Sibal v. American Directions Core LLC et al

Filing 28

ORDER DENYING JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL by Judge Jon S. Tigar denying 26 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/22/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CHRISTINE MAY SIBAL,

Case No. 15-cv-02279-JST

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER DENYING JOINT
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL

v.
9
10

AMERICAN DIRECTIONS CORE LLC, et
al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

Re: ECF No. 26

Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. ECF No.
26. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the motion.
I.

15

BACKGROUND
This is a wage and hour case alleging failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay

16

California overtime, failure to pay federal overtime, failure to provide meal breaks, failure to

17

provide accurate itemized wage statements and maintain adequate records, and failure to pay

18

wages at termination. See ECF No. 1-1 (Complaint). On November 27, 2015, the parties filed a

19

Joint Motion for Approval of Fair Labor Standard Act (“FLSA”) Settlement and Dismissal of

20

Action with Prejudice. See ECF No. 25. The parties filed the instant motion to seal in connection

21

with their motion for settlement approval. See ECF No. 26.

22
23

II.

LEGAL STANDARD
A party seeking to seal a document filed with the court must (1) comply with Civil Local

24

Rule 79-5; and (2) rebut the “a strong presumption in favor of access” that applies to all

25

documents other than grand jury transcripts or pre-indictment warrant materials. Kamakana v.

26

City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation and internal quotations

27

omitted).

28

As to the first prong, “[a] sealing order may issue only upon a request that establishes that

1

the document, or portions thereof, are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled

2

to protection under the law.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). Requests to file under seal must be “narrowly

3

tailored,” id., and must be accompanied by “[a] declaration establishing that the document sought

4

to be filed under seal, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79–5(d)(1)(A).
As to the second prong, the showing required for overcoming the “strong presumption in

5
6

favor of access” depends on the type of motion to which the document is attached. When a party

7

seeks to file materials in connection with a dispositive motion, the presumption can be overcome

8

only if the party presents “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh

9

the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at
1178-79 (internal citation omitted). “The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more,

12

compel the court to seal its records.” Id. at 1179. On the other hand, when a party seeks to file

13

sealed discovery materials in connection with a non-dispositive motion, the sealing party need not

14

meet the ‘compelling reasons’ standard “because those documents are often unrelated, or only

15

tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” Id. (citation and internal quotations

16

omitted). In that case, a party must make a “particularized showing under the good cause standard

17

of Rule 26(c)” to justify the sealing of the materials. Id. at 1180 (internal citation and internal

18

quotation marks omitted).

19

A district court must “articulate [the] . . . reasoning or findings underlying its decision to

20

seal.” Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct.

21

2374 (2012).

22

III.

23

DISCUSSION
FLSA claims may not be settled without approval of either the Secretary of the Department

24

of Labor or a district court. Seminiano v. Xyris Enter., Inc., 602 F. App’x 682, 683 (9th Cir.

25

2015). Thus, while settlement agreements in other cases generally remain confidential, in FLSA

26

cases they are filed with the court and become judicial records. As judicial records, they are

27

subject to a presumption in favor of public access. See Baker v. Dolgencorp, Inc., 818 F. Supp. 2d

28

940, 943 (E.D. Va. 2011) (“an FLSA settlement agreement, submitted to a court for judicial
2

1

approval, is a judicial record that triggers the common law right of public access”); Joo v. Kitchen

2

Table, Inc., 763 F. Supp. 2d 643, 647 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (“the overwhelming consensus of district

3

courts . . . hold that an FLSA settlement cannot be sealed absent some showing that overcomes the

4

presumption of public access”); Kianpour v. Rest. Zone, Inc., No. 11–cv–0802, 2011 WL

5

3880463, at *2 (D.Md. Aug. 30, 2011) (stating that a vast majority of recent cases addressing this

6

issue apply the presumption of public access to FLSA settlements).
Within the Ninth Circuit, courts have applied the compelling reasons standard set forth in

7
8

Kamakana to parties’ motions to file under seal FLSA agreements. See, e.g., Duran v. Hershey

9

Co., No. 14-CV-01184-RS, 2015 WL 4945931, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2015) (FLSA
agreements are subject to a “strong presumption in favor of public access, which cannot be

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

overcome absent compelling reasons”), at *1; see also In re Sepracor Inc. Fair Labor Standards

12

Act (FLSA) Litig., No. CV-09-1409-PHX-DGC, 2009 WL 3253947, at *1 (D. Ariz. Oct. 8, 2009).

