STEVENS v. TD BANK, N.A.

[Docket No. 67]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
JEFFREY STEVENS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
TD BANK, N.A.,
Defendant.
Civil A. No. 24-08311
(RMB/EAP)
OPINION & ORDER TO SEAL
RENÉE MARIE BUMB, Chief United States District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant TD Bank, N.A.’s
(“Defendant” or “TD Bank”) unopposed motion to seal [Docket No. 67 (Def.’s Mot.)]
pursuant to L. Civ. R. 5.3(c).
On October 16, 2025, the Court conducted a Pre-Motion Conference and
directed the parties to propose a stipulated schedule for the filing of a second amended
complaint by Plaintiff Jeffrey Stevens (“Plaintiff” or “Stevens”) and Defendant’s
responsive motion to dismiss, as well as a limited exchange of information under
Federal Rule of Evidence 408. [Docket No. 53]. Unfortunately, the Rule 408 process
proved unfruitful, and on April 10, 2026, Plaintiff filed a letter (“Plaintiff’s Letter”)
requesting a status conference and leave to commence limited formal discovery
Case 1:24-cv-08311-RMB-EAH Document 83 Filed 10/08/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID:
<pageID>

2
[Docket No. 61].1 Then, on April 13, 2026, Defendant filed a response [Docket No.
62] alleging that Plaintiff’s Letter inappropriately disclosed information received
pursuant to Rule 408 and requesting the Court to remove it from the docket or
temporarily seal it, which this Court did. [Docket No. 63.] Defendant immediately
thereafter filed another letter [Docket No. 64] (“Defendant’s Letter”) responding to
Plaintiff’s Letter. Defendant now seeks to seal that letter.
For the reasons expressed below, Defendant’s Motion to Seal [Def.’s Mot.] is
GRANTED.
I. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Court is satisfied the Defendant’s Letter is entitled to protection. Although
the public holds a common-law right of access to judicial proceedings and records,
Goldstein v. Forbes (In re Cendant Corp.), 260 F.3d 183, 192 (3d Cir. 2001) (citing
Littlejohn v. BIC Corp., 851 F.2d 673, 677–78 (3d Cir. 1988)), courts may restrict public
access to certain documents where “the material is the kind of information that courts
will protect,” In re Avandia Mktg., Sales Pracs. & Prods. Liab. Litig., 924 F.3d 662, 672
(3d Cir. 2019) (quoting Miller v. Indiana Hosp., 16 F.3d 549, 551 (3d Cir. 1994)), and
“good cause” exists to protect the materials and information at issue. JJD Elec., LLC
v. SunPower Corp., Sys., 738 F. Supp. 3d 569, 576 (D.N.J. 2024) (quoting Securimetrics,
1 The Court subsequently ruled that no discovery shall take place until the Court
resolve the pending Motion to Dismiss. [Docket Nos. 57, 65.] On June 30, 2026, the
Court denied the Motion in part and converted the Motion to Dismiss to a Motion for
Summary Judgment. [Docket Nos. 70, 71.] Since then, Magistrate Judge Ethan A.
Hougah has met with the parties regarding limited discovery. [Docket Nos. 74, 78.]
Case 1:24-cv-08311-RMB-EAH Document 83 Filed 10/08/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID:
<pageID>

