Barkley et al v. Pizza Hut of America, Inc. et al

Filing 248

ORDER granting 247 Motion to Seal. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 5/11/2017. (VMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
AL FATA; BRIAN PHILLIPS; and
JERRY J. WALSH,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 6:14-cv-376-Orl-37DCI

PIZZA HUT OF AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant.
_____________________________________
ORDER
The parties to this putative Florida Minimum Wage Act class action have moved
to file under seal: (1) their forthcoming unopposed motion for final approval of the class
action settlement, attorney fees and expenses, and service award payments (“Final
Approval Motion”); (2) the declaration of Plaintiffs’ attorney, Jeremiah Frei-Pearson
(“Declaration”); and (3) the confidential report of mediator Hunter R. Hughes, III
(“Report”). (Doc. 247 (“Motion to Seal”).) In addition to sealing, Plaintiffs request to file
redacted versions of the Final Approval Motion and the Declaration on the public docket.
(Id. at 2, 7.)
On three prior occasions, the Court has permitted the parties to file documents
under seal or in redacted form, including the Report and previous motions related to
preliminary settlement approval. (See Docs. 164, 186, 214.) But history alone does not
dictate the result here, as Plaintiffs must still comply with the procedural requirements
set forth in Local Rule 1.09(a). See Mobile Shelter Sys. USA, Inc. v. Grate Pallet Solutions,
-1-

LLC, No. 3:10-cv-978-J-37JBT, 2011 WL 5357843, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 1, 2011) (noting that
a court may not simply rubber stamp a stipulation to seal the record). Additionally, the
Court must consider the public’s common law right to “inspect and copy judicial records
and public documents.” In re Alexander Grant & Co., 820 F.2d 352, 355 (11th Cir. 1987)
(per curiam). A party may overcome the “common law right of access” if it is able to show
that good cause exists. Romero v. Drummond Co., 480 F.3d 1234, 1246 (11th Cir. 2007);
MEDAI, Inc. v. Quantros, Inc., No. 6:12-cv-840-Orl-37GJK, 2012 WL 2512007, at *2
(M.D. Fla. June 29, 2012). To determine whether a party has met this burden, the Court
must balance the public’s right of access against the party’s interest in keeping the
information confidential. Romero, 480 F.3d at 1246.
Upon consideration, the Court finds that: (1) Plaintiffs have complied with
Local Rule 1.09(a); and (2) the Motion to Seal sufficiently balances the public’s right of
access and the parties’ interest in keeping the specified information confidential. Hence
the Motion to Seal is due to be granted.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1.

Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion to File Under Seal (Doc. 247) is GRANTED.

2.

Upon submission, the Clerk is DIRECTED to file and maintain the
following documents under seal pending further Order—(1) Plaintiffs’
forthcoming unopposed motion for final approval of the class action
settlement, attorney fees and expenses, and service award payments; (2) the
forthcoming declaration of Plaintiffs’ attorney, Jeremiah Frei-Pearson; and
(3) the confidential report of mediator Hunter R. Hughes, III.
-2-

3.

Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to file redacted versions of the Final Approval
Motion and the Declaration on the public docket.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on May 11, 2017.

Copies to:
Counsel of Record

-3-