AmTrust North America, Inc. v. Securranty, Inc.

Background

The parties submitted a stipulation of voluntary dismissal in which they agreed to dismiss the case and consented to the court retaining jurisdiction to enforce their settlement agreement. The plaintiff separately asked for permission to file a redacted copy of the settlement agreement. The proposed redactions covered the payment terms.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the settlement agreement did not qualify as a “judicial document” at that time because it did not form the basis of any decision or action by the court. The court added that, even if the agreement were treated as a judicial document, the presumption that court records should be publicly accessible would be weak because the redacted material did not directly affect an adjudication. The parties’ interest in keeping the financial terms of their settlement confidential overcame that presumption.

The court noted that the analysis could change if a motion to enforce the settlement agreement were filed. In that circumstance, the court would need to make a decision based on the agreement’s terms, and the parties would need to submit a renewed application addressing the changed circumstances and overcoming the presumption of public access.

Ruling

Judge James L. Cott approved the request to file the settlement agreement with redactions of the payment terms. He also ordered the parties’ stipulation of dismissal and directed the Clerk to close the case. The court explained that the settlement agreement itself did not need to be filed at that time for the court to retain enforcement jurisdiction; the stipulation’s provision retaining jurisdiction was sufficient.