Fonseka v. AlfredHouse Eldercare, Inc. et al

Filing 27

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 5/28/2015. (kw2s, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

So 11th em Division

*
*

SUNIL FONSEKA

*

Plaintiff,

Case No.: GJH-14-3498

*

v.

*
ALFREDHOUSE
INC. et al.

ELDERCARE,

*
*

Defendants.

*
*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM

*

*

*

*

*

*

OPINION

Defendants AlfredHouse ElderCare, Inc. and Venna J. Alfred have filed a motion to seal.
seeking to file all papers associated with the parties' proposed settlement agreement under seal.

See ECF No. 24. Plaintiff does not oppose the motion. For the reasons explained below, the
Motion to Seal is DENIED.
DISCUSSION
Under Local Rule 105.11, "[a]ny motion seeking the sealing of ... motions, exhibits[,] or
other documents to be filed in the Court record shall include (a) proposed reasons supported by
specific factual representations to justify the sealing and (b) an explanation why alternatives to
sealing would not provide sufficient protection." These are strict requirements and not simply
formalities. The public's right of access to judicial documents and records is a First Amendment
right as well as a common law tradition. Doe v. Public Cilizen, 749 F.3d 246, 265 (4th Cir.
2014). To seal an entire document there must be no less restrictive measures, such as filing

redacted

versions

of the document,

Rock v. McHugh, 819 F.Supp. 2d 456, 475 (D. Md.

available.

2011); In re Search of 8420 Ocean Gateway Easton. Mmyland, 353 F.Supp. 2d 577, 580 (D.
Md. 2004). The interests
include "a defendant's
of trial participants

courts have found sufficiently

compelling

to justify

right to a fair trial before an impartial jury," "protecting

such as victims or witnesses,"

sealing documents
the privacy rights

Doe, 749 F.3d

and "risks to national security:'

at 269. Also, "[a] corporation

may possess a strong interest in preserving

the confidentiality

proprietary

information,

partial

and trade

secret

which

in turn may justify

Id. If the Court does decide to seal any documents,

records."
specific

supporting

findings

for its decision

and the reasons

sealing

of its

of court

it must state the reasons

for rejecting

alternatives

and

to sealing.

Virginia Dep't (~lState Police v. Washington Post, 386 F.3d 567, 576 (4th Cir. 2004).
Defendants
agreements,

assert

that

it does not guarantee

While parties may generally
settlement
document

is required
reflecting

*

the

FLSA

cases,

the terms of the settlement

and submitted

of access likely applies."

while it is true that the FLSA does not guarantee
is filed for the court's

before the court will seal the settlement
two bases supporting

documents

and "the approval

3 (D. Md. Apr. 13, 20 15) (citations

FLSA settlement

requires

court

approval

the public access to those agreements.

agree to keep settlement

in FLSA

to which the presumption
1650167 at

although

court approval

is a judicial

of

act and any

to the court is a judicial

document

J'vlonzonv. Cali Servo Indus .. Inc., 2015 WL
and internal quotation

marks omitted).

the public access to settlement

approval,

the paI1ies must provide

agreement.

public access to settlement

See ECF No. 24 at 3.

confidential,

process

of settlement

agreements,
sufficient

Indeed, •.[c ]ourts have generally

agreements

in FLSA cases:"

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 settlement. Jessup [v. Luther. 277 F.3d 926,
928-29 (7th Cir.2002)]; Boone. 79 F.Supp. 2d at 609. Second is
2

Thus,
if an

reasons
identi tied

the "private-public
character" of employee rights under the FLSA,
whereby the public has an "independent
interest in assuring that
employees'
wages are fair and thus do not endanger 'the national
health and well-being.'"
Stalnaker [v. NovaI' Corp .. 293 F.Supp.2d
1260, 1264 (M.D.Ala.2003)]
(quoting Brooklyn Servings Bank v.
O'Neil. 324 U.S. 697, 706. 709, 65 S.Ct. 895, 89 L.Ed. 1296
(1945)).

Monzon, 2015 WL 1650167 at * 3-4 (citing Hens v. C1ientlogic Operating Corp .. No. 05-CY381 S, 2010 WL 4340919,

at *2 (W.D.N.Y.

Nov. 2, 2010)) (brackets and quotation

marks in

original).
Here, in support of sealing all documents
explain that the current settlement
contains

a confidentiality

agreement.

provision.

related to the settlement

Plaintiff's

counsel previously

employee

told the current Plaintiff about the settlement

Defendants
unmerited

wish to seal the settlement
lawsuits.

(D.S.C.

2012) ("Aside
settlement

Bureau

courts

(~l at'!
N

she received. See id. at 2. Thus,

provision

is not itself a suflicient

Affctirs v. Chase. 2012 WL 3065352

reason

to seal a

2d 277. 280

at * 3 (D. Md. July 25,

and FMH agreed to the confidentiality

of the

interest of almost any pm1y in keeping close the amount it is willing

to settle a claim, the parties have articulated

White v. Bonner, 2010 WL 4625770

have found that "fear of copycat

openness.

and that

over concern that they will be subject to other

from the bare fact that defendants

to pay (or receive)

for alleged FLSA violations

See Martin v. Am. Honda Motor Co.. Inc., 940 F.Supp.

and the obvious

agreement.");

agreement

of a confidentiality

agreement.
2013);

another employee

further contend that

Id.

The presence
settlement

Defendants

which was not attached to the motion to seal,

See ECF No. 24 at 3. Defendants

represented

agreement,

no basis to seal the settlement

at * 2 (E.D.N.C.

suits" is insufficient

Nov. 4, 2010). In addition,

to overcome

the presumption

of

Kianpour v. Restaurant Zone. Inc, 2011 WL 3880463 at *2 (D. Md. Aug. 30, 20 I 1)

3

("while Defendants may hope that additional employees do not discovery that they have not been
paid the wages to which they might be entitled under federal law, their argument in this regard
does not support sealing the motion to approve settlement documents"); Carpenter v. Colonial
Mgmt. Group. IP, 2012 WL 2992490 at *2 (D. Md . .luI. 19,2012) ("Concerns with 'negative
publicity or attention'

clearly do not outweigh the strong public interest in access to FLSA

settlement agreements.");

see also Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc., 900 F.Supp. 2d 332, 338-39

(S.D.N.Y. 2012) (collecting cases). As these are the only reasons Defendants have presented,
Defendants'

motion to seal all documents

related to the parties'

DENIED. Within 14 days of this Opinion and accompanying

settlement agreement

is

Order, the parties shall either

submit the settlement agreement to the Court for review or request a scheduling call for further
proceedings in this case.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Defendants' Motion to Seal, ECF No. 24, is DENIED. A
separate Order shall issue.

Dated: May

28

~;?

,2015

GEORGE.I. HAZEL
United States District .Iudge

4