ILNews

Federal Bar Update: Confidentiality not always enforceable

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Federal Bar UpdateAmendments

In Dugdale Communications v. Alcatel-Lucent USA, No. 1:09-CV-960 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 11, 2011), the court addressed defendant’s motion to amend its answer. Magistrate Judge Tim Baker denied the motion, starting the court’s opinion by writing, “Leave to amend pleadings is freely granted when justice requires. But when, as in this case, a party waits until significant deadlines have passed to seek leave to make amendments that could have been made earlier, and which would unduly prejudice the opposing party, justice requires denial of leave to amend.”

As with most discretionary amendment issues, the opinion turns on its unique facts, but one of the desired amendments – to add a statute of frauds defense – was denied due to undue delay. The court explained, “While Dugdale’s discovery responses may not have been entirely consistent, Alcatel waited to depose Witham until the day before the discovery deadline. As a result of this and other circumstances, Alcatel cannot in fairness claim that it now should be allowed to add a claim based on something it should (or easily could) have known long ago. The court has already enlarged CMP deadlines twice and recently declined to further delay progress in this case. Accordingly, the court denies Alcatel’s motion for leave to add a statute of frauds defense.”

Enforcing confidential settlement agreements

As federal practitioners know, the 7th Circuit is particularly strict about protecting public access to federal court filings. Trial judges within the 7th Circuit are thus equally strict in ensuring that sealed record requests meet the 7th Circuit standards. So can a confidential settlement agreement be enforced in federal court while preserving confidentiality?

This issue was addressed by the court in Gant v. Carrier Corp., No. 1:09-CV-1193 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 25, 2011). The defendant sought to enforce a confidential settlement agreement. The court set the matter for a court conference to try to informally resolve the matter, kept the agreement under seal until that conference, but expressed that it “has serious reservations about the propriety of maintaining the purported settlement agreement and related documents under seal given that the Court is now being asked to enforce this purported agreement.”

The court explained, “In Cincinnati Insurance, the Seventh Circuit noted that ‘[t]he parties to a lawsuit are not the only people who have a legitimate interest in the record compiled in a legal proceeding.’ Id. at 944. The public’s interest in a transparent and predictable legal system extends to the Court’s enforcement of settlement agreements. Many cases never reach the courtroom and others end without even a written opinion. As the Seventh Circuit stated in Jessup v. Luther, 277 F.3d 926, 929 (7th Cir. 2002), ‘[t]he public has an interest in knowing what terms of a settlement a federal judge would approve and perhaps therefore nudge the parties to agree to.’ The Seventh Circuit has further stated that ‘[p]eople who want secrecy should opt for arbitration. When they call on the courts, they must accept the openness that goes with subsidized dispute resolution by public (and publicly accountable) officials.’ Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 568 (7th Cir. 2000).”

The court continued, “In the case at bar, Carrier has provided no reasons why its desire for sealing overcomes the public’s legitimate interest in the record compiled by this legal proceeding. The purported settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which presumably is at the heart of this sealing request. But the parties’ (or one party’s) desire for confidentiality does not override the public’s interest in open proceedings when disputes require the Court’s intervention. Certainly Carrier’s motion contains no authority supporting such an outcome.”

Thus, parties seeking to enforce confidential settlement agreements should be on notice that confidentiality cannot be assured in federal court. If confidentiality is vital, consideration should be given to possibly including enforcement mechanisms through arbitration or a simple state-law, state-court breach of contract action.

Mark your calendars

The annual Federal Civil Practice Seminar will be held Friday, Dec. 16, in Indianapolis.•

__________

John Maley, jmaley@btlaw.com, is a partner with Barnes & Thornburg, LLP, practicing federal and state litigation, employment matters, and appeals. The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT