Trane US Inc v. Plazek et al

Filing 122

OPINION AND ORDER re 119 MOTION (Joint) for Leave to File Under Seal by Defendants Building Temperature Solutions LLC, John W Gilbert, Bruce A Merryman, Paul H Plazek, Jody Selvage, Plaintiff Trane US Inc. The parties shall have until 1/3/2012 to supplement their motion or file a joint amended motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey on 12/9/11. (cer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
TRANE U.S., INC,
Plaintiff,
v.
PAUL H. PLAZEK, JODY SELVAGE,
BRUCE A. MERRYMAN,
JOHN W. GILBERT, and BUILDING
TEMPERATURE SOLUTIONS, LLC,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO.: 1:09-CV-338

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion for Leave to File Settlement
Agreement Under Seal filed on December 7, 2011. (Docket # 119.) Stipulated settlements in
claims brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) must be approved by the court.
Burkholder v. City of Fort Wayne, 750 F. Supp. 2d 990, 994 (N.D. Ind. 2010). As such,
“settlement agreements in FLSA cases are judicial documents to which a presumption of public
access applies.” Cepeda v. 251 Realty LLC, No. 11-CV-1531, 2011 WL 5402917, at *1
(E.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2011) (citations omitted); see Baker v. Dolgencorp. Inc., No. 2:10-cv-199,
2011 WL 166257, at *2 (E.D.Va. Jan. 19, 2011); Perry v. Nat’l City Bank, No. 05-cv-891-DRH,
2008 WL 427771, at *1 (S.D. Ill. Feb. 14, 2008).
In FLSA cases, courts have generally identified two bases supporting public access to
settlement agreements. Kianpour v. Rest. Zone, Inc., No. DKC 11-0802, 2011 WL 3880463, at
*2 (D. Md. Aug. 30, 2011). The first is “the general public interest in the content of documents
upon which a court’s decision is based, including a determination of whether to approve a
1

settlement.” Hens v. Clientlogic Operating Corp., No. 05-CV-381S, 2010 WL 4340919, at *2
(W.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2010) (citing Jessup v. Luther, 277 F.3d 926, 928-29 (7th Cir. 2002); Boone
v. City of Suffolk, Va., 79 F. Supp. 2d 603, 609 (E.D. Va. 1999)). The second arises from the
“private-public character” of employee rights under the FLSA, which gives the public an
“independent interest in assuring that employees wages are fair and thus do not endanger ‘the
national health and well-being.’” Id. (citations omitted). Accordingly, there is a strong
presumption in favor of keeping settlement agreements in FLSA cases unsealed. Id.; accord Joo
v. Kitchen Table, Inc., 763 F. Supp. 2d 643, 646-47 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (collecting cases).
When determining whether to seal a document, the Court must balance the rights of the
public against the filing party’s reason for sealing the documents. Perry, 2008 WL 427771, at *1
(citing United States v. Corbitt, 879 F.2d 224, 228 (7th Cir. 1989)). To overcome the
presumption in favor of public access, the party seeking the seal bears the burden of showing the
specific reasons why allowing public access would be harmful, id. (citing In re Cendant Corp.,
260 F.3d 183, 194 (3d Cir. 2001)), and must make a “‘substantial showing of need’ for their
settlement agreement not to be filed on the public docket,” Cepeda, 2011 WL 5402917, at *1
(citations omitted). The parties’ mutual agreement to seal the settlement agreement is
insufficient to overcome the presumption in favor of public access. See, e.g., Hens, 2010 WL
4340919, at *3 (finding that a stipulation to seal does not outweigh the strong presumption of
public access to a FLSA settlement agreement); Dees v. Hydradry, Inc., 706 F. Supp. 2d 1227,
1246 (M.D. Fla. 2010) (stating that the parties’ stipulation to seal the agreement fails to justify
the seal). Furthermore, the fact that confidentiality was a material term of a settlement, the
absence of which may cause the agreement to fail, is similarly insufficient to justify a seal. West

2

v. First Franklin Fin. Corp., No. 06-2064-KHV, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30963, at *3 (D. Kan.
Apr. 25, 2007).
Here, the parties argue only that the sealing of the settlement agreement serves the
privacy interest of all parties and promotes the amicable resolution of FLSA claims. They fail to
state how they would be specifically harmed or injured by allowing public access to the
settlement agreement, thereby failing to meet their burden of showing why confidentiality should
be maintained. Perry, 2008 WL 427771, at *1. Moreover, their mutual agreement to seal the
settlement agreement and their assertion that confidentiality would promote the amicable
resolution of the FLSA claim is insufficient to overcome the strong presumption against sealing
FLSA settlement agreements. See Hens 2010 WL 4340919, at *3; Dees, 706 F. Supp. 2d at
1246; West, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30963, at *3.
Therefore, at the present time, the parties’ Joint Motion is insufficient to justify the
sealing of their settlement agreement. The Court, however, will give the parties an opportunity
to supplement the motion with any circumstances that they believe justify the seal. Tran v. Thai,
No. H-08-3650, 2009 WL 2477653, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 12, 2009). Accordingly, if the parties
wish to supplement the motion or file a joint amended motion, they may do so on or before
January 3, 2012.
SO ORDERED.
Entered this 9th day of December, 2011.
/S/ Roger B. Cosbey
Roger B. Cosbey,
United States Magistrate Judge

3