Anderson v. GM Motors & Shareholders
- Jesse Furman
- 1:21-cv-01006
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Anderson v. GM Motors & Shareholders, Judge Cott kept settlement letters restricted and barred public filing without permission.
The plaintiff, New GM, and public access to the settlement-related letters were affected. The letters were kept under restricted viewing access, and the plaintiff was barred from publicly filing settlement-related materials without court permission.
What happened
In Anderson v. GM Motors & Shareholders, the plaintiff filed several letters concerning settlement proceedings. Judge Furman had temporarily restricted public access to the letters and asked the parties to address whether they should be filed publicly.
After reviewing the letters, the court determined that they concerned confidential settlement negotiations and should remain restricted. The court stated that protecting settlement discussions outweighed the usual presumption that court filings should be public in this case.
Judge Cott reminded the plaintiff not to file settlement-related letters or documents publicly without court permission. The court directed New GM to serve the order on the plaintiff, file proof of service, and file its May 18 letter because the court found it did not contain confidential settlement information.
The detailed version
- Anderson v. GM Motors & Shareholders · No. 1:21-cv-01006
- Jesse Furman
- May 13, 2021
Background
The plaintiff filed several letters about settlement proceedings at Docket Nos. 43, 45, 49-1, and 49-2. Judge Furman temporarily placed the letters under restricted viewing access and directed the parties to raise with Magistrate Judge James L. Cott whether, and to what extent, the letters should be publicly filed.
Ruling
After reviewing the letters, Judge Cott determined that they should not be publicly filed and should remain under restricted viewing access because they concerned confidential settlement negotiations. The order stated that the confidentiality of settlement negotiations generally outweighs the presumption of public access in most cases and that the same was true here.
The order again warned the plaintiff not to file letters or other documents containing settlement-related information on the public docket without permission from the court. It directed New GM to serve the order on the plaintiff and file proof of service. The order also addressed a May 13 letter that New GM had emailed to the court: because the court found that letter did not contain settlement-related information, it directed New GM to file its May 18 letter. The order stated that correspondence should be filed rather than emailed so the record would be complete; any desired redactions had to comply with the court’s rules.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.