Enzor v. The Kroger Co., No. 4:2022cv00083 - Document 62 (S.D. Ga. 2024)
Court Description: ORDER granting 61 Motion to Approve Settlement; granting 61 Joint Motion to Seal. The Clerk is directed to terminate all pending motions and deadlines and close this case. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 3/28/2024. (gmh)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Enzor v. The Kroger Co. Doc. 62 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION CAROLYN ENZOR, as Next Friend of K.E. and K.E. minors, and * * JULIANNE as * Administrator of the Estate of GLISSON, * KA'LA ENZOR, * * Plaintiffs, CV 422-083 V. THE KROGER CO, * Defendant. * ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Verified Petition to Approve Settlement and Joint Motion to Seal. (Doc. 61.) Because Plaintiffs K.E. and K.E. are minors, the Court must approve the settlement agreement and payment of counsel fees and other expenses out of the settlement fund. L.R. 17.1, SDGa. For the following reasons. Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED as to their request to seal and GRANTED as to their request to approve the settlement agreement. I. DISCUSSION Plaintiffs request the Court approve the settlement between Plaintiffs and Defendant, approve the Attorney-Client contracts, approve the disbursement of settlement funds as specified in the Dockets.Justia.com Settlement Statement, and permanently seal Exhibits E and F to the motion. (Doc. 61, at 6.). Plaintiffs move to seal these documents because: (1) "There is an inherent expectation of privacy about the terms and conditions of settlements reached between private parties to civil lawsuits"; (2) "[A]s an express condition of the settlement, the parties agreed that the amount of the settlement will remain confidential from disclosure"; and (3) "[T]he harm to the privacy rights of the minors clearly perceived public interest." and unequivocally outweighs any (Id. at 4.) A. Expectation of Privacy As to Plaintiffs' first argument, it is true that, generally, settlement agreements are private. "[W]hen, as here, a settlement must be approved by a court, the settlement becomes part of the judicial record." Webb v. CVS Caremark Corp., No. 5:11-CV-106, 2011 WL 6743284, at *1 (M.D. Ga. Dec. 23, 2011) (citation omitted); Keemar v. Avco Corp., No. 6:06-cv-448-Orl-22DAB, 2007 WL 2696571, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 11, 2007) ("By filing the suit, the matter became this Court's business, and this Court conducts business public[ly]. Having chosen to pursue a claim in a public court, [pjlaintiff must take the burdens of such forum, as well as its benefits."). "The operations of the courts and the judicial conduct of judges are matters of utmost public concern, and the common-law right of access to judicial proceedings, an essential component of our system of justice, is instrumental in securing the integrity of the process." Romero v. Drummond Co., 480 F.3d 1234, 1245 (11th Cir. 2007) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). "This right includes the right to inspect and copy public records and documents." Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). A party can overcome the common-law right of access by a showing Sharing, of 17 good cause. F.4th 1356, Callahan v. 1363 (11th United Cir. Network 2021). A for Organ good cause showing requires "balancing the asserted right of access against the other party's confidential." interest Romero, 480 in keeping the F.3d at 1246 (citation information omitted and alteration adopted). [C]ourts consider, among other factors, whether allowing access would impair court functions or harm legitimate privacy interests, the degree of and likelihood of injury if made public, the reliability of the information, whether there will be an opportunity to respond to the information, whether the information concerns public officials or public concerns, and the availability of a less onerous alternative to sealing the documents. Id. (citation omitted). Plaintiffs argue the interests of the Parties are served by preserving their privacy regarding the terms and conditions of the settlement. (Doc. 61, at 4.) However, they put forth no specific arguments for the Court to conclude their privacy rights are more important than public access to records. As such, this argument is not sufficient to show good cause. B. Confidentiality Agreement Plaintiffs' second argument is likewise unconvincing. Neither the confidential release nor the fact the Parties agreed Exhibit E and F should be sealed is a compelling reason to grant the motion. See Brown v. Advantage Enq'q, Inc., 960 F.2d 1013, 1016 (11th Cir. 1992) (''It is immaterial whether the sealing of the record is an integral part of a negotiated settlement