To that end, courts evaluate the public interests and private interests in a case to determine whether vacatur is justified by exceptional circumstances. Compare BMC, LLC, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56178, at *4 (granting motion to vacate judgment after finding that private interests of the parties in settling matter, which was contingent on vacatur of certain sanction orders, outweighed public interests in preserving finality of judgments and development of decisional law), with Mattel, Inc. v. Goldberger Doll Mfg. Co., 236 F.R.D. 175, 177 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (denying motion to vacate after finding no exceptional circumstances that outweighed public interests in judicial precedents and resolution of legal disputes through orderly procedures even though global settlement was contingent on vacatur). B. Application

And, as Plaintiff notes in its motion (Dkt. No. 72 at 8), the Opinion and Order has already been published in a reporter and will continue to be available for citation by nonparties, see Island Intellectual Prop., LLC v. StoneCastle Asset Mgmt. LLC, 463 F. Supp. 3d 490 (S.D.N.Y. 2020). Although Plaintiff filed a series of patent infringement claims a decade ago, this previous "aggressiveness" is of little significance today, cf. Mattel, Inc. v. Goldberger Doll Mfg. Co., 236 F.R.D. 175, 177 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (holding that the plaintiff's litigiousness, and the likelihood that the plaintiff would file analogous cases in the future, created a public interest in the judgment), when "no nonparties appear to be [] impacted by the decision sought to be vacated," Tommy Hilfiger Licensing, Inc., 2002 WL 31654958, at *2. On balance, the public interest, complemented by the parties' private interest in settling their numerous disputes, favors vacatur.

Similarly, the Court finds that granting the Rule 60(b)(6) motion would not serve the public interest. SeeMattel, Inc. v. Goldberger Doll Mfg. Co., 236 F.R.D. 175, 177 (S.D.N.Y.2006) (denying Rule 60(b)(6) motion to vacate because there was a public interest in knowing the court's factual findings and legal reasoning). According to the District, the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act requires a trial court to dismiss claims, with prejudice, and prior to conducting discovery, unless " the person claiming defamation can demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits."

This falls far short of the required showing of exceptional circumstances. See, e.g., Young v. Cooper Cameron Corp., 04 Civ. 5968 (LTS)(GWG), 2008 WL 1748462 at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2008) (Gorenstein, M.J.) (Report & Recommendation) (finding no exceptional circumstances where parties merely contended that settlement was "important"); Mattel v. Goldberger Doll Mfg. Co., 236 F.R.D. 175, 177 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (Rakoff, D.J.) (finding no exceptional circumstances in the fact that the proposed vacatur was part of a characteristic settlement). At oral argument, Ms. Clarke's counsel explained that the plaintiff in Zomber had agreed to accept an amount lower than the verdict.

In determining whether a proposed settlement constitutes an exceptional circumstance that justifies the vacatur of a district court order, opinion, or judgment, courts weigh the private interests served by settlement and vacatur against the public interests prejudiced thereby. See Austin v. Ford, 181 F.R.D. 283, 284-86 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); see also Mattel, Inc. v. Goldberger Doll Mfg. Co., 236 F.R.D. 175, 176-77 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); In re Dubrowsky, 268 B.R. 6, 7-10 (E.D.N.Y. 2001); United States v. Reid, 96 Cv. 2004 (ILG), 2000 WL 1843291, at *2-*3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2000); Carter v. Rosenberg Estis, P.C., 95 Cv. 10439 (DLC), 1999 WL 13036, at *2-*3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 1999); Jeweler's Vigilance Comm., Inc. v. Vitale Inc., 177 F.R.D. 184, 187-88 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). Assuming that this balancing framework applies in the instant case, the Court finds that vacatur is warranted because of the weak public interest in continued publication of the D O, and the stronger private interest in vacatur.