Shaw et al v. CAS, Inc. et al

Filing 62

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER accepting in part and rejecting in part the Magistrate Judge's 60 Amended Report and Recommendation. The parties' 56 Joint Motion for Final Approval of Amended Settlement Agreement is granted, the amended settlemen t agreement is hereby approved, and this case is hereby dismissed with prejudice. However, the parties' Motions to Seal the 37 Original Settlement Agreement and 42 Amended Settlement Agreement are hereby denied. The Clerk of Court is therefore directed to unseal the settlement agreements 30 days after the entry of this Order. The Clerk of Court is further directed to terminate this case. (Signed by Judge Diana Saldana) Parties notified.(dmorales, 5)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LAREDO DIVISION
JACOB SHAW, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
CAS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

June 29, 2018
David J. Bradley, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-CV-142

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
In this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case, Plaintiffs brought a collective action
against Defendants for allegedly failing to pay them overtime wages when they worked more
than 40 hours in a given workweek. (Dkt. 1 at 9–11.) The parties eventually settled, and in
November 2017, they filed a joint motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement.
(Dkt. 39.) However, in December 2017, the parties filed an amended settlement agreement (Dkt.
43) and an amended motion for preliminary approval (Dkt. 41). The parties also separately filed
motions to seal both the original and amended settlement agreements. (Dkts. 37, 42.) On January
31, 2018, Judge George P. Kazen granted the parties’ motion for preliminary approval of the
amended settlement agreement.1 (Dkt. 48.) Then, in April 2018, the parties filed a joint motion
for final approval of the amended settlement agreement and to dismiss the case with prejudice.
(Dkt. 56.) The Court referred the motion for final approval of the amended settlement agreement
to the Magistrate Judge for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommended disposition.
(Dkt. 57.)
There are now two items pending before the Court. The first item is the Magistrate

1

Judge Kazen also denied the parties’ motion for preliminary approval of the original
settlement agreement as moot. (Dkt. 48.)
1/4

Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 60) recommending that the Court grant (1) the
parties’ motion for final approval of the amended settlement agreement and (2) the parties’
motion to seal the original November 2017 settlement agreement. The second pending item,
which was left unaddressed by the Magistrate Judge, is the parties’ motion to seal the amended
December 2017 settlement agreement. (Dkt. 42.)
The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the amended settlement agreement
should be approved. But for the reasons discussed below, it disagrees with the Magistrate
Judge’s recommendation to seal the original November 2017 settlement agreement. Therefore,
the Court will accept the Report and Recommendation in part and reject it in part. It will also
deny the parties’ motion to seal the amended December 2017 settlement agreement.
Discussion
The Court will first address the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to grant the parties’
motion for final approval of the amended settlement agreement. It will then turn to the parties’
motions to seal.
A.

Motion to Approve the Amended Settlement Agreement
The parties were duly noticed of their right to object to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation, and they accordingly filed a joint notice of non-objection. (Dkt. 61.) Having
now reviewed the matter as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court hereby ACCEPTS the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to grant the parties’ motion for final approval of the
amended settlement agreement. Thus, the parties’ joint motion for final approval of the amended
settlement agreement (Dkt. 56) is hereby GRANTED, and the amended settlement agreement is
hereby APPROVED.

2/4

B.

Motions to Seal
The parties filed two settlement agreements in this case, the original in November 2017

and an amended version in December 2017. (Dkts. 38, 43.) Both settlement agreements were
accompanied by motions to seal. (See Dkts. 37, 42.) The Magistrate Judge recommended
granting the motion to seal the original November 2017 settlement agreement but did not address
the motion to seal the amended December 2017 settlement agreement.
Although neither party objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation,
the Court retains authority to alter or reject the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See 28
U.S.C. § 636.
There is a “strong presumption in favor of keeping the settlement agreements in FLSA
wage-settlement cases unsealed and available for public review.” Parrish v. Def. Sec. Co., 2013
WL 372940, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 2013). “Sealing FLSA settlements from public scrutiny
could thwart the public’s independent interest in assuring that employees’ wages are fair.” Id.
Thus, absent an “extraordinary” reason, settlement agreements in FLSA cases should remain
unsealed. Id.; Prater v. Commerce Equities Mgmt. Co., 2008 WL 5140045, at *9 (S.D. Tex. Dec.
8, 2008).
The parties’ motions to seal are only one page in length and provide no reason or
justification for sealing either settlement agreement. (See Dkts. 37, 42.) The parties therefore fail
to overcome the “strong presumption” that FLSA settlement agreements ought to remain
unsealed. See Parrish, 2013 WL 372940, at *1. Accordingly, the Court hereby REJECTS the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to grant the parties’ motion to seal the original November
2017 settlement agreement. Thus, the parties’ motion to seal the original November 2017
settlement agreement (Dkt. 37) is denied. For the same reason, the parties’ motion to seal the
3/4

amended December 2017 settlement agreement (Dkt. 42) is also denied.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 60)
is hereby ACCEPTED in part and REJECTED in part. The parties’ joint motion for final
approval of the amended settlement agreement (Dkt. 56) is hereby GRANTED, the amended
settlement agreement is hereby APPROVED, and this case is hereby DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE. However, the parties’ motions to seal the original and amended settlement
agreements (Dkts. 37, 42) are hereby DENIED. The Clerk of Court is therefore DIRECTED to
UNSEAL the settlement agreements (Dkts. 38, 43) 30 days after the entry of this Order. The
Clerk of Court is further DIRECTED to TERMINATE this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 29th day of June, 2018.

___________________________________
Diana Saldaña
United States District Judge

4/4