agreement between the parties, even if the settlement comes with the court's active encouragement. Once a matter is brought before a court for resolution, it is no longer solely the parties' case, but also the public's case."); Eiqenberer v. Tokyo Statesboro GA, LLC, No. CV617-160, 2018 WL 2065942, at *2 (S.D. Ga. May 3, 2018) ("[T]he Court needs far more than the parties' agreement that the settlement agreement should be sealed."); see also Jackson v. Deen, No. CV 412-139, 2013 WL 1911455, at *1 n.6 (S.D. Ga. May 8, 2013) ("The consent of the parties [alone] is justify sealing, as the not a valid basis to rights involved are the rights of the public."). Plaintiffs failed to justify sealing Exhibits E and F, beyond arguing that the Parties agreed for the settlement to be confidential, and that is an insufficient basis for the Court to give up the public's access to the documents. C. Minor Plaintiffs' Privacy Interests Finally, appropriately Plaintiffs' raised third for argument sealing is Exhibits the E only and reason F. The "presumption that criminal and civil actions should be conducted publicly" "is process." instrumental in securing integrity of the Chicago Trib. Co. v. Bridqestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.Sd 1304, 1311 (11th Cir. 2001). outlined the above, may be overcome The presumption, however, as by a showing of good cause. Romero, 480 F.3d at 1246 (citation omitted). For cases involving the privacy of children, the interest in secrecy is compelling. Eigenberger, 2018 WL 2065942, at *2; see also Clark v. Bamberger, No. 1:12CV1122, 2016 WL 1183180, at *2 (M.D. Ala. Mar. 28, 2016) ("Protecting the privacy of minors is undoubtedly an important concern."). To weigh in favor of keeping information about minors sealed, the information generally must be more than the amount of money received in a settlement. See Wilson V. Am. Motors Corp., 759 F.2d 1568, 1571 n.4 (11th Cir. 1985) (per curiam). compelling For example, when the a minor's documents privacy would interest "expose Procedure protection documents. 5.2 more confidential educational, medical, or mental-health information." WL 1183180, at *3. is Clark, 2016 Is it also relevant that Federal Rule of Civil offers minors by requiring use in federal of minors' court a initials in barrier all of public "Going beyond this level of protection, courts have sealed proceedings and documents, including settlements, in litigation that exposes sensitive information about a child that could harm the child's future educational or employment prospects or that could cause the child great trauma or embarrassment." Clark, 2016 WL 1183180, at *2. Plaintiffs argue the minor children's privacy interests are compelling because the facts underlying the case garnered significant press, and the use of their initials does not protect them from disclosure. (Doc. 61, at 4-5.) They argue the minors' identities were not properly protected in the State Court filings, so it would be easy to decipher their identity. (Id. at 5.) The Court finds exposure of the minor children's names through the State Court action is sufficient to show good cause here. The minors' privacy interests are more compelling due to the potential exposure of their names. Based on these findings. Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED as to their request to seal Exhibits E and F. D. Settlement Agreement and Payment of Fees and Expenses Furthermore, the Court considers the settlement agreement and ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: 1. The agreement is fair, reasonable, and just circumstances and, consequently, is APPROVED. 2. Plaintiffs CAROLYN ENZOR and JULIANNE GLISSON under are the HEREBY authorized to compromise and terminate the claims of the minor children against Defendant in the civil action referenced above and full of all claims. execute the Confidential Release in 3. Counsel is HEREBY authorized to make the disbursements provided by the terms and conditions of the Settlement Statement. Having approved the agreement, the Court considers the AttorneyClient Contracts. attorneys' fees and Upon due expenses consideration, as set forth the in Court APPROVES the Settlement Statement and outlined in the Attorney-Client Contracts. II. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED as to their request to seal Exhibits E and F and GRANTED as to their request to approve the settlement agreement. {Doc. 61.) Since the settlement resolves all pending claims between Plaintiffs and Defendant, the Clerk is DIRECTED to TERMINATE all pending motions and deadlines and CLOSE this case. ^ ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this day of March, 2024. J. ftANDAL HALL, CHIEF JUDGE' UNITED ETATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