13

In the instant action, Defendants request that the Court seal the settlement agreement

14

because “the confidential settlement agreement has little value to the public and implicates

15

confidential business matters.” ECF No. 26-1, Declaration of Christina N. Goodrich (Goodrich

16

Decl.) ¶ 4. Defendants have not met their burden of demonstrating that the agreement should be

17

sealed.
Defendants first argue that because this is a single-plaintiff action that does not involve

18
19

“admissions of widespread violations of law,” there is only a “de minimus interest in publicizing

20

the terms of the parties’ settlement.” Id. However, as previously noted, FLSA settlements are part

21

of the judicial record to which there is a strong presumption of public access.1 See Duran, 2015

22
1

23
24
25
26
27
28

The parties cite to King v. MS Companies, LLC, No. 2:13-CV- 02277-MHH, 2015 WL 3657649
(N.D. Ala. June 12, 2015), to support their argument that sealing is appropriate where the
settlement applies to an individual plaintiff rather than a collective action. See ECF No. 26 at 2.
The court in that case permitted the parties to file a settlement agreement on the public record with
the settlement payment amounts redacted. See 2015 WL 3657649, at *3.
King is not persuasive here, for several reasons. First, as the King court acknowledged, “absent a
showing of good cause, the Court [typically] does not allow the parties to file sealed or redacted
FLSA settlement agreements because omitting the agreements from the public record can frustrate
the goals of the FLSA.” 2015 WL 3657649 at *3. Second, the King court’s reasons for deviating
from this general rule are not persuasive. Third, a number of other district courts have declined to
seal settlement agreements in wage and hour actions brought by individual plaintiffs. See, e.g.,
3

1

WL 4945931, at *1; Luo v. Zynga Inc., No. 13-CV-00186 NC, 2013 WL 5814763, at *2 (N.D.

2

Cal. Oct. 29, 2013). Additionally, in FLSA cases, “the public has an independent interest in

3

assuring that employees’ wages are fair.” Bouzzi v. F & J Pine Rest., LLC, 841 F. Supp. 2d 635,

4

639 (E.D.N.Y. 2012).
Defendants then state that the confidentiality provision of the settlement agreement “is a

5
6

material bargained-for term of the parties’ settlement.” Goodrich Decl. ¶ 4. However, “[t]he

7

existence of a confidentiality provision, without more, does not constitute good cause, let alone a

8

compelling reason, to seal.” Luo, 2013 WL 5814763, at *3; see also Duran, 2015 WL 4945931, at

9

*1 (rejecting the argument that sealing is warranted because of a “heavily-negotiated”
confidentiality provision), Joo, 763 F. Supp. 2d at 648 (stating that district courts have “roundly

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

rejected” that a confidentiality provision justifies sealing). An agreement negotiated between

12

private parties almost by definition will not give adequate consideration to the interests of the

13

public in access to that agreement.
Finally, Defendants contend that that the “agreement is protected due to the inclusion of

14
15

non-public, confidential business information.” Goodrich Decl. ¶ 5. The parties, however, have

16

not identified any “specific prejudice or harm” that would result from disclosure of the settlement

17

agreement. See Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11

18

(9th Cir. 2002) (“the party seeking protection bears the burden of showing specific prejudice or

19

harm will result . . .”).
In short, the parties have not provided a compelling reason2 sufficient to justify sealing the

20
21

settlement agreement in this case.3

22
23
24

Lyons v. Gerhard’s Inc., 14–06693, 2015 WL 4378514, at *3 (E.D. Pa. July 16, 2015); Fonseka v.
Alfredhouse Eldercare, Inc., GJH–14–3498, 2015 WL 3457224, at *2-3 (D. Md. May 28, 2015);
Scott v. Memory Company, LLC, 09–cv–290–SRW, 2010 WL 4683621, at *1–2 (M.D. Ala. Nov.
10, 2010).

25

2

26

3

27
28

The Court would reach the same result even if the standard were good cause.

In addition to their failure to provide a compelling reason to justify sealing the settlement
agreement, the parties also failed to comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5(b). That rule requires that
a sealing request be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” The parties
proposed to redact the entirety of the settlement agreement and release. See ECF No, 26-4, Ex. A
(redacted).
4

CONCLUSION

1
2
3
4

Because no compelling reason exists to rebut the strong presumption of access in this case,
the Court denies the Joint Administrative Motion to File Under Seal.
By January 4, 2016, the parties must do one of the following: (1) file a notice informing

5

the Court that they wish to withdraw their motion seeking approval of their settlement, or (2) file

6

an unsealed copy of their settlement agreement as a public record. Should the parties elect to file

7

an unsealed copy of their agreement, the hearing date on the underlying motion for approval will

8

remain as originally set. The Court will then take the motion under submission.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 22, 2015
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5