Huff v. Thousandshores, Inc.

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 6 — 7 ANTHONY HUFF, et al., Case No. 21-cv-02173-HSG (REDACTED) 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 9 v. PETITION TO APPROVE COMPROMISE OF PENDING ACTION 10 THOUSANDSHORES, INC., et al., INVOLVING MINOR AND ASSOCIATED ADMINISTRATIVE 11 Defendants. MOTION TO SEAL 12 Re: Dkt. No. 41 13 Before the Court is Plaintiffs Anthony Huff’s, Estate of J.H.’s, and minor child’s 14 (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) unopposed motion for approval of the aspects of settlement pertaining 15 to the minor child (“Minor” or “Minor Plaintiff”). See Dkt. No. 41-3 (“Mot.”). Plaintiffs have 16 also filed an administrative motion to file under seal limited portions of their motion as well as an 17 accompanying declaration. See Dkt. No. 41. For the reasons explained below, the Court 18 GRANTS both the motion and the associated administrative motion to seal. 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 On March 29, 2021, Plaintiffs brought this product liability lawsuit against 21 Thousandshores, Inc., Shenzhen Thousandshores Technology Co., Ltd., and Amazon.com 22 Services, LLC (“Defendants”). See Dkt. No. 1. The Complaint alleges that twenty-three-month23 old Johnathan Huff died as a result of swallowing a lithium-ion button battery that fell out of an 24 “ESKY” brand wireless key finder remote. See id. The Minor is Johnathan’s brother and is 25 represented by his father in this action. See Mot. at 1. Plaintiffs contend that the key finder 26 remote was manufactured, imported, and/or offered for sale by Defendant Thousandshores, and 27 was sold, distributed, and fulfilled by Defendant Amazon, without having sufficient warnings or a 1 On September 16, 2021, the parties filed a Notice of Settlement. Dkt. No. 37. On 2 November 14, 2021, the parties executed a settlement agreement that resolves all issues and 3 disputes in this action and releases all claims that could have been brought by the Plaintiffs or 4 other family members in connection with the events of the incident. See Mot. at 2. The 5 Settlement Agreement is contingent upon the Court’s approval of the minor’s compromise, which 6 Plaintiffs’ Motion now accordingly seeks. See id. 7 II. LEGAL STANDARD 8 “District courts have a special duty, derived from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), to 9 safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors.” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177 , 1181 10 (9th Cir. 2011); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c) (providing that district court “must appoint a guardian ad 11 litem—or issue another appropriate order—to protect a minor or incompetent person who is 12 unrepresented in an action”). When there is a proposed settlement in a suit involving a minor 13 plaintiff, this “special duty requires a district court to ‘conduct its own inquiry to determine 14 whether the settlement serves the best interests of the minor.’” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181 15 (quoting Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 1978)). As part of this inquiry, the 16 “court must independently investigate and evaluate any compromise or settlement of a minor’s 17 claims to assure itself that the minor’s interests are protected, even if the settlement has been 18 recommended or negotiated by the minor’s parent or guardian ad litem.” Salmeron v. United 19 States, 724 F.2d 1357, 1363 (9th Cir. 1983). The district court must review “whether the net 20 amount distributed to each minor plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable, in light of the 21 facts of the case, the minor’s specific claim, and recovery in similar cases.” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 22 1182. But the court must disregard the “proportion of the total settlement value designated for 23 adult co-plaintiffs or plaintiffs’ counsel” because the court has “no special duty to safeguard” their 24 interests. Id. 25 III. DISCUSSION 26 A. Motion for Approval of Compromise of Pending Action Involving Minor 27 Based on its review of Plaintiffs’ submissions, the Court finds that the proposed settlement 1 will allocate portions of the Settlement to Anthony Huff (the deceased’s father), Jacqueline Huff 2 (the deceased’s mother), and the Estate of J.H., and a portion to the Minor. Mot. at 3. The amount 3 of will be allocated to theMinor, out of which the law firm of Buche & Associates, 4 P.C. will be compensated 45%. Id. Accordingly, theMinor will receive a net settlement amount 5 of , which will be placed in a fiduciary irrevocable trust. Id.at 4. 6 The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement treats theMinor fairly. The Minor asserted 7 one claim as a bystander whoobserved the events and suffered emotional distress. See Dkt. No. 1. 