Johnson v. Bank of America NA

Filing 22

ORDER granting/denying in part 19 Joint Motion to Seal Confidential Settlement Agreement. No later than 6/6/17, the parties shall jointly file a copy of the settlement agreement on the docket redacting all references to the settlement amount or c omponents thereof in Sections 2, 2a and 2b of the agreement. The Clerk shall file under seal the unredacted version of the agreement currently lodged under seal at Document 21 . FURTHER ORDERED granting 20 Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement. FURTHER ORDERED dismissing with prejudice this action and directing the Clerk of Court to close the matter. Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 5/30/17.(MAP)

1

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Jamar Johnson,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-16-04410-PHX-JJT

Bank of America NA,

13

Defendant.

14
15

The Court has reviewed the parties’ Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement

16

(Doc. 20). Finding that the settlement to which the parties have agreed represents a fair

17

and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute within the meaning of the Fair Labor

18

Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., the Court will grant the Motion (Doc. 20) and

19

approve the settlement agreement. The Court also has reviewed the parties’ Joint Motion

20

for Leave to File Confidential Settlement Agreement Under Seal in Support of Joint

21

Motion for Approval of Settlement (Doc. 19). Upon consideration of the relevant

22

controlling authority, the Court will grant in part and deny in part that Motion (Doc. 19).

23

Kamakana v. City of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) provides that

24

a party ordinarily must show compelling reasons to keep a court document under seal.

25

This is because “the courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy

26

public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v.

27

Warner Commnc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978).

28

1

The presumption of access is based on the need for federal courts to have a

2

measure of accountability and, importantly, for the public to have confidence in the

3

administration of justice. See Valley Broad Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court__D. Nev., 798 F.2d

4

1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986) (the presumption of public access “promotes the public’s

5

understanding of the judicial process and of significant public events.”). The above point

6

is particularly meaningful in a case like this one. The parties place the settlement

7

agreement before the Court because they must; the FLSA requires the Court to determine

8

whether the agreement is fair and reasonable.

9

As the parties point out, the standard of showing may be reduced from

10

“compelling reasons” to “good cause” in certain circumstances for previously sealed

11

materials attached to discovery motions. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins., 331 F.3d

12

1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). The Ninth Circuit clarified the ambit of the good cause

13

standard in Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2015).

14

Chrysler made clear that where the material is attached to a motion that is “more than

15

tangentially related to the merits of a case,” the compelling reasons standard shall

16

continue to apply.1 809 F.3d at 1101. Where only tangentially related, the material may

17

be sealed with a showing of good cause. Id.

18

In the present case, the material the parties seek to seal in whole appears in a

19

settlement agreement that the Court must by law review and approve. It is hard to

20

imagine a document more core to the disposition of this matter. If upon review, the Court

21

rejects the settlement agreement, the matter continues; if it approves the agreement, the

22

matter will be disposed. In other words, the settlement agreement, in the context of an

23

FLSA matter, is anything but tangentially related. A showing of compelling reasons to

24
25
26
27
28

1

The parties argue that the good cause standard applies “because the parties have
not filed a dispositive motion.” (Doc. 19 p. 3.) This is precisely the basis for the district
court’s sealing of the challenged materials in Chrysler—and the argument the Ninth
Circuit rejected in reversing the lower court’s decision. The Court made clear that the test
was not whether the motion to which the materials at issue are attached is dispositive, but
whether the motion is more than tangential to the merits of the case or not.
-2-

1

seal the entire document is thus required, and the Court finds that no such showing has

2

been made.

3

An in-circuit case the parties cite in their Motion makes this clear. The court in

4

Hummel v. Bimbo Bakeries, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126077, *7-8 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 21,

5

2015), rejected the defendant’s unopposed motion to file the entire settlement agreement

6

in an FLSA matter under seal under circumstance very similar to this case, and in the face

7

of arguments indistinguishable from those the parties make here. After noting that the

8

legal requirement for a court to determine the fairness and reason of settlement

9

agreements in FLSA cases takes such cases outside the general class of cases where

10

settlement agreements ordinarily remain confidential, the court in Hummel noted the

11

public’s “independent interest in assuring that employees’ wages are fair, and thus do not

12

endanger the national health and well-being.” Id. (citing Joo v. Kitchen Table, Inc.,

13

763 F. Supp. 2d 643, 645 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).

14

The court in Hummel rejected the defendant’s argument that the parties’ interest in

15

confidentiality alone or the defendant’s desire to avoid “copycat” litigation by other

16

employee-plaintiffs constituted a compelling reason to file the agreement under seal in

17

light of the public interests at stake in FLSA actions. Id.; see also Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1137

18

(holding that exposure to liability in other actions is not a compelling reason outweighing

19

the presumption of public access). While Hummel is not controlling, the Court here finds

20

its reasoning persuasive.

21

The Court therefore will deny the parties’ motion insofar as it seeks to seal the

22

entire settlement agreement. As the court found in Hummel, however, the Court here

23

finds that the parties have satisfied the compelling interest test to justify the sealing of the

24

settlement amounts themselves, as the Court recognizes the public interest in not

25

discouraging settlements. This is particularly true, as here, in the context of an individual

26

settlement. For the above reasons,

27

IT IS ORDERED granting in part and denying in part the parties’ Joint Motion for

28

Leave to File Confidential Settlement Agreement Under Seal in Support of Joint Motion

-3-

1

for Approval of Settlement (Doc. 19). No later than June 6, 2017, the parties shall jointly

2

file a copy of the settlement agreement on the docket redacting all references to the

3

settlement amount or components thereof in Sections 2, 2a and 2b of the agreement. The

4

Clerk shall file under seal the unredacted version of the agreement currently lodged under

5

seal at Document 21.

6
7
8
9
10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting the parties’ Joint Motion for Approval of
Settlement in this matter (Doc. 20).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing with prejudice this action and directing
the Clerk of Court to close the matter.
Dated this 30th day of May, 2017.

11
12
13

Honorable John J. Tuchi
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-4-