This endorsement addresses the importance of the open court principle in the context of motions or applications for approval of settlements reached by, or on behalf of, minors or persons under a disability.
The plaintiffs sought an order dispensing with service of relevant materials on the opposing party, citing solicitor-client and litigation-settlement privilege.
The court reviewed the legal framework for dispensing with service and sealing orders, emphasizing the high bar set by the open court principle and the Sierra Club criteria.
The court found the evidence insufficient to justify dispensing with service, concluding that claims of privilege alone are generally not enough to override the public interest in transparency and the court's parens patriae jurisdiction in such matters.
The plaintiffs' request to dispense with service was dismissed, and they were ordered to serve the defendants with the complete motion record.
