The U.S. District Court for South Carolina has ruled that the public’s right to access information outweighs a defendant’s right to enforce a confidentiality agreement that would have redacted the settlement amount in a wrongful death case.
Plaintiff Michelle Martin of Greer brought the action against defendant American Honda Motor Company, Inc. after her husband Gerald Martin died in 2011 while operating a power buffer at work.
Gerald was cleaning the floors using a propane-powered floor buffer manufactured, marketed and sold by Honda. Shortly after Martin turned on the buffer, he became overwhelmed by carbon monoxide gas and was rendered unconscious. The buffer continued to run for several hours, emitting deadly carbon monoxide gas that led to the Martin’s death.
The plaintiff argued that Honda’s failure to equip the buffer with proper safety equipment was the actual cause of Gerald’s death. Prior to trial, Martin and Honda reached a settlement.
Counsel for Honda was not present at the settlement hearing but, according to court records, presented no objection to the settlement with plaintiff. Shortly after the hearing, the court approved the settlements.
Honda later made a motion to redact the settlement amount, arguing the court papers in which the plaintiff’s attorney referenced the settlement amount were a breach of the confidentiality provision in the settlement agreement.
Judge Henry M. Herlong Jr. disagreed, pointing out that the issue had not been raised during the settlement hearing and that Honda had given no argument that would sway the court to favor enforcement over the public’s right to information.
“The public has a strong interest in access to court documents,” Herlong wrote, “The common law right affords presumptive access to all judicial records and documents.”
Herlong concluded that in addition, regardless of whether Honda had objected at the proper time, the information would have been too important to keep confidential.
The court explained it must consider the financial terms of the settlement.
“The amount of the settlement and to whom it is to be distributed is essential to the court’s adjudication,” Herlong wrote, “The terms of the settlement agreement will become a part of the judicial record as a matter of necessity.”
The court pointed out that in addition, Local Civil Rule 5.03(E) of the District of South Carolina provides, “No settlement agreement filed with the Court shall be sealed pursuant to the terms of this Rule.”
Honda argued that the local rule pertained strictly to sealed agreements and was not pertinent to this particular case where there had been a motion to redact versus a motion to seal.
The court emphatically disagreed, stating the result was the same.
“The confidentiality provision in Honda and the plaintiff’s settlement agreement is of no effect to this court.”
The whole situation surprised plaintiff’s attorney Jack Walker, whose firm Martin Walker is located in Tyler, Texas.
“I didn’t think anything of it when the judge asked me in court what the settlement agreement amount was,” Walker said, “In fact, I didn’t realize it was an issue until we found out about Honda’s motion to redact.”
Walker notes he does not remember a case where redaction of a settlement amount caused this much of a stir.
“Really, it is not something that would shock anyone, when the transcripts are released, I don’t believe anyone will be shocked,” he said, “This may have gone unnoticed by a lot of people if there had not been a motion to redact.”
The five-page decision is Martin v. American Honda Motor Co. and can be found at Lawyers Weekly No. 002-072-13.