Starr v. DB Schenker, Inc. et al

Filing 52

ORDER. Granting 45 Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Approval of FLSA Collective Action Settlement and Preliminary Approval of Rule 23 Class Settlement (Doc. 45 ). The Court further ORDERS THAT (1) Docs. 45 , [45-1], & [45-3] REMAIN UNDER SEAL and that Plaintiff FILE redacted documents with any reference to the amount of the Maximum Gross Settlement Amount and the specific amount each Named Plaintiff, Opt-In Plaintiff and Rule 23 Settlement Class Member is entitled to receive redacted on or before January 30, 2015; and (2) the Clerk of Court UNSEAL Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 Part 2 (Doc. [45-2]). Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 1/22/15. (ajr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JOE STARR, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 14-cv-402-SMY-PMF
vs.
SCHENKER, INC. and SCHENKER
LOGISTICS, INC.,
Defendants.
ORDER APPROVING
FLSA COLLECTIVE ACTION SETTLEMENT AND
PRELIMINARILY APPROVING RULE 23 CLASS SETTLEMENT
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Approval of FLSA
Collective Action Settlement and Preliminary Approval of Rule 23 Class Settlement
(hereinafter the “Motion”) (Doc. 45) and supporting memorandum. Having fully and
carefully reviewed the Motion and supporting memorandum, the proposed
Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims (“Settlement Agreement”), the
proposed Notice of Class Action Settlement (“Notice”), and the Notice Plan, the
Court finds that the Settlement Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length by the
parties and is a fair, reasonable, and adequate resolution of a bona fide dispute in
contested litigation. Therefore, the Motion is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Court
ORDERS that:
1.

The settlement of the FLSA collective action is approved as a fair,

reasonable, and adequate resolution of a bona fide dispute in this contested
litigation. The settlement of the Rule 23 class is preliminarily approved as a fair,

reasonable, and adequate resolution of the Rule 23 claims, pending notice to the
class and an opportunity to be heard at the final fairness hearing;
2.

The Court approves, as to form and content, for dissemination and

distribution in accordance with the Settlement Agreement, the Notice, as well as
the Notice Plan, as reasonable notice practicable under the circumstances and in
full compliance with applicable law;
3.

Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Court’s

approval of the FLSA collective action settlement is contingent upon the Court’s
final approval of the Rule 23 settlement;
4.

Each Rule 23 Class Member shall have the opportunity to opt-out or

object to the Rule 23 settlement, object to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s application for fees
and costs, object to the proposed service awards to certain Plaintiffs, and to
participate at the final approval hearing.
5.

The final approval hearing is set for April 22, 2015, at 1:30 p.m. at the

Benton Courthouse.
Finally, after review of the documents and law, the Court finds that the
Motion for Approval of FLSA Collective Action and Preliminary Approval of Rule 23
Class Action Settlement should no longer remain under seal. The Seventh Circuit
disfavors requests to seal documents noting that “[w]hat happens in the federal
courts is presumptively open to public scrutiny.” Hicklin Eng’g, L.C. v. Bartell, 439
F.3d 346, 348 (7th Cir. 2006). “[B]oth judicial opinions and litigants’ briefs must be
in the public record, if necessary in parallel versions – one full version containing all

2 

details, and another redacted version with confidential information omitted.” Id.
Plaintiff points to Swarthout v. Ryla Teleservices, Inc., 4:11-cv-PRC, 2012 WL
5361756 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 30, 2012), in support of maintaining the seal on the
documents.

In Swarthout the court ordered the settlement agreement remain

under seal because “assuring confidentiality of the settlement was a key and
material term” of the parties’ agreement. Id. at *4. Here, pursuant to the parties’
Settlement Agreement, the parties have agreed to keep confidential “the amount of
the Maximum Gross Settlement Amount and the specific amount each Named
Plaintiff, Opt-In Plaintiff and Rule 23 Settlement Class Member is entitled to
receive” (Doc. 45-1, p. 17).

Maintaining the entire Settlement Agreement

confidential, however, is not a key and material term of that agreement.
As such, the Court ORDERS as follows:
a. Plaintiff’s unredacted Unopposed Motion for Approval of FLSA Collective
Action Settlement and Preliminary Approval of Rule 23 Class Settlement
(Doc. 45) REMAIN UNDER SEAL and that Plaintiff FILE a redacted
Motion with any reference to “the amount of the Maximum Gross
Settlement Amount and the specific amount each Named Plaintiff, Opt-In
Plaintiff and Rule 23 Settlement Class Member is entitled to receive”
redacted on or before January 30, 2015;
b. Plaintiff’s unredacted Exhibit 1 – Part 1 – Confidential Joint Stipulation
and Settlement Agreement (Docs. 45-1) REMAIN UNDER SEAL and
that Plaintiff FILE a redacted Exhibit 1 – Part 1 - Confidential Joint

3 

Stipulation and Settlement Agreement with any reference to “the amount
of the Maximum Gross Settlement Amount and the specific amount each
Named Plaintiff, Opt-In Plaintiff and Rule 23 Settlement Class Member is
entitled to receive” redacted on or before January 30, 2015;
c. The Clerk of Court UNSEAL Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 – Part 2 (Doc. 45-2); and
d. Exhibit 2 – the unredacted Declaration of Mark Potashnick (Doc. 45-3)
REMAIN UNDER SEAL and that Plaintiff FILE a redacted Declaration
with any reference to “the amount of the Maximum Gross Settlement
Amount and the specific amount each Named Plaintiff, Opt-In Plaintiff
and Rule 23 Settlement Class Member is entitled to receive” redacted on
or before January 30, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 22, 2015
s/ Staci M. Yandle
STACI M. YANDLE
DISTRICT JUDGE

4