Marshall v. Good Vocations, Inc.
Filing
27
ORDER denying 25 Motion for Leave to File Proposed Settlement Under Seal; denying 26 Motion for Settlement; denying 26 Motion to Dismiss. Within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order, the parties must: (1) file on the public docket a second motion for approval of settlement agreement with an amended agreement appended, or (2) submit a report setting forth the status of settlement discussions. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 11/09/2012. (thb) Modified on 11/9/2012 (thb).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
RONALD A. MARSHALL,
Plaintiff,
*
*
*
*
*
V.
*
GOOD VOCATIONS, INC.,
Defendant.
CV 111-200
*
*
*
ORDER
Presently pending before the Court are the parties' Joint
Motion for Leave to File Proposed Settlement Agreement Under Seal
(doc. no. 25) and Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement and
Dismissal With Prejudice (doc. no. 26) . Plaintiff filed suit
against Defendant seeking to recover unpaid wages allegedly
withheld in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
The parties have entered a settlement agreement and are currently
requesting that the Court file the agreement under seal, approve
the settlement agreement, and dismiss the action.
Unlike private settlement agreements, FLSA settlement
agreements are approved by a court and become part of the judicial
record.
Webb v. CVS Caremark Corp., No. 5:11-CV-106, 2011 WL
6743284, at
*1 (M.D. Ga. Dec. 23, 2011) .
Therefore, they are
subject to the presumption of public access to the judicial
record. Id. The presumption of public access is even stronger
where, as here, the documents "directly affect" adjudication,, and
the rights at issue are of a "private-public character."
Id.
"Absent some compelling reason, the sealing from public scrutiny
of FLSA agreements between employers and their employees would
thwart the public's independent interest in assuring that
employees' wages are fair and thus do not endanger the national
health and well-being." Id. at *2 (quotations omitted); see also
Dees v. Hydradry, Inc., 706 F. Supp. 2d 1227, 1245 (M.D. Fla.
2010) ("Sealing an FLSA settlement . . . thwarts Congress's intent
both to advance employees' awareness of their FLSA rights and to
ensure pervasive implementation of the FLSA in the workplace.")
In summary, there is a "strong presumption" in favor of keeping
settlement agreements in FLSA cases unsealed and available for
public view. Hens v. Clientlogic Operating Corp., No. 05-CV-381S,
2010 WL 4340919, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2010) (collecting caselaw
from numerous circuit and district courts affirming this
principle)
Courts, however, should consider whether compelling reasons
justify sealing the record and outweigh the interest in public
access. Id. at
*3; Webb, 2011 WL 6743284, at *2. Here, the
parties have agreed to keep the terms of the settlement
confidential. However, an "overwhelming majority of district
courts [have found] that a stipulation to seal does not outweigh
the strong presumption of public access to an FLSA settlement
agreement." Hens, 2010 WL 4340919, at *3 (denying motion to seal
agreement where confidentiality was a material condition of the
settlement) .
Therefore, the parties' confidentiality agreement
2
does not justify sealing the FLSA settlement agreement in this
case. Without a more specific and compelling reason, the Court
has no choice but to deny the present motion to seal.
Accordingly, the Joint Motion for Leave to File Proposed
Settlement Agreement Under Seal (doc. no. 25) is DENIED.
In light
of the Court's ruling that it will not seal the settlement
agreement, the agreement's confidentiality provision is likely to
be unenforceable. See Webb, 2011 WL 6743284, at *3 Thus, the
Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement and Dismissal With
Prejudice (doc. no. 26)
is
DENIED,
and the parties will be
provided an opportunity to revise the terms of the agreement in
accordance with this Order. Within twenty-one (21) days
of the
date of this Order, the parties must: (1) file on the public
docket a second motion for approval of settlement agreement with
an amended agreement appended, or (2) submit a report setting
forth the status of settlement discussions.
ORDER ENTERED
at Augusta, Georgia, this
day of
November, 2012.
LE J. RNDAL HALL
(STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
RN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
3
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?