MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

STACI M. YANDLE, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Seal the Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Rule 23 Class Settlement (Doc. 59). For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the motion.

The Seventh Circuit disfavors requests to seal documents noting that "[w]hat happens in the federal courts is presumptively open to public scrutiny." Hicklin Eng'g, L.C. v. Bartell, 439 F.3d 346, 348 (7th Cir. 2006). "[B]oth judicial opinions and litigants' briefs must be in the public record, if necessary in parallel versions — one full version containing all details, and another redacted version with confidential information omitted." Id.

In Swarthout v. Ryla Teleservices, Inc., 4:11-cv-PRC, 2012 WL 5361756 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 30, 2012), a court ordered the settlement agreement remain under seal because "assuring confidentiality of the settlement was a key and material term" of the parties' agreement. Id. at *4. Here, pursuant to the parties' Settlement Agreement, the parties have agreed to keep confidential "the amount of the Maximum Gross Settlement Amount and the specific amount each Named Plaintiff, Opt-In Plaintiff and Rule 23 Settlement Class Member is entitled to receive" (Doc. 45-1, p. 17). Maintaining the entire Settlement Agreement confidential, however, is not a key and material term of that agreement.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Motion to Seal (Doc. 59). The Court ORDERS that the unredacted Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Rule 23 Class Settlement and Attorneys' Fees and Costs (Doc. 60) REMAIN UNDER SEAL and that Plaintiff FILE a redacted Motion and Exhibits with any reference to "the amount of the Maximum Gross Settlement Amount and the specific amount each Named Plaintiff, Opt-In Plaintiff and Rule 23 Settlement Class Member is entitled to receive" redacted on or before May 1, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.