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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?