Baker v. Dolgencorp, Inc.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5208
| E.D. Va. | 2011Background
- Eleven plaintiffs in this division settled FLSA claims with Dolgencorp; the settlements were subject to court approval and fairness scrutiny.
- The Court previously conducted a fairness review at a public hearing after notice to the public, but did not seal the documents at that time.
- A Joint Motion to Seal was filed, requesting confidential sealing of the eleven settlement agreements, with arguments focused on protecting negotiations for 796 pending cases nationwide.
- Under controlling Fourth Circuit and related precedents, FLSA settlements are judicial records and public access presumptively applies, but can be overcome by countervailing interests.
- The Court scheduled a public hearing, received no public or press attendance, and ultimately scrutinized the settlements for fairness before denying sealing.
- The Court concluded that sealing the eleven settlements would not demonstrably facilitate future settlements and declined to seal, citing statutory public policy and access rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public access applies to FLSA settlements? | Dolgencorp seeks confidentiality to aid negotiations. | Confidential terms help enhance settlement discussions and reduce conflict. | Public access applies; presumption not overcome. |
| Do countervailing interests justify sealing? | Sealing prevents undue influence on other plaintiffs and preserves confidentiality. | Confidentiality can promote settlement efficiency and prevent public sensationalism. | Countervailing interests not sufficiently compelling to seal. |
| Are confidentiality provisions grounds to seal? | Internal confidentiality inducements justify sealing. | Agreement terms do not depend on sealing; sealing not required for validity. | Sealing denied; confidentiality provisions do not override public right. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350 (11th Cir. 1982) (FLSA settlements require fairness scrutiny and court approval)
- In re Knight Publ’g Co., 743 F.2d 231 (4th Cir. 1984) (public notice and hearing required before sealing)
- Stone v. Univ. of Maryland Med. Sys. Corp., 855 F.2d 178 (4th Cir. 1988) (extends Knight requirements to civil cases)
- Boone v. City of Suffolk, Va., 79 F. Supp. 2d 603 (E.D. Va. 1999) (courts must weigh access vs. sealing interests for FLSA settlements)
- Bank of Am. Nat’l Trust & Sav. Ass’n v. Hotel Rittenhouse Assocs., 800 F.2d 339 (3d Cir. 1986) (public has right to know court-approved settlements)
- Stalnaker v. Novar Corp., 293 F. Supp. 2d 1260 (M.D. Ala. 2003) (absent compelling reasons, sealing FLSA agreements thwarts public oversight)
- Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) (public’s right to access judicial records grounded in democratic process)
- Brown v. Advantage Eng’g, Inc., 960 F.2d 1013 (11th Cir. 1992) (once a matter is before court, it becomes public matter)
- Walton v. United Consumers Club, Inc., 786 F.2d 303 (7th Cir. 1986) (FLSA is designed to prevent private settlements of wage disputes)