DONOVAN W. FRANK, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Confirmation of Settlement Agreements and a Motion to Strike Jury Demands brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota (the "ACLU"). The Court addresses both motions, and other outstanding issues, below.
Plaintiff has notified the Court that it has reached settlement agreements with both Defendants Islamic Relief USA ("Islamic Relief") and Brenda Cassellius, Commissioner of Education (the "Commissioner"). As part of the settlements, Plaintiff, Islamic Relief, and the Commissioner compiled a Stipulation of Facts that those parties believe should not be in dispute. (See Doc. No. 550, Pfeifer Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. 1(A).) Attached to the Stipulation of Facts are documents that purportedly support the facts, some of which have been marked confidential by either TiZA
The ACLU brought its motion to confirm the settlement because it does not believe that any of the facts recited in the Stipulation of Facts, or any of the attached documents, are in fact confidential and asserts that they should not be withheld from the public. The ACLU also claims that the effectiveness of its settlement with the Commissioner depends on the agreement, Stipulation of Facts, and supporting documents being made public.
TiZA Defendants oppose the ACLU's motion to confirm.
It is apparent that the Court's role with respect to this particular motion is limited, and the ACLU's proposed order underscores the narrow issues before the Court. Specifically, the ACLU requests the following order:
(ACLU Proposed Order.)
The Court has reviewed the contested documents
As to all other remaining contested documents, the Court concludes that no good cause for confidential treatment has been demonstrated by any party designating the documents as confidential. In particular, none of the documents are "trade secret[s] or other confidential research, development, or commercial information" protectable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1)(G). Nor are the documents properly designated under the definition of "Confidential" in the Protective Order. Accordingly, the contested documents that were not produced and designated confidential by Tunheim Partners need not be restricted or given confidential treatment.
The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement for one year.
The ACLU also moves to strike jury demands. The ACLU argues that after judgment is entered for the Commissioner and Islamic Relief, no right to jury trial exists for the remaining claims. The ACLU asserts that the remaining Establishment Clause claims are equitable in nature. In particular, the ACLU asserts that the refund of money that it seeks in this action (requiring TiZA Defendants to repay state funds received in violation of the Establishment Clause) is equitable in nature and does not give rise to a jury trial right in this case.
TiZA Defendants oppose the motion to strike jury demands. TiZA Defendants argue that the ACLU has twice made unqualified demands for a jury and has maintained these demands since the beginning of this action. As a result, TiZA Defendants argue that the ACLU has waived any position to the contrary. Moreover, TiZA Defendants assert that the ACLU's restitution claim constitutes substantial monetary relief in the form of substantial legal damages, and therefore their right to a jury trial should be protected.
The Court concludes that the fact that the ACLU has made and maintained a demand for a jury trial, along with the fact that the ACLU seeks substantial monetary relief, makes it proper to place the case before a jury. Therefore, the ACLU's motion to strike jury demands is denied.
The Court also deferred ruling on two issues that were raised in the parties' briefing on their respective motions for summary judgment. Specifically, the Court deferred ruling on the issue of whether the settlement reached between the ACLU and Islamic Relief was reasonable and made in good faith until after a decision was made on the pending motion for confirmation of settlement. The Court also deferred ruling on Islamic Relief's and the Commissioner's requests that the Court direct entry of a final judgment as to Islamic Relief's and the Commissioner's cross-claims for indemnification against TiZA under Rule 54(b). The Court addresses these issues in turn below.
By Order dated April 20, 2011, the Court granted Islamic Relief's and the Commissioner's motions for summary judgment on their respective cross-claims for indemnification, finding that both Islamic Relief and the Commissioner were entitled to indemnification as a matter of law. (Doc. No. 606 at 32.) The Court, however, deferred ruling on the issue of whether the settlement between Islamic Relief and the ACLU was reasonable and made in good faith. (Id.) The Court considers that issue now.
On December 28, 2010, Islamic Relief advised TiZA that it had reached the terms of a settlement in principle with the ACLU, which included a payment of $267,500 in professional fees and disbursements. (Doc. No. 512, Bushnell Aff. ¶ 10, Ex. I.) Islamic Relief sought indemnification for the settlement agreement between it and the ACLU, but TiZA Defendants argued that Islamic Relief may not recover its settlement payment because Islamic Relief cannot establish that the settlement was reasonable and made in good faith. TiZA Defendants' primary argument was, that until Islamic Relief and the ACLU produce an executed agreement that is approved by the Court, a motion to seek payment is premature.
Islamic Relief has submitted evidence that the estimated cost of continuing this litigation through trial would cost approximately $420,000, and that the settlement payment constitutes a cost of defense settlement that reflects Islamic Relief's judgment that it did not make sense to spend more money defending the lawsuit than the amount for which it could settle. (Doc. No. 511, Obitts Decl. ¶ 4.) Islamic Relief also submits that there is some risk that it could be found liable for the alleged Establishment Clause violations and attorney fees. Having reviewed the parties' arguments and considering the record in its totality, the Court concludes that Islamic Relief's settlement with the ACLU for $267,500 is reasonable and made in good faith.
Rule 54(b) provides:
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). In deciding whether to certify a judgment under Rule 54(b), the Court must determine that the judgment is final and "whether there is any just reason for delay." Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1980). Here, the Court determines that the April 20, 2011 Order represents a final judgment on Islamic Relief's and the Commissioner's cross-claims for indemnification. Moreover, the Court determines that there is no just reason for delaying entry of judgment on Islamic Relief's and the Commissioner's cross-claims. The indemnification claims are distinct from the other issues pending before the Court, and the issues underlying the Court's decision on the indemnification cross-claims will not be revisited by the Court. Accordingly, the Court grants both Islamic Relief's and the Commissioner's requests to direct entry of final judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
Based on the files, records, and proceedings herein, and for the reasons set forth above,
1. Plaintiff's Motion to Confirm Settlements (Doc. No. [547]) is
2. The Court will maintain jurisdiction over this matter to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement for one year.
3. The Court directs the ACLU and the Commissioner to jointly submit their Stipulation for Dismissal of Claims by American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota Against Commissioner Brenda Cassellius (Exhibit C to the Settlement Agreement) for the Court's execution.
4. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Jury Demands (Doc. No. [599]) is
5. Islamic Relief's Motion for Summary Judgment on Cross-Claim for Indemnification as Against TiZA (Doc. No. [509]) is
6. TiZA is liable to Islamic Relief for the $267,500 settlement payment that Islamic Relief made to the ACLU in settlement of the ACLU's claims against Islamic Relief.
7. Islamic Relief's (Doc. No. [509]) and the Commissioner's (Doc. No. [507]) requests to direct entry of final judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) are
8. The Clerk of Court shall enter final judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) on Islamic Relief's cross-claim for indemnification and the Commissioner's cross-claim for indemnification.
The Court also notes that the ACLU is free, consistent with the Court's ruling on the confidentiality of the supporting documents, to release or circulate the Stipulation of Facts as properly amended.