3
Inc. v. Iridian Techs., Inc., 2006 WL 827889, at *2 (D.N.J. Mar. 30, 2006)). Good cause
is established when a party shows that disclosure will cause “clearly defined and
serious injury to the party seeking closure.” Securimetrics, 2006 WL 827889, at *2
(quoting Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 786 (3d Cir.1994)).
Under Local Civil Rule 5.3(c), a party that moves to seal must describe the
following: “(a) the nature of the materials or proceedings at issue; (b) the legitimate
private or public interests which warrant the relief sought; (c) the clearly defined and
serious injury that would result if the relief sought is not granted; (d) why a less
restrictive alternative to the relief sought is not available; (e) any prior order sealing
the same materials in the pending action; and (f) the identity of any party or nonparty
known to be objecting to the sealing request.” L. Civ. R. 5.3(c)(3). Considering these
factors in turn, the Court finds as follows:
(a) The nature of the Defendant’s Letter favors sealing because it contains
information on the Rule 408 process. Settlement communications and negotiations
are generally considered confidential by courts. Miller Indus. Towing Equip. Inc. v. NRC
Indus., 659 F. Supp. 3d 451, 469 (D.N.J. 2023) (citing Morgan v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
2015 WL 3882748, at *2 (D.N.J. June 23, 2015)).
(b) The legitimate private or public interests support sealing. Courts have long
recognized a strong public interest in parties engaging in Rule 408 exchanges to settle
disputes and conserve limited judicial resources. Cambria Co. LLC v. Hirsch Glass Corp.,
2023 WL 6387680, at *4–5 (D.N.J 2023) (citing Bank of Am. Nat. Tr. & Sav. Ass’n v.
Hotel Rittenhouse Assocs., 800 F.2d 339, 344 (3d Cir. 1986)). To engage in the candid
Case 1:24-cv-08311-RMB-EAH Document 83 Filed 10/08/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID:
<pageID>

4
communications required to achieve those ends, parties must feel confident that their
settlement communication will remain confidential. See id. (“In light of the strong
policy favoring the settlement of disputes and the candid communications that must
happen to achieve those ends, it is troubling to say the least that the Court needs even
to say that parties and their counsel ought to keep confidential settlement
communications confidential.”). And while Rule 408 governs the admissibility of
settlement communications at trial, courts in the Third Circuit have relied on the
policy behind the rule to prevent the disclosure of confidential settlement
communications in public filings. See, e.g., Philadelphia Church of Our Savior v. Concord
Tp., 2004 WL 1824356, at *2 (E.D. Pa. 2004) (“While Rule 408 does not apply to
pleadings directly, repeated decisions from this Court have held that allegations in a
complaint may be stricken . . . as violative of these policies.”); Cambria, 2023 WL
6387680, at *7 (“the Court concludes that Rule 408’s underlying purpose to encourage
settlement warranted protection of [a party’s] settlement position from public
disclosure.”). Therefore, the legitimate interests served by Rule 408 support sealing,
and there is no legitimate countervailing interest in the public disclosure of confidential
communications which would undermine the purpose of Rule 408. The Defendant’s
motion to seal is also unopposed by the Plaintiff.
(c) Defendant would suffer a clearly defined and serious injury if the relief
sought is not granted because the Defendant’s Letter contains confidential business
information related to the marketing technologies Defendant employs. See, e.g.,
Avandia Litig., 924 F.3d at 679 (“[C]ourts may permissibly seal judicial records ‘where
Case 1:24-cv-08311-RMB-EAH Document 83 Filed 10/08/26 Page 4 of 6 PageID:
<pageID>

5
they are sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive
standing.’”) (quoting Republic of Philippines v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 949 F.2d 653,
662 (3d Cir. 1991)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G) (allowing courts to protect
“trade secret[s] or other confidential research, development, or commercial
information[.]”).
(d) There is no less restrictive alternative to sealing the Defendant’s Letter. The
three page letter is an update on the progression of settlement communications
between the parties and discusses confidential information shared under the protection
of Rule 408. This Court has already sealed the Plaintiff’s Letter [Docket No. 61]
containing details of the same.
In consideration of the factors above, the Court concludes that good cause exists
to seal the Defendant’s Letter [Docket No. 64].
II. ORDER TO SEAL
THIS MATTER having been presented to the Court by Defendant on a Motion
to Seal Defendant’s Letter [Docket No. 64], which remains under temporary seal
pending the resolution of this Motion; and, the Court having considered the papers
filed in connection with this Motion, and no opposition having been timely filed, and
for good cause shown:
Case 1:24-cv-08311-RMB-EAH Document 83 Filed 10/08/26 Page 5 of 6 PageID:
<pageID>

6
IT IS on this 8th day of October, 2026,
ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion [Docket No. 67] is hereby GRANTED,
and Docket No. 64 shall remain and is permanently SEALED on the docket.
s/ Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
Chief United States District Judge
DATED: October 8th, 2026
Case 1:24-cv-08311-RMB-EAH Document 83 Filed 10/08/26 Page 6 of 6 PageID:
<pageID>