## Facts

- Bank of America financed construction of the Hotel Rittenhouse project in Philadelphia for Hotel Rittenhouse Associates (HRA) and related developers; FAB III was the concrete contractor.
- In 1983, the Bank filed a federal foreclosure and loan-collection action against HRA and others in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; HRA asserted counterclaims.
- In 1984, FAB III separately sued the Bank in federal court for more than $800,000, alleging the Bank assured direct payment for FAB III’s work; a pending motion argued HRA was indispensable, but it was not decided.
- In January 1985, the Bank–HRA case reached trial but settled before jury submission; at the parties’ request, the settlement agreement was filed in court under seal.
- A dispute later arose over the settlement; both sides filed motions to enforce, and related filings were also submitted under seal.
- FAB III, not a party to the settlement, moved in the Bank–HRA case to unseal the settlement and related filings, asserting they might bear on its contractor-payment claims in its separate lawsuit.
- The district court denied FAB III’s motion to unseal.

## Issues

1. Whether settlement agreements and related filings submitted to a district court in connection with the court’s adjudicatory function are “judicial records” subject to a common-law presumption of public access.
2. Whether the district court may keep such records sealed absent specific, articulated findings that sufficiently compelling countervailing interests outweigh the presumption of access.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit reversed the order denying FAB III access and remanded.
- The court held the sealed settlement agreement and enforcement-related filings were judicial records because they were filed with the court and bore on judicial action.
- The district court erred by failing to apply the presumption of access and by relying on generalized settlement-policy interests without specific findings showing concrete harm from disclosure.
- On remand, sealing could be maintained only upon a particularized showing of countervailing interests, and the court should consider narrower alternatives such as redaction.

## Legal Principles

- Judicial records are presumptively open to public inspection under the common-law right of access, promoting confidence in the judicial process and accountability in adjudication.
- Documents filed with a court and relevant to the performance of the judicial function, including settlement materials submitted for court action (such as enforcement), qualify as judicial records.
- The presumption of access may be overcome only by countervailing interests that are sufficiently compelling and supported by specific, on-the-record findings.
- Broad, unsupported allegations of harm are insufficient to justify sealing; generalized references to encouraging settlement do not alone warrant sealing filed court records.
- When confidentiality is justified, courts should prefer narrower measures (e.g., targeted redactions) over blanket sealing.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that once settlement-related materials are filed with the court in connection with judicial action, they are subject to a strong common-law presumption of public access, and continued sealing requires specific findings of concrete, compelling harm that cannot be addressed through narrower means.


Bank of Am. Nat'l Tr. & Sav. Ass'n v. Hotel Rittenhouse Assocs., 800 F.2d 339 (3d Cir. 1986)