Eden v. Lemandre

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that matters contained in a settlement agreement, which “might otherwise have seemed [] entitled to [sealing],” were not because the matter was previously disclosed in an unsealed complaint
• concluding that matters contained in a settlement agreement, which “might otherwise have seemed [ ] entitled to [sealing],” were not because the matter was previously disclosed in an unsealed complaint
• concluding that matters contained in a settlement agreement, which “might otherwise have seemed [ ] entitled to [sealing],” were not because the matter was previously disclosed in an unsealed complaint
• concluding there was “no question” that the settlement agreement was a judicial document as it was filed in connection with the pending motion to enforce the settlement agreement, thus “relevant to the judicial function of adjudicating [that] motion”
• concluding there was “no question” that the settlement agreement was a judicial document as it was filed in connection with the pending motion to enforce the settlement agreement, thus “relevant to the judicial function of adjudicating [that] motion”
• permitting redaction of settlement agreement involving nonparties with a strong privacy interest and relating to issues with no bearing on the adjudication of the parties’ motion

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).