Campbell v. Las Vegas Bistro, LLC dba Larry Flynt's Hustler Club
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 39 Motion to Seal. (See Order for Details) Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 3/6/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
LAS VEGAS BISTRO LLC,
Case No. 2:16-cv-01842-JCM-NJK
(Docket No. 39)
Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to seal the parties’ settlement agreement.
Docket No. 39. Plaintiff filed a non-opposition. Docket No. 40. For the reasons discussed below,
Defendant’s motion to seal, Docket No. 39, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Plaintiff initially filed this action in state court, alleging, inter alia, a claim under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Docket No. 1-1. Defendant removed the action to this Court on
August 4, 2016. Docket No. 1. The parties ultimately settled the case and have moved the Court
to approve their settlement agreement. Docket No. 38. Defendant also asks the Court to allow it to
file the settlement agreement under seal. Docket No. 39.
“There is a strong presumption in favor of keeping settlement agreements in FLSA wage
settlement cases unsealed and available for public view.” Collins v. Walgreens Co., 2015 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 96929, at *2 (D. Nev. July 23, 2015) (internal quotations omitted) (collecting cases). This
presumption furthers “Congress’ intent both to advance employees’ awareness of their FLSA rights
and to ensure pervasive implementation of the FLSA in the workplace.” Dees v. Hydradry, Inc., 706
F. Supp. 2d 1227, 1245 (M.D. Fla. 2010). Additionally, “it is consistent with the general
presumption of a right to public access to court documents.” Collins, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96929,
at *2 (citing Jessup v. Luther, 277 F.3d 926, 929 (7th Cir. 2002)). In order to overcome the
presumption, a movant must demonstrate “compelling reasons” to seal an FLSA settlement. Id.
(collecting cases). Courts thus frequently deny requests to seal settlement agreements in FLSA
actions. Id. (collecting cases).
The proposed settlement at issue includes both FLSA and non-FLSA claims. See, e.g.,
Docket No. 1-1 at 4-20; Docket No. 39 at 2. Defendant submits that compelling reasons exist to
overcome the presumption against sealing. Docket No. 39 at 2-3. Specifically, Defendant submits
that any public resolution of Plaintiff’s claims will harm its reputation because the public will view
the settlement as an admission of liability as to the non-FLSA claims. Id. at 2. Additionally,
Defendant asserts that a recent, publically-filed nationwide settlement in a similar case will render
public resolution of Plaintiff’s FLSA claim in this action “redundant.” Id. Defendant also contends
that if the parties do not obtain approval of their agreement, the result will be private arbitration. Id.
The Court finds that Defendant has failed to show compelling reasons to seal the portion of
the settlement agreement relating to Plaintiff’s FLSA claim. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to
seal, Docket No. 39, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Court GRANTS Defendant’s
motion to seal as it pertains to the portions of the settlement agreement that relate to Plaintiff’s non-
FLSA claims. The Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to seal without prejudice as it pertains to the
portion of the settlement agreement that relates to Plaintiff’s FLSA claim. No later than March 13,
2017, Defendant may file a renewed motion to seal demonstrating compelling reasons to seal as to
the FLSA claim. If Defendant chooses not to file a renewed motion to seal, the Court ORDERS
Defendant to file the settlement agreement on the docket, with information relating to Plaintiff’s non-
FLSA claims redacted, no later than March 13, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 6, 2017
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge
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?