Order

[#27, 28]

JENNIFER A. DORSEY, District Judge.

This is an employment action by former Walgreens managers asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The parties have settled their claims and jointly move the court to deem their settlements as good-faith ones.1 They also ask the court to permit them to file their settlement agreements under seal because "the Parties[] have agreed that their settlement agreements are confidential" and confidentiality "is a material term of the settlement."2 I conclude that the parties have not demonstrated compelling reasons to seal these settlement agreements and I deny the motion to seal. Because my denial of the sealing motion leaves me without copies of the settlement agreements the parties are asking me to evaluate, I also deny without prejudice the joint motion to approve those agreements and vacate the August 3, 2015, hearing.

Discussion

There is "a strong presumption in favor of keeping settlement agreements in FLSA wage-settlement cases unsealed and available for public view."3 This openness furthers "Congress's intent both to advance employees' awareness of their FLSA rights and to ensure pervasive implementation of the FLSA in the workplace."4 And it is consistent with the general presumption of a right to public access to court documents.5 As a result, trial courts overwhelmingly deny requests to seal settlement agreements in FLSA actions.6

The presumption that settlement agreements should remain public in FLSA cases may be rebutted with "compelling reasons."7 That the parties have a confidentiality clause or otherwise have agreed to keep the terms of their agreement secret is not a compelling reason.8 But that's the only reason that the parties offer here. Because the parties have asked the court to approve the terms of their settlement, those terms are presumptively public. The parties bear the burden of persuasion to rebut this presumption, but they have offered no argument beyond the mere existence of a confidentiality provision in their settlement agreement. This is not enough.

Because the parties have failed to articulate any facts that justify the sealing of their settlement agreements, I deny without prejudice their joint motion to file the confidential settlement agreement under seal [Doc. 28]. The parties' joint motion for approval of the settlement agreements depends on their motion to seal being granted—indeed, the parties have not yet provided me with a copy of the agreements or any hint to their material terms. Because my denial of this motion to seal leaves me without the key documents I need to decide the joint request to approve the settlement, that motion is also denied without prejudice [Doc. 27], and the August 3, 2015, hearing currently scheduled for argument on that motion is vacated. These denials are without prejudice in the event the parties are able to negotiate settlement agreements that do not require sealing of the agreements or they intend to attempt to justify the sealing of their proposed settlement agreement with a new motion.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the joint motion to file the confidential settlement agreement under seal [Doc. 28] and the joint motion for approval of the settlement agreements [Doc. 27] are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the August 3, 2015, hearing is VACATED.