Miles et al v. Illini State Trucking Co
Filing
65
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re unsealing of proposed settlement agreement in connection with approval of 64 Sealed Motion filed by Illini State Trucking Co, Quincy Miles. Response due no later than 8/2/2017. (Ordered by Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 7/19/2017) (Judge Sidney A Fitzwater)
Case 3:16-cv-00778-D Document 65 Filed 07/19/17
Page 1 of 2 PageID 411
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
QUINCY MILES, On Behalf of Himself
and All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,
VS.
ILLINI STATE TRUCKING CO.,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§ Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-0778-D
§
§
§
§
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
After the court granted defendant’s July 11, 2017 motion to file joint motion for approval
of FLSA settlement and exhibits under seal, the parties filed under seal their July 13, 2017 joint
motion for approval of FLSA settlement. According to defendant’s motion to file joint motion for
approval of FLSA settlement and exhibits under seal—which itself is presently a sealed
document—“[t]he handling of the Joint Motion for Approval of FLSA Settlement and Exhibits
under seal was a material inducement to Defendant entering into this compromised settlement.”
Mot. 1.
The court has reviewed the proposed settlement and is willing to approve it. The court is not
willing, however, to maintain the settlement agreement under seal. See Parrish v. Defender Sec.
Co., 2013 WL 372940, at *1-2 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 2013) (Fitzwater, C.J.) (denying parties’ joint
motion to seal settlement agreement in FLSA case); Rodriguez v. El Pollo Regio, Inc., 2012 WL
5506130, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 23, 2012) (Fitzwater, C.J.) (denying parties’ agreed motion to file
agreed motion to approve FLSA settlement under seal).
Case 3:16-cv-00778-D Document 65 Filed 07/19/17
Page 2 of 2 PageID 412
Given defendant’s assertion that filing the settlement under seal was a material inducement
for it to enter into the settlement, “the court will allow [the parties] 14 days from the date of this
memorandum opinion and order to advise the court whether they continue to request approval of the
settlement, with the understanding that the settlement will be approved, but the settlement agreement
will be unsealed.” Parrish, 2013 WL 372940, at *2. This is the procedure the court followed in
Parrish, where, similar to defendant’s position here, “the parties posit[ed] that confidentiality [was]
a key and material term.” Id.
*
*
*
For the reasons explained,* the court declines to maintain the parties’ proposed settlement
agreement under seal. The parties’ response is due within 14 days of the date this memorandum
opinion and order is filed. The proposed settlement agreement will remain sealed until the court has
considered and acted upon the parties' response.
SO ORDERED.
July 19, 2017.
_________________________________
SIDNEY A. FITZWATER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
*
Under § 205(a)(5) of the E-Government Act of 2002 and the definition of “written opinion”
adopted by the Judicial Conference of the United States, this is a “written opinion[] issued by the
court” because it “sets forth a reasoned explanation for [the] court’s decision.” It has been written,
however, primarily for the parties, to decide issues presented in this case, and not for publication in
an official reporter, and should be understood accordingly.
-2-
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?