Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03683/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03683-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Fair Labor Standards

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL HUMMEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-03683-JSC 

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S 

UNOPPOSED ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS 

RELATING TO SETTLEMENT UNDER 

SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 50

Plaintiff Michael Hummel, a former relief driver for Defendant Bimbo Bakeries USA 

(“Bimbo”), brought suit on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals alleging 

violation of state and federal wage and hour laws. Following final approval of a class action 

settlement in the Central District of California, Plaintiff dismissed his class allegations leaving his 

individual state law wage and hour claims and an individual Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) 

overtime claim. On August 19, 2015, the parties notified the Court that they had settled this 

matter and Defendant filed the now pending unopposed administrative motion to file documents 

relating to the settlement under seal. (Dkt. No 50.) In particular, Defendant seeks to file the 

parties’ joint motion for judicial approval of their settlement agreement and the final settlement

agreement under seal. The motion is GRANTED in part. Defendant has demonstrated a 

compelling reason for confidentiality of the settlement amount (but not the entire settlement 

agreement) sufficient to rebut the presumption of public access in FLSA cases.

LEGAL STANDARD

“[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records 

and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Communications, 

Case 3:14-cv-03683-JSC Document 51 Filed 09/21/15 Page 1 of 6
2

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

Northern District of California

Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597, n.7 (1978); see also Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Comp., 

331 F.3d 1124, 1134 (9th Cir. 2003) (“In this circuit, we start with a strong presumption in favor 

of access to court records.”). The right is justified by the interest of citizens in “keep[ing] a 

watchful eye on the workings of public agencies.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. The right, however, “is 

not absolute and can be overridden given sufficiently compelling reasons for doing so.” Foltz, 331 

F.3d at 1135; see e.g., Times Mirror Co. v. United States, 873 F.2d 1210, 1219 (9th Cir. 1989).

The “compelling reasons” standard is a strict one, and “[s]imply mentioning a general category of 

privilege, without any further elaboration or any specific linkage with the documents, does not 

satisfy the burden.” Kamakana v. City and County of Honoloulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1184 (9th Cir. 

2006). The court must “balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to 

keep certain judicial records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal 

certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual 

basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. at 1179; see also Apple Inc. v. 

Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011).

In addition, parties moving to seal documents must comply with the procedures set forth in 

Civil Local Rule 79–5. The rule permits sealing only where the parties have “establishe[d] that the 

document or portions thereof is privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to 

protection under the law.” Civ. L.R. 79–5(b). It requires the parties to “narrowly tailor” their 

requests only to the sealable material. Id. at 79–5(d). Thus, although sometimes it may be 

appropriate to seal a document in its entirety, whenever possible a party must redact. See 

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1183 (noting a preference for redactions so long as they “have the virtue 

of being limited and clear”); Murphy v. Kavo Am. Corp., 11–cv–00410–YGR, 2012 WL 1497489, 

at *2–3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2012) (denying motion to seal exhibits but directing parties to redact 

confidential information). Whatever the basis, the court “must articulate [the] reasoning or 

findings underlying its decision to seal.” Apple, 658 F.3d at 1162.

DISCUSSION

Defendant seeks to file documents related to the settlement of this action under seal. 

Because the settlement involves FLSA claims, it is subject to judicial approval and the Court 

Case 3:14-cv-03683-JSC Document 51 Filed 09/21/15 Page 2 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

“must determine whether the settlement is a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute.” 

See Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1353 (11th Cir. 1982); see also 

Seminiano v. Xyris Ent., Inc., 602 Fed.Appx. 682, 683 (9th Cir. 2015) (“FLSA claims may not be 

settled without approval of either the Secretary of Labor or a district court.”); Yue Zhou v. Wang’s 

Restaurant, No. 05–0279, 2007 WL 2298046, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2007) (same). In contrast 

to other areas of the law in which settlement agreements frequently remain confidential, FLSA 

agreements are filed with the court and become judicial records. “They are therefore subject to a 

strong presumption in favor of public access, which cannot be overcome absent compelling 

reasons.” Duran v. Hershey Co., No. 14-CV-01184-RS, 2015 WL 4945931, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 

10, 2015). 

District courts thus generally disfavor sealing of FLSA settlement agreements. Joo v. 

Kitchen Table, Inc., 763 F.Supp.2d 643, 647 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (collecting cases); see also Duran, 

2015 WL 4945931 at *3 (denying a motion to file a FLSA settlement agreement under seal 

because “no compelling reason exists to rebut the strong presumption of access in this FLSA 

case”); Luo v. Zynga Inc., No. 13-CV-00186 NC, 2013 WL 5814763, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 

2013) (denying a motion to file a FLSA settlement agreement under seal because the parties failed 

to overcome the presumption of public access); Bernstein v. Target Stores, Inc., 13-cv-01018-NC, 

