Phillips v. General Motors Corp.

307 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2002)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

On November 20, 1998, Darrell and Angela Byrd and their two minor sons, Timothy and Samuel, (Ps) filed a complaint for damages against D by a defect in the gas tank. Before discovery, both sides stipulated to a 'share' protective order that allowed the parties to share all information covered under the order with other litigants in similar cases, but not the public. One of D's experts testified by deposition that information about the amount D paid in previous settlements involving post-collision fuel-fed fires could be important to his analysis of punitive damages. Ps filed a motion to compel D to produce this settlement information either in the form of individual or aggregate settlement numbers. D had previously settled cases pursuant to agreements which provided that both parties would keep the terms confidential and, thus, vigorously contested the motion. The magistrate judge partially granted Ps' motion and directed D to produce the total number and aggregate dollar amount of all settlements. At D's request, the magistrate judge ordered this discovery pursuant to the share 'Protective order in place subject to further review and determination by Judge Molloy as to whether the information produced should be subject to his Order.' Prior to this appeal, D did not file any objection to this ruling. D produced the information, and the case settled. The court dismissed the action on November 14, 2000. The Los Angeles Times moved to intervene and requested the district court to unseal Exhibit 8. Times declared that (1) the information did not deserve a protective order; (2) the Times has a common law right of access to Exhibit 8; and (3) the newspaper had a First Amendment right to these materials. The district court ordered the release of the settlement information on the grounds that (1) it was not covered under the share protective order stipulated by the parties and (2) it independently did not deserve a protective order. The court found the common law right of access permitted the Los Angeles Times to receive the information. D appealed.