IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPIHATTIESBURG DIVISIONSTATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTYCOMPANY and STATE FARM MUTUALAUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANYPLAINTIFFSVS.CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:07-cv-188(DCB)(MTP)JIM HOOD, IN HIS OFFICIALCAPACITY AS ATTORNEY GENERALOF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPIDEFENDANTJACKSON NEW MEDIA, INC.; WLBT, LLC;WDAM, LLC; and WLOX, LLCINTERVENORSMEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDERThis cause is before the Court on Jackson New Media, Inc.;WLBT, LLC; WDAM, LLC; and WLOX, LLC’s (“the intervenors”) motionfor partial relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of CivilProcedure 60(b)(6), or, in the alternative, for an order unsealingthe settlement agreement in this case

(docket entries 119, 120)

.Having carefully considered the motion, the responses of theplaintiffs and defendant, and memoranda of the parties, and beingfully advised in the premises, the Court finds as follows:This matter is properly before the Court, the interveningparties having been granted permission to seek partial relief fromthis Court’s February 7, 2008, Judgment of Dismissal, dismissingthis action “based on a confidential settlement agreement betweenthe parties, which shall remain under seal.” Judgment ofDismissal, p. 1. As entities whose rights are directly affected bythe final judgment, the intervenors are parties with standing under

Case 2:07-cv-00188-DCB-MTP Document 127 Filed 09/02/10 Page 1 of 10

2Rule 60(b). Rule 60(b)(6) serves as a “catch-all provision,conferring on the court broad discretion to relieve a party fromfinal judgment upon such terms as are just.” Spacey v. Burgar, 207F.Supp.2d 1037, 1048 (E.D. Cal. 2001)(citations and internalquotations omitted).On September 13, 2007, State Farm Fire and Casualty Companyand State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (collectively“State Farm”) filed suit in this court against Jim Hood, AttorneyGeneral of the State of Mississippi, alleging that the AttorneyGeneral violated the terms of a January 23, 2007 Non-ProsecutionAgreement by filing a Fourth Grand Jury Subpoena concerning StateFarm’s handling of Hurricane Katrina claims. State Farm initiallysought to have the record in this case sealed, so as not to violatethe secrecy of any grand jury proceedings, until such time as theattorney general could be heard on the issue. The record wasinitially sealed; however, State Farm subsequently moved to unsealthe record and the attorney general opposed the motion, arguingthat portions of the record should remain sealed. The Courtordered the record unsealed, finding nothing “filed in the recordthus far that would reveal the specifics of any grand juryproceedings.” Order of Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker,11/2/07, p. 2. The Court’s ruling was “without prejudice to theparties’ rights to request that the court seal any future filingsin this case upon a showing of good cause.” Order, p. 3.

Case 2:07-cv-00188-DCB-MTP Document 127 Filed 09/02/10 Page 2 of 10

“It is difficult to distill from the relatively fewjudicial decisions a comprehensive definition of what is referredto as a common-law right of access or to identify all the factorsto be weighed in determining whether access is appropriate. Thefew cases that have recognized such a right do agree that the3On February 6, 2008, the parties announced to the Court thata settlement had been reached in this case, one of the terms ofsettlement being that the parties’ agreement would remain underseal, and that the parties would mutually maintain confidentialityconcerning the settlement terms. The parties further agreed thateither party could move to have the agreement unsealed should theother breach the terms of settlement, and that the Court wouldretain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlementagreement. The parties dictated their agreement into the record onFebruary 6-7, 2008.Once a settlement agreement is filed with the court, itbecomes part of the “judicial record,” to which the public has acommon law right of access. S.E.C. v. Waeyenberghe, 990 F.2d 845,849 (5

Cir. 1993). The public’s right of access is not absolute,however. It creates only a “presumption” of access, which can beovercome by a strong showing of the need for confidentiality.Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597-98. TheCourt must undertake a balancing of factors on both sides of theissue (the need for confidentiality and the common law presumptionof access), the relevant factors depending on the facts of theparticular case. Id. at 598, 602.