2013 WL 5807581, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2013) (observing that “most district courts 

considering a motion to seal in connection with a motion to approve settlement of FLSA claims 

have applied a presumption of public access” and denying motion). Courts often cite “the 

private-public character of employee rights under the FLSA, whereby the public has an 

independent interest in assuring that employees[’] wages are fair and thus do not endanger the 

national health and well-being” as a basis for the denial of a sealing request. Joo, 763 F. Supp. 2d 

at 645 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

Here, Defendant seeks to file the settlement agreement and joint motion for approval of the 

settlement agreement under seal because confidentiality was a material term of the parties’ 

settlement and there are privacy interests at stake for both parties. Defendant contends that 

confidentiality is necessary to prevent “copy-cat” lawsuits by other former or current employees, 

Case 3:14-cv-03683-JSC Document 51 Filed 09/21/15 Page 3 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

and so Plaintiff can keep the amount of the settlement private from friends, family, and his 

employer. (Dkt. No. 50-1 at ¶¶ 6-7.) The Court is not convinced that either of these justifications 

constitutes a compelling reason to file the settlement documents under seal in toto given the 

public-private interests at stake in FLSA actions.

As an initial matter, the Court is not persuaded by Defendant’s citation to other cases 

within this district and outside which allowed parties to file FLSA settlement agreements under 

seal. As another court within this district noted when considering these same cited examples, 

“[w]hile some district courts have indeed permitted FLSA settlement agreements to be filed under 

seal, those decisions are generally threadbare and uniformly fail to acknowledge the considerable 

body of law counseling against sealing. [Defendant] has succeeded in aggregating a number of 

sealing orders issued under circumstances similar to those present here, but it has failed to identify 

any articulable legal principle flowing from those decisions.” Duran, 2015 WL 4945931, at *2. 

(Compare Dkt. No. 50-5 – Dkt. No. 50-10 with Duran, No. 14-cv-01184, Dkt. No. 45-2 – Dkt. 

No. 45-7.)

The Duran court also rejected Defendant’s argument that it might be subject to copy-cat 

lawsuits if the settlement here were made public noting that this type of argument was also 

rejected by the Ninth Circuit in Kamakana. See Duran, 2015 WL 494531, at *2 (citing Kamakana

447 F.3d at 1179 (“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.”).) “A litigant is not entitled to the court’s protection from” exposure to 

“additional liability and litigation.” Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1137 (holding that exposure to liability in 

collateral suits is not a compelling reason to overcome the presumption of public access); see also 

Luo, 2013 WL 5814763, at *3. 

Defendant attempts to distinguish the settlement here from traditional FLSA actions

suggesting that because this is an individual rather than a collective action and the FLSA claim 

was just one of Plaintiff’s claims, there are no issues of a “private-public character” that would 

implicate “national health and well-being.” While the latter is technically accurate, at the time the 

parties notified the Court of the settlement, Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment—

Case 3:14-cv-03683-JSC Document 51 Filed 09/21/15 Page 4 of 6
5

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

Northern District of California

seeking summary judgment on all Plaintiff’s claims except his FLSA claims—was pending. (Dkt. 

No. 33.) As a result, Defendant’s suggestion that the Court should give less weight to Plaintiff’s 

FLSA claim is unavailing. 

The Court is, however, persuaded by Defendant’s argument that the individual rather than 

collective nature of this action warrants sealing of the monetary amounts in the settlement 

agreement. There is no general public interest in the precise settlement amount and the public can 

be assured that the settlement is fundamentally fair as it is subject to judicial scrutiny both as to 

substance and compensation. And the FLSA does not require that the settlement amount be made 

public, only that the settlement be approved by the judge. As a magistrate judge who frequently 

presides over settlement negotiations, the Court is mindful that the monetary amount of a 

settlement is often a highly sensitive matter for both parties. To prohibit parties as a matter of 

course from maintaining the confidentiality of this information in individual settlements just 

because an FLSA claim was pled will discourage settlements. Further, in individual actions such 

as this the cost of litigation may prove prohibitive for a plaintiff taking a case through trial, but 

defendants might well be dissuaded from settling if they know that the amount of each settlement 

will be public. Further, this particular defendant was subject to a wage and hour class action that 

settled and thus its wage and hour practices, including practices that affected the plaintiff here, 

have been made public. See Tyrone Smith v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc., No. 12-cv-01689-CAS 

(PJW) (C.D. Cal.). 

The Court thus concludes that under the facts of this individual action sealing of the 

settlement amounts is justified. See King v. MS Companies, LLC, No. 2:13-CV-02277-MHH, 

2015 WL 3657649, at *3 (N.D. Ala. June 12, 2015) (allowing sealing of the settlement amounts in 

an FLSA action because “this is an isolated case involving only three employees and that all of the 

managers who were involved in the payment dispute have left the company.”); see also Duran, 

2015 WL 4945931, at *2 (noting that “[i]f this case involved individual wage and hour claims 

arising out of discrete and isolated misconduct, perhaps [defendant’s] argument would have some 

force.”).

Case 3:14-cv-03683-JSC Document 51 Filed 09/21/15 Page 5 of 6
6

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

Northern District of California

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s motion to seal is GRANTED in part. (Dkt. 

No. 50.) Within seven days, Defendant shall file the joint motion for approval of the settlement 

agreement and the attached settlement agreement on the public docket redacting only the 

settlement amounts. The Court will take the motion under submission upon filing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 21, 2015

________________________

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-03683-JSC Document 51 Filed 09/21/15 Page 6 of 6