Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01294/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01294-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Denial of Overtime Compensation

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

David Anaguano, on behalf of himself and

all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

Sanmiguel Sweepers, Inc.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 11-1294-PHX-JAT

ORDER

The parties in this Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) case filed a Notice of

Settlement on November 16, 2011. (Doc. 14.) On December 12, 2011, they filed a Motion

to File Settlement Agreement Under Seal (Doc. 16) and a Stipulation to Settle Case and for

Dismissal with Prejudice (Doc. 17).

The Court notes that the parties did not follow the correct procedure when they filed

the Motion to Seal. The parties should have lodged a sealed copy of the Settlement

Agreement when they filed the Motion to Seal. The public cannot read a document that is

lodged under seal on CMECF. 

The parties’ only stated justification for sealing the proposed Settlement Agreement

is Defendants’ desire to preserve the confidentiality of the terms of the settlement. The Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals strongly disfavors filing under seal, and requires the parties to show

good cause to seal a non-dispositive filing, and compelling reasons to seal dispositive

motions and related materials. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,

1179–80 (9th Cir. 2006). Unlike private materials unearthed during discovery, judicial

Case 2:11-cv-01294-JAT Document 18 Filed 12/16/11 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

records are public documents almost by definition, and the public is entitled to access by

default. Id. at 1180 (citing Nixon w. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)).

Because this is a FLSA case, the Court must approve the settlement reached by the

parties. Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1354 (11th Cir. 1982); see

also Thornton v. Solutionone Cleaning Concepts, Inc., 2007 WL 210586 *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan.

26, 2007). The parties’ Stipulation to Settle Case and for Dismissal with Prejudice (Doc. 17),

which requests that the Court enter an order approving the Settlement Agreement, is akin to

a dispositive filing, and, therefore, subject to the compelling reasons showing. See e.g.,

White v. Sabatino, Nos. 04-0500 ACK/LEK & 05-0025 ACK/LEK, 2007 WL 2750604, at

*2 (D. Haw. Sept. 17, 2007) (discussing the dispositive/non-dispositive distinction in

connection with settlement agreements).

As the United State Supreme Court noted in Nixon v. Warner Communications, the

right to inspect judicial records is not absolute and certain exceptions are recognized. A

court has the power to insure that its records are not used to gratify private spite or promote

public scandal, to serve as reservoirs of libelous statements, or as sources of business

information, such as trade secrets. Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598.

The parties’ Motion to Seal does not address the compelling reasons standard for

sealing documents. This deficiency is significant, “because there is a strong presumption in

favor of keeping the settlement agreements in FLSA wage-settlement cases unsealed and

available for public view.” Taylor v. AFS Tech., Inc., No. CV-09-2567-PHX-DGC, 2010

WL 2079750, at *2 (D. Ariz. May 24, 2010) (quoting Prater v. Commerce Equities Mgmt.

Co., No. H-07-2349, 2008 WL 5140045, at *9 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 8, 2008)). 

The parties do not cite any authority for filing the Settlement Agreement under seal.

The Court finds that the parties have not met their “compelling reasons” burden under

Kamakana. The Court therefore will deny the Motion to File Settlement Agreement Under

Seal (Doc. 16). Because the Court has not seen the Settlement Agreement, the Court cannot

assess the fairness of the Settlement Agreement and cannot rule on the Stipulation at this

time.

Case 2:11-cv-01294-JAT Document 18 Filed 12/16/11 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED DENYING the parties’ Motion to File Settlement Agreement

Under Seal (Doc. 16).

DATED this 16th day of December, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-01294-JAT Document 18 Filed 12/16/11 Page 3 of 3