Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01319/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01319-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 05:704 Labor Litigation

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODNEY SMITH, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated,

 Plaintiff,

Plaintiffs

 v.

GOLDEN GATE LLC, et al.,

 Defendants. 

 Case No. 1: 13-cv-01319-AWI-MJS 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

JOINT REQUEST TO SEAL OR REDACT 

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

(ECF No. 40)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

On August 19, 2013, Plaintiff filed this civil action alleging violations of the Fair 

Labor Standards Act (FLSA”) and California state law. (ECF No. 1.) On April 14, 2015, 

the parties notified the Court that they had reached a settlement. All pending deadlines 

and hearings were vacated, and the Court set May 29, 2015 as a deadline for receipt of 

the dismissal documents. (ECF No. 37.)

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ GGNSC Administrative Services,

LLC and Hospice Preferred Choice, Inc. joint request to seal or redact the settlement

agreement. (ECF No. 40.)

I. LEGAL STANDARD 

Courts have long “recognize[d] a general right to inspect and copy public records 

Case 1:13-cv-01319-AWI-MJS Document 41 Filed 05/13/15 Page 1 of 4
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

and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, 

Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). Therefore, there is “a strong presumption in favor of 

access” to court records unless the records are ones “traditionally kept secret.” 

Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting

Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). 

In deciding whether to seal particular documents, the Court must first determine 

whether the documents are attached to a dispositive or non-dispositive motion. A party 

seeking to seal a document attached to a non-dispositive motion need only demonstrate 

“good cause” to justify sealing. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th 

Cir. 2010) (applying “good cause” standard to all non-dispositive motions because such 

motions “are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of 

action”). Conversely, a party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive 

motion must articulate “compelling reasons.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. Under this 

standard, the Court “weigh[s] relevant factors, base[s] its decision on a compelling 

reason, and articulate[s] the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or 

conjecture.” Pintos, 605 F.3d at 679 (quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 

1434 (9th Cir. 1995) (internal quotations omitted)). 

The party seeking to seal documents “bears the burden of showing specific 

prejudice or harm will result if no [protection] is granted.” Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 

307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002). Compelling reasons “exist when . . . court files 

might . . . become a vehicle for improper purposes, such as the use of records to gratify 

private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade 

secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598) (internal 

quotations omitted)). For example, “sources of business information that might harm a 

litigant's competitive standing” often warrant protection under seal. Nixon, 435 U.S. at 

598. However, “[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant's 

embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, 

Case 1:13-cv-01319-AWI-MJS Document 41 Filed 05/13/15 Page 2 of 4
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

compel the court to seal its records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (citing Foltz, 331 

F.3d at 1136).

II. ANALYSIS

Here, the parties seek to file their settlement agreement under seal or, at a 

minimum, with the amount of the settlement redacted. 

District courts that have considered a motion to seal an agreement settling FLSA 

claims have applied the presumption of public access and compelling reasons standard. 

See Joo v. Kitchen Table, Inc., 763 F. Supp. 2d 643, 646-48 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (joining 

"the overwhelming consensus of district courts that have considered the issue to hold 

that an FLSA settlement cannot be sealed absent some showing that overcomes the 

presumption of public access"); Kianpour v. Rest. Zone, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

97205, at *3-5 (D. Md. Aug. 30, 2011) (majority of recent cases addressing this issue 

apply the presumption of public access to FLSA settlements); Taylor v. AFS 

Technologies, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57851, at *2-3 (D. Ariz. May 24, 

2010) (applying compelling reasons standard to a motion to approve FLSA settlement 

and permitting the parties to elect between withdrawing FLSA settlement or making 

settlement agreement part of public record).

The parties argue that there is “good cause” to submit the agreement under seal 

because the confidentiality provision, preventing Plaintiff from disclosing the existence 

and terms of the agreement, is a material term, disclosing the amount of the settlement 

will place Defendants in an unfair position in future potential FLSA cases against them, 

and Defendants will be less likely to settle such cases in the future if they are prevented 

from sealing the settlement agreements. 

However, as noted above, the “compelling reasons” standard applies in this case, 

and the parties have not presented any compelling reason for keeping the settlement 

agreement from public scrutiny. The parties have not articulated any specific harm or 

prejudice. Their general conclusory assertions regarding confidentiality interests have 

Case 1:13-cv-01319-AWI-MJS Document 41 Filed 05/13/15 Page 3 of 4
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 4

been rejected by other courts. See, e.g., Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136-38; Select Portfolio 

Servicing v. Valentino, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60907, at *8-9 (N.D. Cal. April 29, 2013) 

(that the parties agreed among themselves to make the settlement agreement 

confidential was insufficient to shield the information from public access); Luo v. Zynga 

Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155144, at *8-11 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2013).

III. ORDER

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The parties’ joint request to seal or redact the settlement agreement 

is DENIED, without prejudice; and 

2. The parties must either file an unredacted version of the settlement 

agreement or an amended motion to seal within fourteen days of 

service of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 13, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01319-AWI-MJS Document 41 Filed 05/13/15 Page 4 of 4