Wimberly v. automotive Mastermind, Inc.
- John Koeltl
- 1:20-cv-01870-JGK
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Wimberly v. automotiveMastermind, Judge Koeltl received the parties’ joint request to retain settlement-enforcement jurisdiction and seal their settlement agreement.
The filing concerns Jason Wimberly, automotiveMastermind, Inc., Christina Queiros Bouchot, Bari Buksbaum, and Eric Daniels, and addresses whether the parties’ settlement agreement would remain confidential and whether the court would retain jurisdiction to enforce it.
What happened
Wimberly v. automotiveMastermind, Inc. involves two related settled actions brought by Jason Wimberly against automotiveMastermind, Inc. and three individual defendants. The filing identifies Wimberly as representing himself and the defendants as represented by counsel.
The parties jointly asked the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce their settlement agreement and to file the agreement under seal. They argued that confidentiality would protect their settlement and encourage efficient resolution of lawsuits; alternatively, they requested an opportunity to propose redactions.
The provided text does not include a ruling on that request. Judge John G. Koeltl had previously dismissed both actions with prejudice and without costs, and the parties submitted this request under those earlier orders’ instructions.
The detailed version
- Wimberly v. automotive Mastermind, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-01870-JGK
- John Koeltl
- Oct. 29, 2021
Background
The filing concerns two related actions identified as Wimberly v. automotiveMastermind, Inc. et al., No. 20-cv-01870 (JGK), and Wimberly v. automotiveMastermind, Inc., No. 20-cv-02880 (JGK). The filing states that Jason Wimberly brought the actions without a lawyer against automotiveMastermind, Inc., Christina Queiros Bouchot, Bari Buksbaum, and Eric Daniels. The defendants were represented by counsel.
On September 21, 2021, after the parties reported that they had settled, the court entered orders dismissing both actions with prejudice and without costs. Those orders stated that the court would retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement only if the parties submitted the agreement within 30 days for the court’s approval.
The Joint Request
The parties jointly asked the court to enter their proposed stipulation and order, retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement, and permit the fully executed agreement to be filed under seal. Filing under seal means keeping the document from public access in the court’s docket. If the court declined to seal the agreement, the parties asked for an opportunity to propose redactions before the agreement became part of the public record.
The filing discussed the three-step analysis used in the Southern District of New York for sealing documents: whether the document is a judicial document, the weight of any public-access presumption, and whether countervailing interests overcome that presumption. The parties argued that any public-access presumption would be weak for a confidential settlement agreement and that preserving confidentiality would promote settlements and judicial efficiency. These points were presented as the parties’ arguments in support of their joint request.
Disposition
The provided opinion text is a letter motion and does not include an order granting or denying the requested retention of jurisdiction or sealing relief. Accordingly, the disposition of the joint request cannot be determined from the supplied text.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.