Huntsinger v. Roadway Specialty Devices, Inc.

Filing 7

ORDER: The parties' Joint Motion to Submit Settlement Agreements to the Court for In Camera Review 5 is DENIED. The parties are directed to file the Settlement Agreements for the Court's review within five days of the date of this Order. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 11/3/2009. (KAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION WESLEY A. HUNTSINGER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CASE NO: 8:09-cv-1798-T-33MAP

ROADWAY SPECIALTY DEVICES, INC., Defendant. _______________________________/ ORDER This matter is before the Court pursuant to the parties' Joint Motion to Submit Settlement Agreements to the Court for In Camera Review (the "Motion" Doc. # 5), which was filed on October 30, 2009. For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny the Motion. Analysis In this case, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant violated the terms of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, any See

settlement reached is subject to judicial scrutiny.

Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1353 (11th Cir. 1982). The parties in this case have reached a

settlement and request an Order allowing them to file the settlement documents in camera in an effort to protect the documents from public review: "The parties have carefully negotiated a settlement in this action in which the

confidentiality of the Parties' agreement is an integral provision of the overall settlement (and, thus, disclosure of the agreement to the public would deny [Defendant] the benefit of its bargain)." (Doc. # 5 at 2). Upon review of the Motion and of the entire file, the Court determines that the parties have not demonstrated good cause to support the relief requested. As explained by the

Eleventh Circuit in Brown v. Advantage Eng'g, Inc., 960 F.2d 1013, 1016 (11th Cir. 1992), "Once a matter is brought before a court for resolution, it is no longer solely the parties' case, but is also the public's case." American courts

recognize a general right "to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents." Nixon v. Warner Comms., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). The Eleventh Circuit has noted, "The operation of the courts and the judicial conduct of judges are matters of utmost public concern and the common-law right of access to judicial proceedings, an essential component of our system of justice, is instrumental in securing the integrity of the process." Romero v. Drummond Co., 480 F.3d 1234, 1245 (11th Cir. 2007)(internal citations omitted). The court further

explained, "This right of access includes the right to inspect and copy public records and documents. 2 This right of access

is not absolute, however.

The right of access does not apply

to discovery and, where it does apply, may be overcome by a showing of good cause." Id. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution also provides a qualified this right right of "has access a to trial limited

proceedings,

although

more

application in the civil context than it does in the criminal [context]." Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1310 (11th Cir. 2001). Where this

constitutional right of access applies, any denial of access requires a showing that it is necessitated by a compelling governmental interest and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest." Id. The document at issue in the Motion -- a settlement agreement in a FLSA case -- does not fall into one of the categories, such as discovery materials, that are generally shielded from public exposure. The parties' only argument in

favor of denying the public access is that the terms of the settlement require it. There is no suggestion, much less a

showing, that either party could suffer any harm if the public were to have access to the terms of the settlement. This is

simply not a case where it is necessary or appropriate to file the settlement documents in camera, and the parties have not 3

shown

good

cause

to

override

the

common

law

and

First

Amendment rights of the public to review court documents. Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: (1) The parties' Joint Motion to Submit Settlement Agreements to the Court for In Camera Review (Doc. # 5) is DENIED. (2) The parties are directed to file the Settlement

Agreements for the Court's review within five days of the date of this Order. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 3rd day of November, 2009.

Copies: All Counsel of Record

4