Collins et al v. Walgreen Co.
Filing
30
ORDER Denying 27 Motion to Dismiss and 28 Motion to Seal. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the August 3, 2015, hearing is VACATED. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 7/23/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DC)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3
2:14-cv-01587-JAD-VCF
4
Raymond Collins et al,
5
Order
[#27, 28]
Plaintiffs
6
v.
7
Walgreen Co. dba Walgreens, et al,
8
Defendants
9
10
11
This is an employment action by former Walgreens managers asserting claims under the Fair
12
Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The parties have settled their claims and jointly move the court to
13
deem their settlements as good-faith ones.1 They also ask the court to permit them to file their
14
settlement agreements under seal because “the Parties[] have agreed that their settlement agreements
15
are confidential” and confidentiality “is a material term of the settlement.”2 I conclude that the
16
parties have not demonstrated compelling reasons to seal these settlement agreements and I deny the
17
motion to seal. Because my denial of the sealing motion leaves me without copies of the settlement
18
agreements the parties are asking me to evaluate, I also deny without prejudice the joint motion to
19
approve those agreements and vacate the August 3, 2015, hearing.
20
Discussion
21
22
There is “a strong presumption in favor of keeping settlement agreements in FLSA wagesettlement cases unsealed and available for public view.”3 This openness furthers “Congress’s intent
23
24
1
Doc. 27.
25
2
Doc. 28 at 5.
26
27
28
3
See, e.g., Cuttic v. Crozer–Chester Med. Ctr., 868 F. Supp. 2d 464, 467 (E.D. Pa. 2012); Bouzzi v.
F & J Pine Rest., LLC, 841 F. Supp. 2d 635, 639 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (“Where . . . the FLSA settlement
is submitted to the court for approval, the approval process is a judicial act. Consequently, the
settlement agreement is a judicial document to which the presumption of public access attaches.”);
Page 1 of 3
1
both to advance employees’ awareness of their FLSA rights and to ensure pervasive implementation
2
of the FLSA in the workplace.”4 And it is consistent with the general presumption of a right to
3
public access to court documents.5 As a result, trial courts overwhelmingly deny requests to seal
4
settlement agreements in FLSA actions.6
5
The presumption that settlement agreements should remain public in FLSA cases may be
6
rebutted with “compelling reasons.”7 That the parties have a confidentiality clause or otherwise have
7
agreed to keep the terms of their agreement secret is not a compelling reason.8 But that’s the only
8
9
10
Tran v. Thai, 2009 WL 2477653, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Aug.12, 2009) (“The presumption of public access
to settlements of FLSA actions is particularly strong.”).
11
4
12
5
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Dees v. Hydradry, Inc., 706 F. Supp. 2d 1227, 1245 (M.D. Fla. 2010).
See, e.g., Jessup v. Luther, 277 F.3d 926, 929 (7th Cir. 2002) (“The public has an interest in
knowing what terms of settlement a federal judge would approve and perhaps therefore nudge the
parties to agree to.”).
6
See, e.g., Pollock v. Byrider Fin., LLC., 2015 WL 4040400, at *2 (W.D. Pa. June 30, 2015)
(collecting cases); Weismantle v. Jali, 2015 WL 1866190, at *2 (W.D. Pa. April 23, 2015)
(collecting cases and stating: “What can be gleaned from this prevailing, if not overwhelming
caselaw trend is that, absent something very special in a very specific case which generates a very
good reason above and beyond the desire of the parties to keep the terms of an FLSA settlement out
of the public’s view, ... [an FLSA settlement] cannot be filed under seal.”) (emphasis added); Joo v.
Kitchen Table, Inc., 763 F. Supp. 2d 643, 646–48 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (noting overwhelming consensus
against sealing FLSA settlement agreements submitted for court approval).
7
Smith v. Golden Gate LLC, 2015 WL 2340231, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 13, 2015) (collecting cases for
the proposition that “[d]istrict courts that have considered a motion to seal an agreement settling
FLSA claims have applied the presumption of public access and compelling reasons standard”).
Compelling reasons are required to seal documents attached to a dispositive motion. See Kamakana
v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). The joint motion to approve the
parties’ settlement agreement is a dispositive motion because it will result in the termination of this
litigation.
24
8
25
26
27
28
Goesel v. Boley Int’l (H.K.) Ltd., 738 F.3d 831, 835 (7th Cir. 2013) (“[B]ecause there is potential
public value to disclosing settlement terms, including amount, parties have to give the judge a reason
for not disclosing them—and the fact that they don’t want to disclose is not a reason.”); see also
Snook v. Valley OB–GYN Clinic, P.C., 2014 WL 7369904, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 29, 2014)
(collecting cases and stating, in the FLSA context, that “[g]enerally, courts have roundly rejected the
argument that confidentiality provisions in settlement agreements are a sufficient interest to
overcome the presumption of public access”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Page 2 of 3
1
reason that the parties offer here. Because the parties have asked the court to approve the terms of
2
their settlement, those terms are presumptively public. The parties bear the burden of persuasion to
3
rebut this presumption, but they have offered no argument beyond the mere existence of a
4
confidentiality provision in their settlement agreement. This is not enough.
5
Because the parties have failed to articulate any facts that justify the sealing of their
6
settlement agreements, I deny without prejudice their joint motion to file the confidential settlement
7
agreement under seal [Doc. 28]. The parties’ joint motion for approval of the settlement agreements
8
depends on their motion to seal being granted—indeed, the parties have not yet provided me with a
9
copy of the agreements or any hint to their material terms. Because my denial of this motion to seal
10
leaves me without the key documents I need to decide the joint request to approve the settlement,
11
that motion is also denied without prejudice [Doc. 27], and the August 3, 2015, hearing currently
12
scheduled for argument on that motion is vacated. These denials are without prejudice in the event
13
the parties are able to negotiate settlement agreements that do not require sealing of the agreements
14
or they intend to attempt to justify the sealing of their proposed settlement agreement with a new
15
motion.
16
ORDER
17
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the joint motion to file the confidential
18
settlement agreement under seal [Doc. 28] and the joint motion for approval of the settlement
19
agreements [Doc. 27] are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;
20
21
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the August 3, 2015, hearing is VACATED.
Dated this 23rd day of July, 2015.
22
23
_________________________________
___________ _ _____
_
__ ______ _
Jennifer A. Dorsey
nifer A Dorsey
e
United States District Judge
ed
t Judge
u
24
25
26
27
28
Page 3 of 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?