UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

KATIE CROSS, on behalf of herself and all other )

similarly situated employees, known and unknown, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Cause No.: 2:15-CV-58-PRC

)

PROMPT MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION, INC. )

d/b/a Prompt Ambulance Service and Indiana )

EMS, GARY MILLER, SHAR MILLER, and )

JOSEPH MERRY, )

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Present the Settlement

Agreement In Camera [DE 64], filed by the parties on October 12, 2016. This case was brought by

Plaintiff on February 16, 2015, under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for unpaid wages.

Thereafter, Ann Farmer joined the action. Significant discovery and briefing on a motion for

conditional certification have occurred. After the motion was fully briefed, the parties began

extensive settlement negotiations. During the settlement negotiations, the parties agreed to the

confidentiality of the settlement amounts to be paid to Plaintiffs and their counsel. This is a

negotiated term that is critical to the resolution of the case. The parties therefore ask that they be

allowed to file the settlement agreement under seal.

Northern District of Indiana Local Rule 5-3 provides that “[n]o document will be maintained

under seal in the absence of an authorizing statute, Court rule, or Court order.” N.D. Ind. L.R. 5-3(a).

The general presumption is that judicial records are public, but this can be overridden when “the

property and privacy interests of the litigants . . . predominate in the particular case.” Citizens First

Nat’l Bank v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 945 (7th Cir. 1999). The bar is quite high: “[a]ny

step that withdraws an element of the judicial process from public view makes the ensuing decision
look more like fiat and requires rigorous justification” by the Court. Hicklin Eng’g, L.C. v. Bartell,

439 F.3d 346, 348 (7th Cir. 2006). A motion to file documents under seal must justify the claim of

secrecy, analyzing the applicable legal criteria. See Citizens First, 178 F.3d at 945. Further, and

notwithstanding the parties’ agreement, the decision of whether good cause exists to file a document

under seal rests solely with the Court. Id. (“The determination of good cause cannot be elided by

allowing the parties to seal whatever they want, for then the interest in publicity will go unprotected

unless the media are interested in the case and move to unseal.”).

The Court finds that the parties have shown good cause for filing the settlement agreement

under seal. In order to settle this FLSA action by way of a settlement agreement, the parties have no

choice but to seek the approval of the Court, which is a public proceeding. The parties do not have

the option, as litigants do in most non-FLSA cases, to execute a private, confidential settlement

agreement and then file a stipulation of dismissal. Yet assuring confidentiality is a key and material

party of these settlement agreements. Swarthout v. Ryla Teleservices, Inc., No. 4:11CV21PRC, 2012

WL 5361756, at *3 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 30, 2012) (citing Perry v. Nat’l City, 05-CV-891-DRH, 2008 WL

427771, *1 (S.D. Ill. Feb. 14, 2008)). 

Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Present the

Settlement Agreement In Camera [DE 64]. The Court ORDERS that the parties are granted leave

to file the settlement agreement under seal in this case.

SO ORDERED this 13th day of October, 2016.

 s/ Paul R. Cherry 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2