UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

SYBRINA ALLEN, on behalf of herself )

and all others similarly situated, et al., )

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) Cause No.: 2:13-CV-262-WCL-PRC

)

THE PAYDAY LOAN STORE OF )

INDIANA, INC., d/b/a PLS, and )

STEVEN LYONS, individually, )

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on a Joint Motion to File Confidential Settlement Agreements

Under Seal [DE 42], filed by the parties on March 20, 2015. This case was brought by Plaintiffs

under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for unpaid wages, overtime compensation, attorney fees,

and costs. Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Conditionally Certify Class on July 31, 2013, which was

denied on December 3, 2013. Since then, the parties have engaged in discovery and settlement

negotiations, which resulted in a final settlement of Plaintiffs’ claims. Defendants have entered into

settlement agreements with each of the named plaintiffs in this case, and the parties then filed a joint

motion for court approval of these settlements pursuant to the FLSA. 

The proposed settlement agreements contain personal compensation information as well as

confidentially negotiated compromises with each individual Plaintiff. The parties therefore ask that

they be allowed to file these settlement agreements 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 to maintain the Settlement

Agreements [DE 41] under seal. In order to settle this FLSA collective 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 collective action

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 GRANTS the Joint Motion to File Confidential Settlement Agreements

Under Seal [DE 42]. The settlement agreements filed at DE 41 shall therefore remain SEALED.

SO ORDERED this 9th day of April, 2015.

 s/ Paul R. Cherry 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

cc: All counsel of record

2