Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03260/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03260-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kenneth Seaman
Plaintiff
UNUM Life Insurance Company of America
Defendant
Unum Group
Defendant

Document Text:

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 1

Defendants represent that plaintiff has taken no position with respect to defendants’

motion to file the settlement agreement under seal.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH SEAMAN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNUM GROUP and UNUM LIFE

INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,

Defendants

 /

No. C-07-3260 MMC

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE DEFENDANT’S

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT UNDER

SEAL; AFFORDING PARTIES

OPPORTUNITY TO SUPPLEMENT

JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT;

CONTINUING HEARING

Before the Court are two motions, both filed March 28, 2008: (1) defendants’

“Administrative Motion to File Under Seal the Parties’ Confidential Settlement Agreement”;

and (2) the parties’ “Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement and Dismissal of

Lawsuit.” Having read and considered the papers submitted in support of each of the

above-referenced motions,1

 the Court rules as follows.

A. Motion to File Under Seal

Defendants identify no cognizable basis upon which to file the settlement agreement

under seal. First, the settlement agreement’s inclusion of a provision for confidentiality is,

standing alone, insufficient. See Civil L.R. 79-5(a) (providing parties’ stipulation that

Case 3:07-cv-03260-MMC Document 33 Filed 04/02/08 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

document is sealable “will not suffice to allow the filing of documents under seal”). Second,

defendant’s reliance on Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F. 3d 772 (3rd Cir. 1994) is

unavailing. Although the Third Circuit stated therein that “if a case involves private litigants,

and concerns matters of little legitimate public concern, that should be a factor weighing in

favor of granting or maintaining an order of confidentiality,” see id. at 788, the Third Circuit

also held that where a settlement agreement is filed, “it should be released by the district

court itself under the right of access doctrine,” see id. at 781, unless the parties, at a

minimum, make a “particularized showing of the need for confidentiality,” see id. at 788

(requiring court to engage in “balancing process”; noting particularized need for

confidentiality is “only one factor”).

Accordingly, defendants’ administrative motion is DENIED.

Defendants shall, no later than April 11, 2008, either (1) file in the public record the

settlement agreement, or (2) to the extent defendants wish to submit a motion that seeks

leave to file under seal only the “monetary amounts” stated in the settlement agreement,

(see Defs.’ Admin. Mot. at 3:23-26), file a motion that explains why the monetary amounts

constitute “sealable material.”

B. Motion for Approval

Although the parties jointly request the Court “scrutinize the settlement for fairness,”

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

parties have not provided sufficient information to enable the Court to meaningfully engage

in such an assessment. Specifically, the parties have failed to provide any information as

to the amount of overtime compensation, penalties, and interest claimed herein by plaintiff,

and, consequently, the Court is unable to properly consider one of the most significant

factors, “the amount offered in settlement.” Cf. In re Mego Financial Corp. Securities Litig.,

213 F. 3d 454, 459 (9th Cir. 2000) (observing parties provided district court with specific

amount plaintiff claimed so as to allow district court to compare amount claimed with the

//

//

Case 3:07-cv-03260-MMC Document 33 Filed 04/02/08 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

2

The Ninth Circuit has not considered whether to adopt the Eleventh Circuit’s

requirement that a district court approve the settlement of a claim filed under the Fair Labor

Standards Act, and, as a result, has not specified the factors relevant to the Court’s

determination in such cases. The parties suggest that the Court consider the factors

weighed by a district court when determining the fairness of a proposed class action

settlement. See id. at 458 (setting forth factors).

3

If the parties determine it is unnecessary to seek court approval of their settlement,

the parties shall, no later than April 11, 2008, file a notice to so inform the Court. Further,

in any such notice, the parties shall indicate whether they consent to entry of an order

conditionally dismissing the matter, such order to state: “The parties having advised the

Court that they have agreed to a settlement of the above-titled action, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that plaintiff’s claims alleged herein be dismissed without prejudice; provided,

however, that if any party hereto shall certify to this Court, within ninety, with proof of

service of a copy thereon on opposing counsel, that the agreed consideration for the

settlement has not been delivered, the foregoing order shall stand vacated and the action

shall forthwith be restored to the calendar to be set for trial.”

3

amount offered in settlement).2 Further, the parties have not explained the basis for their

assertion that there is “uncertainty regarding [p]laintiff’s recovery” because “the law on this

area is sparse,” (see Joint Mot. at 6:20-23), and, consequently, the Court is unable to

properly consider other significant factors, specifically, “the strength of the plaintiff’s case”

and its bearing on “the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation.” 

See In re Mego Financial Corp. Securities Litig., 213 F. 3d at 458-59.

Accordingly, the Court will afford the parties the opportunity to file, no later than April

11, 2008, a joint supplemental brief, not to exceed five pages in length exclusive of exhibits,

in support of the Joint Motion for Approval.

C. Hearing

The hearing on the Joint Motion for Approval is CONTINUED from April 11, 2008 to

April 25, 2008, at 9:00 a.m.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 2, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-03260-MMC Document 33 Filed 04/02/08 Page 3 of 3