United States District Court, D. Columbia.
AMERICAN PROFESSIONAL AGENCY, INC., Plaintiff, Counter
Defendant: Harvey A. Levin, Kathleen E. Kraft, LEAD
ATTORNEYS, THOMPSON COBURN, LLP, Washington, DC; Robert L.
Folks, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, ROBERT L. FOLKS &
ASSOCIATES, LLP, MELVILLE, NY.
NASW ASSURANCE SERVICES, INC., NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL
WORKERS, INC., Defendants, Counter Claimants: Robert Holt
Myers, Jr., LEAD ATTORNEY, MORRIS, MANNING & MARTIN, LLP,
Washington, DC; David A. Rabin, William Andrew McNeil, PRO
HAC VICE, MORRIS, MANNING & MARTIN, LLP, Atlanta, GA.
PUBLIC CITIZEN, INC., Amicus: Allison Marcy Zieve, Julie A.
Murray, LEAD ATTORNEYS, PUBLIC CITIZEN LITIGATION GROUP,
OPINION AND ORDER
Kessler, United States District Judge.
American Professional Agency, Inc. (" Plaintiff" or
" APA" ) brought this diversity action against NASW
Assurance Services, Inc. and the National Association of
Social Workers, Inc. (" Defendants" ) for breach of
contract. Defendants filed a counterclaim against Plaintiff,
alleging violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051,
et seq., and various common law torts. The parties have now
reached a settlement agreement resolving all claims.
matter is presently before the Court on the Plaintiff's
Motion Requesting Sealing of Consent Order and Judgment [Dkt.
No. 38]. Upon consideration of the Motion, an amicus curiae
brief, the entire record herein, and for the
reasons stated below, Plaintiff's Motion is
September 7, 2012, APA filed a publicly-available Complaint
alleging that Defendants had breached a contract they had
with APA whereby APA provided insurance services to Defendant
National Association of Social Workers, Inc. ("
NASA" ) and an NASA affiliate would promote and market
the insurance program [Dkt. No. 1]. Compl. ¶ ¶ 2-5;
October 1, 2012, Defendants filed a publicly-available Answer
and Counterclaim [Dkt. No. 4]. They alleged, among other
things, that Plaintiff violated the Lanham Act's
prohibition on unfair competition by using false, deceptive
and misleading consumer advertising. Counterclaim ¶
November 19, 2012, APA amended its complaint to include
Lanham Act claims [Dkt. No. 19]. Am. Compl. ¶ ¶
100-108. On February 12, 2013, Defendants filed an Answer to
the Amended Complaint and their First Amended Counterclaim
[Dkt. No. 32].
April 11, 2013, the Parties filed a Joint Motion to Approve
Consent Judgment [Dkt. No. 34] and a Joint Motion for Leave
to File Document Under Seal [Dkt. No. 35]. They indicated
that they had agreed upon the terms of a Consent Order, but
that " resolution of the matters in this case depends in
part on maintaining the confidentiality of the terms of the
Consent Order and Judgment." Jt. Mot. for Leave to File
Doc. Under Seal ¶ 5.
April 16, 2013, the Court denied the Motion without prejudice
and ordered the Parties to file a motion to seal the Consent
Order and Judgment that addressed the factors relevant to
sealing under D.C. Circuit precedent. [Dkt. No. 37]. On May
7, 2013, APA filed the instant Motion Requesting Sealing of
Consent Order and Judgment [Dkt. No. 38] (" Motion"
). Defendants neither joined nor opposed that Motion. On May
17, 2013, this Court appointed Public Citizen to submit an
amicus curiae brief on the issue of the sealing of the
Consent Order and Judgment [Dkt. No. 39]. On June 3, 2013,
the amicus curiae brief was filed [Dkt No. 42].