotiations or violate confidentiality provisions. It held that a private confidentiality agreement, without more, did not overcome the public’s right of access to materials used in the court’s decision. The court also found no privileged information in the retainer agreement, attorney affirmation, or exhibits that justified sealing. The fees and expenses were relevant to the court’s review, and communications showing that Farris agreed to the settlement were relevant to whether the settlement resulted from an arm’s-length negotiation rather than collusion.

The court separately considered the non-party entity and personal identifying information. It found that the court did not need to approve the settlement between Farris and the non-party entity, so the entity’s name and associated settlement amount could be redacted. It also allowed redaction of the decedent’s date of birth and Social Security number because that information had no bearing on the court’s approval of the settlement amounts.

Disposition

The court denied Farris’s motion to partially seal and redact the settling parties’ identities, the settlement amount, attorney’s fees, case expenses, and alleged privileged attorney-client communications. The court granted Farris’s motion to seal as it related to the non-party entity’s identity and associated settlement amount, and the decedent’s personal identifying information, including the date of birth and Social Security number in Exhibit B. The court ordered Farris to file a partially redacted motion for distribution and requested that the Clerk terminate the motion at ECF No. 368.