# Jackson v. Reliance Construction Services LLC

> District Court, S.D. Ohio · October 24, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10381162

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Ohio
- **Decided:** October 24, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10381162

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION - CINCINNATI
AMY JACKSON, : Case No. 1:20-cv-799
Plaintiff, Judge Matthew W. McFarland
v
RELIANCE CONSTRUCTION
SERVICES, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING THE PARTIES JOINT MOTION TO FILE SETTLEMENT
UNDER SEAL (Doc. 38)

This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion to File Settlement
Under Seal (Doc. 38). Plaintiff Amy Jackson initiated this action on October 9, 2020,
alleging, among other things, violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201,
et seq. (“FLSA”). (See Doc. 18.) On June 9, 2022, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Approve
Settlement (Doc. 36), which this Court denied (Doc. 37). Specifically, this Court found
that the parties failed to articulate a real and substantial interest in keeping the Settlement
Agreement confidential. (/d.) As detailed below, the parties again fail to set forth a
compelling reason to seal the Settlement Agreement and sufficiently explain why the
request is narrowly tailored. As such, the Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The Sixth Circuit has repeatedly cautioned, “only the most compelling reasons can
justify non-disclosure of judicial records.” Shane Grp. Inc v. Blue Cross Blue Shield, 825 F.3d
299, 305-06 (6th Cir. 2016); Klingenberg v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Co., 658 F. App’x. 202,

207-08 (6th Cir. 2016). This presumption applies wherever parties to a suit “place material
in the court record,” including settlement agreements that, like here, require court
approval. Brown & Williamson, 710 F.2d 1165, 1181 (6th Cir. 1983). “To meet this burden,
the party must show three things: (1) a compelling interest in sealing the records; (2) that
the interest in sealing outweighs the public’s interest in accessing the records; and (3) that
the request is narrowly tailored.” Kondash v. Kia Motors Am., Inc., 767 F. App’x 635, 637
(6th Cir. 2019). To do so, the party must “analyze in detail, document by document, the
propriety of secrecy, providing reasons and legal citations.” Id. (citing Shane Grp., 825
F.3d at 305). This obligation exists even if the parties themselves agree that the filings
should be sealed. See Rudd Equip. Co. v. John Deere Constr. & Forestry Co., 834 F.3d 589, 359
(6th Cir. 2016).
Here, the parties’ joint motion “falls woefully short of the standards established
by the Sixth Circuit.” White v. Wilberforce Univ., No. 1:15-cv-1165, 2017 WL 3537233, at * 4
(S.D. Ohio Aug. 17, 2017). The parties seek to file the Settlement Agreement—in its
entirety — under seal, arguing that the Settlement Agreement “expressly stipulate[s] that
the monies paid to settle the FLSA claims are not subject to confidentiality, but the
amounts for the contract and Title VII claims are.” (Joint Motion to File Settlement Under
Seal, Doc. 38, Pg. ID 301.) The parties explain that the non-FLSA claims must remain
confidential in the interest of the parties. ([d.) However, the parties do not demonstrate
how such an interest is so compelling to outweigh the public’s interest in accessing the
Settlement Agreement.
Moreover, though the portion relating to the FLSA settlement may not be

confidential, the parties nevertheless request that the entire Settlement Agreement be
filed under seal. The parties fail to narrowly tailor their request to portions of the
Settlement Agreement that meet their identified interest in keeping the document
confidential. See Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305, 308 (“And even where a party can show a
compelling reason why certain documents or portions thereof should be sealed, the seal
itself must be narrowly tailored to serve that reason.”).
Simply put, the parties have not demonstrated (1) a compelling interest in sealing
the Settlement Agreement, (2) that the interest in sealing outweighs the public’s interest
in accessing the records, and (3) that the request is narrowly tailored. See Kondash, 767
F.App’x at 637. Thus, the parties’ Joint Motion to File Settlement Under Seal (Doc. 38) is
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The parties may file an amended motion addressing
the Court’s concerns outlined above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN JISTRICT OF OHIO

By:
JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10381162. Public record. Not legal advice.