Murphy et al v. Stevens Transport Inc

Filing 18

Memorandum Opinion and Order - The Court denies the parties' Joint Motion for Leave to File Settlement Agreement Under Seal. Furthermore, the Court orders the parties to submit a written response within fourteen days from this same date as to whether they continue to seek the Court's approval of the Settlement Agreement. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 10/7/2020) (chmb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
TINA MURPHY and ROSILYN
JACKSON, Individually and On Behalf
of All Others,
Plaintiffs,
v.
STEVENS TRANSPORT, INC.,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 3:20-CV-1483-K

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The parties filed: (1) a Joint Motion for Leave to File Settlement Agreement
Under Seal (Doc. No. 13) and (2) a Joint Motion for Court Approval of Settlement
(Doc. No. 14). The Court has considered both motions as well as the applicable law
relevant to each motion. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the motion for
leave to file the settlement agreement under seal and orders the parties to file a joint
status report within 14 days advising the Court whether the parties continue to seek
approval of the settlement agreement, with the understanding that the settlement
agreement will be approved, but it will be unsealed.

ORDER – PAGE 1

I.

Background

On June 9, 2020, Plaintiffs Tina Murphy and Rosilyn Jackson filed their Original
Complaint (Doc. No. 1) on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, alleging one claim against Defendant Stevens Transport, Inc. (“Defendant”)
for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Both Plaintiffs Murphy and
Jackson worked as Customer Service Representatives for Defendant—Plaintiff Murphy
was employed from May 2018 to April 2020 and Plaintiff Jackson was employed from
January 2018 to May 2020. Plaintiffs Murphy and Jackson allege that Defendant
failed to pay them and other similarly situated Customer Service Representatives for
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek at a rate of one-and-one-half times
their regular rate of pay. The Court twice extended Defendant’s deadline to respond
to Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Before the second responsive deadline ran, the parties filed
the joint motions that are currently before the Court.
II.

Motion for Leave to File Settlement Agreement Under Seal

“[T]here is a strong presumption in favor of keeping the settlement agreements
in FLSA wage-settlement cases unsealed and available for public review. The public’s
interest in accessing the settlement agreement, including the settlement amount, often
outweighs any interest in confidentiality.” Parrish v. Defender Sec. Co., Civ. Action No.
3:10-CV-2604-D, 2013 WL 372940, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 2013)(Fitzwater, C.J.)

ORDER – PAGE 2

(quoting Rodriguez v. El Polio Regio, Inc., Civ. Action No. 3:11-CV-2276-D, 2012 WL
5506130, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 23, 2012)(Fitzwater, C.J.)); see Davis v. Capital One
Home Loans, LLC, Civ. Action No. 3:17-CV-3236-G, 2020 WL 2573493, at *2 (N.D.
Tex. May 20, 2020)(Fish, S.J.). “The overwhelming consensus of district courts that
have considered the issue hold that an FLSA settlement cannot be sealed absent some
showing that overcomes the presumption of public access.” Parrish, 2013 WL 372940,
at *1 (internal citation omitted). “Sealing FLSA settlements from public scrutiny could
thwart the public’s independent interest in assuring that employees’ wages are fair.
Absent an extraordinary reason, the court cannot seal such records.” Id. (internal
citation omitted).
In support of their motion for leave to file the agreement under seal, the parties
submit only that “[t]he terms of the Settlement Agreement are confidential. In order
to prevent disclosure of this confidential information, the Parties respectfully request
leave to file the Settlement Agreement under seal.”

The Court finds that this

motivation falls well-short of offering an “extraordinary reason” to “overcome[ ] the
presumption of public access.” Id. Indeed, this reason appears to be nothing more
than “a business’s general interest in keeping its legal proceedings private” and thus
insufficient to permit the Court to seal this Settlement Agreement. See Davis, 2020

ORDER – PAGE 3

WL 2573493, at *2; Parrish, 2013 WL 372940, at *1. Accordingly, the Court denies
the parties’ Motion for Leave to File the Settlement Agreement Under Seal.
III.

Motion for Court Approval of Settlement

The parties also move the Court to approve their Settlement Agreement and
dismiss this case with prejudice. Having reviewed the Complaint, the motion, and the
Settlement Agreement, the Court is willing to grant the motion and dismiss the case,
finding that the Settlement Agreement appears to resolve a bona fide dispute over
FLSA provisions between the parties, and that the Settlement Agreement is neither
unfair nor unreasonable. See Davis, 2020 WL 2573493, at *2 (citing Diaz v Panhandle
Maintenance, LLC, Civ. Action No. 2:18-CV-097-Z, 2020 WL 587644, at *2 (N.D. Tex.
Feb. 6, 2020)(Kacsmaryk, J.)). However, the parties specifically represent in their
motion that they “seek to maintain confidentiality as to the terms of the Settlement
Agreement” and the Settlement Agreement includes a provision related to “Mutual
Confidentiality Regarding Settlement Amount”. Therefore, within fourteen days from
the date of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court orders the parties to
advise the Court in writing whether they wish to continue seeking the Court’s approval
of their Settlement Agreement with the understanding that the Settlement Agreement
will be approved but the Settlement Agreement will be unsealed. The Settlement

ORDER – PAGE 4

Agreement will remain under seal until the Court receives and acts upon the parties’
written response.
IV.

Conclusion

The Court denies the parties’ Joint Motion for Leave to File Settlement
Agreement Under Seal. Furthermore, the Court orders the parties to submit a written
response within fourteen days from this same date as to whether they continue to
seek the Court’s approval of the Settlement Agreement.
SO ORDERED.
Signed October 7th, 2020.
______________________________________
ED KINKEADE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER – PAGE 5