Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01348/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01348-3/pdf.json

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

---

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

Alison Rose, on behalf of herself and

others similarly situated

Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, 

v.

Wildflower Bread Company,

Defendant/Counterclaimant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 09-1348-PHX-JAT

ORDER

On April 13, 2011, after receiving a Notice of Settlement (Doc. 146), the Court

ordered the Clerk of the Court to dismiss this case on May 23, 2011, unless prior to that date

a party either filed a request for reinstatement or filed a proposed settlement for the Court’s

consideration and approval. (Doc. 147.) Because the parties had not filed a request for

reinstatement or a proposed settlement prior to May 23, 2011, the Clerk dismissed this case

and entered a Clerk’s Judgment on May 23, 2011. (Doc. 148.) 

The parties then filed their Joint Motion to for Leave to File Settlement Agreement

Under Seal (Doc. 149) and Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement (Doc. 151) later in the

day on May 23, 2011. Despite the “prior to that date” language in the Court’s Order (Doc.

147), the parties mistakenly believed that they had until May 23, 2011 to file their proposed

settlement agreement. The parties filed a Joint Motion for Relief from Judgment (Doc. 152)

to relieve them from their mistake and vacate the judgment. The Court will grant their Joint

Motion (Doc. 152) and will vacate the Clerk’s judgment so the Court can consider the

remaining pending motions. 

Case 2:09-cv-01348-JAT Document 153 Filed 06/14/11 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 -

The parties have filed a Joint Motion for Leave to File Confidential Settlement

Agreement Under Seal (Doc. 149) and have lodged their Sealed Proposed Settlement

Agreement (Doc. 150). The parties’ only stated justification for sealing the Proposed

Settlement Agreement is their 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 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)).

The parties’ Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement and Dismissal with

Prejudice (Doc. 151) 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’ Joint 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)). 

Case 2:09-cv-01348-JAT Document 153 Filed 06/14/11 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 -

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 Joint Motion for Leave to File Confidential

Settlement Agreement Under Seal (Doc. 149).

The Court cannot rule on the parties’ Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement

Agreement and Dismissal with Prejudice (Doc. 151) at this time because the Proposed

Settlement Agreement has not been filed into the record and the parties have not shown

compelling reasons for sealing the Settlement Agreement. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING the parties’ Joint Motion for Relief from Judgment

(Doc. 152). The Clerk shall vacate the Clerk’s Judgment entered on May 23, 2011 (Doc.

148).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING without prejudice the Joint Motion for

Leave to File Confidential Settlement Agreement Under Seal (Doc. 149).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the lodged Proposed Settlement Agreement (Doc.

150) shall remain under seal, but be stricken from the record.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, consistent with Local Rule 5.6(e), the parties

shall have seven (7) days from the date of this Order either to: (1) resubmit the Settlement

Agreement for filing in the public record; or (2) file a motion to seal, with citation to legal

authority, demonstrating compelling reasons for sealing the Settlement Agreement consistent

with the standard set forth in Kamakana.

DATED this 14th day of June, 2011.

Case 2:09-cv-01348-JAT Document 153 Filed 06/14/11 Page 3 of 3