Medina v. Monterey County
- Beth Freeman
- 5:24-cv-00053
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Medina v. Monterey County, Judge Freeman granted motions to seal minors’ settlement amounts, finding compelling reasons and narrowly tailored redactions.
Plaintiffs, especially minors M.M. and N.M., whose settlement amounts paid by Wellpath, LLC may be redacted from the specified filings; public access to those amounts is limited.
What happened
In Medina v. Monterey County, the plaintiffs asked to keep settlement petitions for minors M.M. and N.M., along with related documents, under seal. The requests concerned only the settlement amounts paid by Wellpath, LLC, after earlier requests were denied because they were too broad.
No party opposed the renewed requests. The court found that the settlement amounts were highly sensitive, that keeping them from public view would protect the parties—especially the minors—from harm and unwanted solicitations, and that the proposed redactions were limited to the information that needed protection.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted both administrative motions. The court allowed redactions of the settlement amounts in the revised petitions, supporting declarations, and proposed orders for M.M. and N.M.
The detailed version
- Medina v. Monterey County · No. 5:24-cv-00053
- Beth Freeman
- Apr. 16, 2024
Background
Plaintiffs filed two administrative motions seeking permission to file under seal settlement petitions for minors M.M. and N.M., together with supporting declarations, exhibits, and proposed orders. The court had previously denied the motions without prejudice because the proposed sealing was not narrowly tailored. In the renewed motions, plaintiffs sought to seal only the settlement amounts paid by Wellpath, LLC. No party opposed either motion.
Legal standard
The court explained that judicial records and documents generally are available for public inspection. Because settlement information is more than tangentially related to the underlying claims, the court applied the “compelling reasons” standard. Under that standard, sealing requires a strong justification. The court also applied Civil Local Rule 79-5, which requires reasons and supporting evidence when necessary and requires a sealing request to be narrowly tailored to the material that can properly be kept from public view.
Court’s analysis
The court noted that the parties’ agreement to keep information confidential, by itself, is not a compelling reason to seal court records. But it recognized that courts in the district have found compelling reasons to seal settlement amounts in individual settlements, particularly settlements involving minors.
For both M.M. and N.M., the court found compelling reasons to seal the settlement amounts because the amounts were highly sensitive and sealing them would protect the interests of the parties, especially the minor plaintiffs. The court also found that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored.
Ruling
Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion Requesting Leave to File Settlement Petition of Minor Plaintiff M.M. Under Seal (ECF No. 31). The court granted the proposed redactions in the revised petition, the revised declaration regarding M.M.’s settlement petition, and the revised proposed order.
The court also granted Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion Requesting Leave to File Settlement Petition of Minor Plaintiff N.M. Under Seal (ECF No. 32). The court granted the proposed redactions in the revised petition, the revised declaration regarding N.M.’s settlement petition, and the revised proposed order.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.