Motion To Seal Settlement Agreement

Liberty and Herlands are requesting abstention, as the confidentiality of the settlement agreement between the parties (« the agreement ») must be preserved. The Court finds that, to the extent that the terms of the contract are reviewed or disclosed in the documents, there is a good reason to allow the bid under the seal. See Phillips ex rel. Byrd/General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1212 (9 cir. 2002) (see also Shinn v. Baxa Corp., 07-cv-01648, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57681, 4-5 (D. Nev.

July 7, 2008) (authorizes parties to be submitted as part of a seal comparison contract that was the subject of the request for a good faith decision). To the extent that Todd A. Roberts` statement is entirely or essentially made up of confidential documents relating to the provisions of the agreement, the Court of Justice therefore grants the motion for this document to be kept secret in its entirety. Sealing documents in which the terms of an agreement granting a partial request for sealing of applications, which reflect the terms of a confidential transaction agreement and which refuse the parties` requests in their entirety, have been discussed or disclosed, because « most of the documents are made up of legal arguments . . . . and it seems that parts of the letter that examine confidential or decent information could be easily edited. » Federal courts have recognized a strong presumption that court records are publicly available.

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9 cir 2006). In general, a party seeking to seal a record carries the burden of overcoming this presumption by expressing « compelling reasons supported by concrete factual findings » to justify the waterproofing of the records at issue. However, in the case of non-structuring applications, the presumption of public access does not apply with the same force. Id. to 1179. Thus, it is enough to show a good thing to justify the sealing material attached to non-device movements. Id. at 1180.

Since an application to determine the good faith scheme is only incidentally related to the merits of the underlying cause of the complaint, it constitutes a non-device movement. See id. under 1179 (quote omitted). Therefore, the parties only need to show good reasons for waterproofing the above documents. However, the good case that states must be « special, » id., and the court`s local rules require that all sealed filing applications be « closely adjusted to search for sealing only from sealed materials, » CIV. L.R. 79-5 (a). In Prosurance Group., Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Group, Inc., No. 10-CV-02600-LHK, 2011 WL 704456, um Feb. 18 Feb.

2011) (Judge Lucy Koh), Koh J.A. held that « a good faith application for regulation is only tangentially related to the merits of the underlying plea » and should therefore be properly sealed. Since that decision, another court in that district has considered in good faith a sealing application for retention determination and has also applied the good cause standard. There is no doubt that the courts have sealed confidential transaction agreements and negotiations. To see… For the reasons outlined above, the Tribunal grants the request to refer to Todd A.`s statement as a key.