8 Given the Minor’s young age and the fact that he did not incur any appreciable medical expenses 9 for injuries, the Court finds thatthe net settlement amount of is reasonable. See Mot. at 10 4. The Court also finds that the attorneys’ recovery in this case is reasonable because of their 11 experience and the risk they undertook in advancing all costs in connection with the representation 12 of the Plaintiffs in this potentially complex and lengthy product liability case. See id. at 4-7. 13 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion for approval of the compromise of the 14 action. 15 B. Motion to Seal 16 Plaintiffs have also filed an administrative motion to file under seal limited portions of the 17 Petition to Approve Compromise of Pending Action Involving Minor and its supporting 18 Declaration of John K. Buche. See Dkt. No. 41. 19 Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 20 documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana 21 v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 , 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the 22 common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records 23 and documents.’” Id.(quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of 24 access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this 25 strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion 26 must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 27 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in 1 omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 2 disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a 3 vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public 4 scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. 5 Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records 6 may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, 7 without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. 8 Records attached to non-dispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 9 Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only 10 tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” Id. at 1179–80 (quotations omitted). This 11 requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information 12 is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206 , 1210–11 (9th 13 Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific 14 examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 15 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted). 16 Because approval of the compromise of the action will likely terminate this suit, the Court 17 will apply the “compelling reasons” standard to Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to file under seal. 18 See Sever v. Icon Aircraft, Inc., No. 18-CV-00584, 2019 WL 343469 , at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 19 2019); Doe v. Mt. Diablo Unified Sch. Dist., No. 14-CV-02167, 2015 WL 5438951 , at *2 (N.D. 20 Cal. Sept. 14, 2015); see also Keirsey v. eBay, Inc., No. 12-CV-1200, 2013 WL 5609318 , at *2 21 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2013) (“[A] motion seeking the Court’s preliminary approval of the settlement 22 of the case may be effectively dispositive. While the Court has not identified any authority 23 discussing the appropriate standard for a motion of this type, the Court concludes that the 24 ‘compelling reasons’ standard is the appropriate standard.”). 25 The Court denied Plaintiffs’ earlier administrative motion to seal the Motion, Settlement 26 Agreement, and accompanying declaration because Plaintiffs failed to articulate compelling 27 reasons to seal the documents in their entirety. See Dkt. No. 40. Plaintiffs’ present administrative 1 settlement agreement. See Dkt. No. 41. Plaintiffs seek to seal this information to protect the 2 || minor’s privacy interests and to “prevent third parties from targeting the child or soliciting the 3 child when the child is old enough to control the funds.” /d. at 5. The Court agrees that there are 4 || compelling reasons to seal the amount that the Minor will receive from the settlement agreement. 5 || See Lauris v. Novartis AG, Case No. 1:16-cv-00393-SAB, ECF No. 428, pg. 5 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 6 || 2018) (finding compelling reasons to seal the amount a minor would receive in a settlement 7 || because “[d]isclosing the amount the minor receives in settlement of this action could subject her 8 || to ill-intended solicitations at a time when she is financially vulnerable and away from the stable 9 || influences of her family.”). The Court accordingly GRANTS the Motion to Seal. 10 IV. CONCLUSION 11 For the reasons described above, the Court GRANTS the Motion for Approval of 12 || Compromise of Pending Action Involving Minor and the associated Motion to Seal. The parties 13 are DIRECTED to file a stipulated dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14 || 41(a)(.)(A)(@1), which does not require an order of approval from the Court, by January 14, 2022. 15 || Docket No. 25 is accordingly TERMINATED AS MOOT. a 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 || Dated: 1/5/2022 18 Alepurrd 5 Mdbl □□ HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 19 United States District Judge — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — — 26 — — 27 — — 28 —