Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02140/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02140-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:0201fl FLSA: Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

---

1

17-cv-2140-AJB-AGS

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

A-ROO Distributing of California, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

Michael Switzer,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17-cv-2140-AJB-AGS

ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION 

TO FILE SETTLEMENT UNDER 

SEAL (Doc. No. 3)

The parties jointly moved to file the settlement agreement under seal according to

Local Rules 7.2 and 79.2. (Doc. No. 3.) The parties request the agreement be filed under 

seal because the agreement contains confidential “specific terms, amounts, and conditions 

of the settlement agreement. . . .” (Id. at 2.)

Unless a particular court record is one “traditionally kept secret,” a “strong 

presumption in favor of access” is the starting point. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. 

Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 

1434 (9th Cir. 1995)). The court must “conscientiously balance [ ] the competing interests” 

of the public and those requesting a sealing order. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. After 

considering these interests, if the court decides to seal certain records, it must “base its 

decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without 

relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Hagestad, 49 F.3d at 1434 (citing Valley 

Broadcasting Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 798 F.2d 1289, 1295 (9th Cir. 1986)); Ambrosino v. 

Case 3:17-cv-02140-AJB-AGS Document 5 Filed 11/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

17-cv-2140-AJB-AGS

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

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 11-cv-1319-L-MDD, 2014 WL 931780, at *1 (S.D. Cal. 

Mar. 10, 2014). Regarding FLSA cases, “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.” Joo v. Kitchen Table, 

Inc., 763 F. Supp. 2d 643, 646–48 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (listing cases).

The parties give five reasons as to why the settlement should be sealed. 

(Doc. No. 3-1.) The first two reasons argue that confidentiality protects both defendant 

Switzer from future employers taking issue with any of the settlement terms and A-ROO 

from “the risk of similar litigation.” (Id. at 5.) A-ROO asserts it acted lawfully and is fearful 

a non-confidential settlement agreement may encourage “employees and former 

employees to bring suit merely for the purpose of obtaining similar settlements.” (Id. at 6.) 

However, “‘[a] litigant is not entitled to the court’s protection from’ exposure to ‘additional 

liability and litigation.’” Luo v. Zynga Inc., Case No. 13–cv–00186 NC, 2013 WL 5814763, 

at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2013) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 

1122, 1137 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that exposure to liability in collateral suits is not a 

compelling reason to overcome the presumption of public access)). “The mere fact that the 

production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure 

to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Kamakana 

v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Carpenter v. 

Colonial Mgmt. Grp., LP, No. 12–cv–686, 2012 WL 2992490, at *2 (D. Md. July 19, 2012) 

(noting that the well-recognized presumption of public access to FLSA settlements was not 

outweighed by the settlement’s confidentiality provision or defendant’s concern with 

“negative publicity or attention” that could follow from having the terms of this settlement 

made public).

Similarly to what the Court pointed out in Luo, this lawsuit was already a matter of 

public record exposing both A-ROO and Switzer to potential embarrassment or unwanted 

recognition. Other than a conclusory statement that Switzer might be prejudiced by future 

employers and that A-ROO might be sued by greedy employees, the parties have not 

Case 3:17-cv-02140-AJB-AGS Document 5 Filed 11/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

17-cv-2140-AJB-AGS

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

explained why or how future employers might preconceive Switzer nor how “making the 

settlement agreement public would discourage employees from filing similar claims.” Luo, 

2013 WL 5814763, at *3.

In the parties’ second and third arguments, they state the motion should be granted 

as they intended the agreement be kept confidential and the terms of the agreement “are 

the product of confidential settlement negotiations . . . .” (Doc. No. 3-1 at 6.) However, 

district courts in the Ninth Circuit have held that an agreement “to make the settlement 

agreement confidential” is insufficient on its own. Select Portfolio Servicing v. Valentino, 

No. C 12–0334 SI, 2013 WL 1800039, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2013); Luo, 2013 WL 

5814763, at *3 (“The existence of a confidentiality provision, without more, does not 

constitute good cause, let alone a compelling reason, to seal.”). The argument that A-ROO 

and Switzer may have agreed to keep the agreement confidential has been thoroughly 

rejected by courts as non-persuasive. See Joo, 763 F. Supp. 2d at 648 (“Courts that have 

considered this sort of justification for sealing the settlement agreement, however, have 

roundly rejected it.”).

Finally, the parties state that the agreement also settles non-FLSA claims, which they 

argue are not applicable to the strong policies disfavoring sealing FLSA settlement 

agreements. (Id. at 6–7.) However, looking through the agreement, the Court finds no 

mention of any other specific claims which are settled per the terms of the agreement that 

are not already public knowledge from A-ROO’s complaint, (Doc. No. 1). 

After reviewing the settlement agreement, the Court finds that nearly the entire 

agreement contains neither confidential nor sensitive information. The recitals section 

contains information from the complaint, which is already public knowledge. Beyond that, 

save the payment section, the rest of the agreement contains boilerplate provisions found 

in nearly every settlement—hardly matters traditionally kept secret. It does not contain the 

reasons courts typically find as compelling, such as medical records, trade secrets,

proprietary information, or a showing that harm or prejudice will result. See Luo, 2013 WL

5814763, at *3 (“Because the parties here have failed to articulate any facts—for example 

Case 3:17-cv-02140-AJB-AGS Document 5 Filed 11/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

17-cv-2140-AJB-AGS

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

that the settlement agreement contains trade secrets or competitively sensitive 

information—that would justify sealing their settlement agreement, the Court finds that the 

settlement agreement should be unsealed.”); Select Portfolio Servicing, 2013 WL 1800039, 

at *3 (denying motion to seal agreement partially because defendants had “not even made 

a showing that some specific harm or prejudice will result from its publication.”).

Regarding the settlement payment section, the Court agrees it contains confidential 

information including the settlement amount and payment details. However, that 

information can be redacted to protect A-ROO’s and Switzer’s negotiations and the final 

settlement amount. 

Overall, the Court is not persuaded that the settlement agreement contains the type 

of information which overcomes the strong interest in public disclosure and the surplus of 

cases disfavoring sealing FLSA agreements. Accordingly, the parties’ joint motion to file 

the settlement under seal is DENIED without prejudice. (Doc. No. 3.) The parties, 

however, may redact the settlement amount and other payment information as instructed 

herein. The parties may also withdraw the settlement agreement as they see fit. The Court 

notes that there is no legal requirement that the settlement agreement must be filed, but 

where the parties want it, they must conform to the law on public access.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 22, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-02140-AJB-AGS Document 5 Filed 11/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4