UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION

CHRISTINA BLYE, Individually ) and as Parent and Natural ) Guardian of M.W., a minor, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CV422-041 ) AARON WARD, M.D., ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER Plaintiff has filed a Motion to File Under Seal Exhibits to Plaintiff’s Motion to Approve Settlement of a Minor. Doc. 25. In it, Plaintiff represents that Defendant has no objection to the motion. Id. at 2. The motion seeks leave to file under seal certain exhibits, identified as Exhibits A – F, “associated with and referenced in Plaintiff’s Motion to Approve Settlement of a Minor.” Id. at 1, 2 The Eleventh Circuit has explained that “[t]he 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.,

(11th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Landmark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Virginia,

(1978), and Chi.

Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.,

(11th Cir. 2001)). “[T]he common-law right of access includes the right to inspect

and copy public records and documents.” Chi. Tribune Co.,

(citing Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc.,

(1978) (referencing specifically the right to inspect and copy “judicial records

and documents.”)). “Material filed in connection with any substantive pretrial motion, unrelated to discovery, is subject to the common law right of access.” Romero,

. The Eleventh Circuit recently

reaffirmed this standard, finding that the public right of access is presumed for “judicial records,” which include “documents filed with pretrial motions that require judicial resolution of the merits of an

action.” Callahan v. United Network for Organ Sharing,

(11th Cir. 2021) (internal citation and quotations omitted). The Plaintiff’s Motion to Approve Settlement of a Minor, to which the exhibits are attached, is a judicial record subject to the public’s right of access. Cf. Clark v. Bamberger,

, at *2 (M.D. Ala. Mar. 28, 2016).

A party can overcome the common-law right of access by a showing of good cause. Callahan,

. A good cause determination

“requires balancing the asserted right of access against the other party's interest in keeping the information confidential.” Romero,

(internal quotation marks and alterations omitted) (quoting Chi.

Tribune Co.,

). In weighing these competing interests, the Court considers “a number of important questions,” which the Eleventh Circuit discussed in Callahan:

[W]hether 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. Concerns about trade secrets or other proprietary information, for example, can overcome the public interest in access to judicial documents. Indeed, a court should consider whether the records are sought for such illegitimate purposes as to promote public scandal or gain unfair commercial advantage. Callahan,

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The decision of whether good cause exists rests with the sound discretion of the district court judge, is based on the “nature and character of the information in question,” and “should be informed by a sensitive appreciation of the circumstances that led to the production of

the particular document in question.” Chi. Tribune Co.,

(quoting Nixon,

) (internal quotation marks and

alterations omitted), 1315. Plaintiff’s motion explains that the six exhibits to the Motion to Approve Settlement of a Minor “contain confidential information,

including settlement terms, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses advanced, liens by health insurers, the injury and surgical treatment rendered, and the full name, date of birth, and other identifying information of M.W., a

minor.” Doc. 25 at 1. It argues there is no public interest in these exhibits that overrides the need for closure.

Courts have sealed settlements in litigation that exposes sensitive information about a child that could

cause the child great trauma or embarrassment. See Clark,

, at *2; but see Willis v. United States,

, at *2- *3 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 26, 2019) (denying motion to seal information related to

minor settlement). Given the sensitive nature of the allegations in this case, see doc. 1 at 2-3, and given that the exhibits presented to the Court for review contain the minor child’s medical records and personally identifiable information, the Plaintiff has shown the requisite good cause

to seal the exhibits to the Motion to Approve Settlement. Cf. Willis,

, at *2 (“[A] minor’s interest in privacy is more compelling when the documents would expose confidential educational, medical, or mental-health information.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). The Motion to Seal is, therefore, GRANTED. Doc. 25. The Clerk is DIRECTED to maintain Exhibits A-F to the Motion to Approve Settlement, doc. 26, permanently UNDER SEAL. See 8.D. Ga. L. Civ. R. 79.7(e). SO ORDERED, this 27th day of April, 2023.

( huighand. er CHRISTOPHER L. RAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA