Salazar, et al. v. SYSCO Central California, Inc.

Filing 19

ORDER Granting 18 Joint Request to Seal Documents, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/5/2017. (Gaumnitz, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

JESUS SALAZAR and MATTHEW
VALENCIA,
Plaintiffs,

13

ORDER GRANTING JOINT REQUEST TO
SEAL DOCUMENTS

v.

14
15

No. 1:15-cv-01758-DAD-SKO

SYSCO CENTRAL CALIFORNIA, INC.,

(Doc. No. 18)

Defendant.

16
17

On December 2, 2016, the parties filed a joint stipulation and motion for approval of a

18
19

settlement pursuant to California’s Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”). (Doc. No. 15.)

20

Therein, the parties stated that after engaging in mediation, they had agreed to a settlement of

21

plaintiffs’ claims, including their representative claims under PAGA. On December 21, 2016, the

22

court issued an order directing the parties to file supplemental briefing, including a copy of the

23

fully executed settlement agreement for the court to review and approve. (Doc. No. 16.) On

24

December 29, 2016, the parties submitted supplemental briefing as well as a request to seal

25

portions of the settlement agreement not relevant to the court’s consideration and approval. For

26

the reasons set forth below, the parties’ request to seal is granted.

27

/////

28

/////
1

1
2

LEGAL STANDARD
There is strong presumption in favor of public access to court records. See Phillips v. Gen

3

Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 2002). However, “access to judicial records is not

4

absolute.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). The

5

Ninth Circuit has distinguished between the public’s interest in accessing court records filed in

6

connection with dispositive and non-dispositive motions. See In re Midland Nat’l Life Ins. Co.,

7

686 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2012); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1172; Foltz v. State Farm Mut.

8

Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135–36 (9th Cir. 2003); Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1213.

9

District courts in this circuit have differed on whether a motion to approve a settlement

10

agreement is dispositive for sealing purposes. See Select Portfolio Servicing v. Valentino, No. C

11

12-0334 SI, 2013 WL 1800039, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2013) (collecting cases). Nevertheless,

12

this court concludes that because settlement of claims brought pursuant to PAGA require some

13

degree of public oversight, see Cal. Lab. Code § 2699(l)(2), and because the proposed settlement

14

agreement before the court will bind plaintiffs and other aggrieved employees thereby releasing

15

them from certain claims, the parties’ motion is dispositive for sealing purposes and the

16

“compelling reasons” standard should apply here. See, e.g., Ambrosino v. Home Depot U.S.A.,

17

Inc., No. 11CV1319 L MDD, 2014 WL 931780, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2014) (applying

18

“compelling reasons” standard in FLSA settlement context); M.P. ex rel. Provins v. Lowe’s

19

Companies, Inc., No. 2:11-CV-01985-GEB, 2012 WL 1574801, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 3, 2012)

20

(applying “compelling reasons” standard for approval of minor’s compromise); see also Hall v.

21

Cty. of Fresno, No. 1:11-CV-2047-LJO-BAM, 2016 WL 374550, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2016)

22

(noting propriety of “compelling reasons” standard in the class action settlement and EEOC

23

consent decree contexts).

24

To demonstrate compelling reasons, a party is “required to present articulable facts

25

identifying the interests favoring continued secrecy, and to show that these specific interests

26

[overcome] the presumption of access by outweighing the public interest in understanding the

27

judicial process.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1181 (internal citations, quotation marks, and emphasis

28

omitted). The party seeking to seal a particular record bears the burden of meeting this standard.
2

1

Id. at 1178; Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. “When sealing documents attached to a dispositive pleading,

2

a district court must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its

3

ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1182 (internal

4

citation, quotation marks, and emphasis omitted); see also Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605

5

F.3d 665, 679 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied sub nom. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc. v. Pintos, 562

6

U.S. 1134 (2011) (vacating and remanding district court’s denial of a sealing request where the

7

court applied merely the good cause standard in addressing documents filed in connection with

8

summary judgment motions). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the

9

public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might

10

become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite,

11

promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447

12

F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 589 (1978)). “The

13

‘compelling reasons’ standard is invoked even if the dispositive motion, or its attachments, were

14

previously filed under seal or protective order.” Id.

15
16
17

DISCUSSION
Here, the parties request that this court grant them leave to file a copy of the executed
settlement agreement with the following sections redacted:

18



Section 1, subsections A–E, on page 2;

19



The final two complete paragraphs of Section 1 (immediately following subsection

20

F and preceding Section 2), on page 3;

21



Section 10.5, on page 7; and

22



The name, signature, and title of the signatory for defendant Sysco Central

23
24

California, Inc.
The court finds that the parties have presented sufficiently “compelling reasons” for the

25

sealing these portions of the settlement agreement. These sections of the agreement pertain to

26

aspects of the parties’ agreement that are not relevant to settlement of plaintiff’s PAGA claims.

27

Thus, but for plaintiffs’ PAGA claims, the parties would have had no reason to submit these

28

portions of the agreement to the court for approval, or otherwise publicly disclose these terms.
3

1

Accordingly, in recognition of the parties’ interests in keeping the terms of their non-PAGA-

2

related settlement terms confidential and the minimal public interest in disclosure, the court finds

3

good cause to grant the parties’ request to seal.

4

CONCLUSION

5

For the reasons set forth above,

6

1. The parties’ joint request to seal portions of the settlement agreement (see Doc. No.

7
8

18) is granted;
2. The parties are directed to submit copies of (1) their Joint Request to Seal Documents;

9

(2) the Declaration of Aaron M. Rutschman, including an unredacted copy of the

10

settlement agreement; and (3) their proposed order, to the Clerk of the Court within

11

seven days of the date of this order, to be filed under seal in accordance with Local

12

Rule 141(e)(2)(i); and

13

3. The parties are further directed to electronically file, within seven days of the date of

14

this order, a redacted copy the settlement agreement in support of their joint

15

stipulation and motion for approval, with the following sections redacted:

16



Section 1, subsections A–E, on page 2;

17



The final two complete paragraphs of Section 1 (immediately following

18

subsection F and preceding Section 2), on page 3;

19



Section 10.5, on page 7; and

20



The name, signature, and title of the signatory for defendant Sysco Central

21
22
23

California, Inc.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 5, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
4