Ohlinger v. Marsh USA, Inc., 2:16-cv-02588

Plaintiff Bonnie Ohlinger sued Marsh USA, Inc. asserting an FLSA claim and the parties reached a settlement.
Defendant Marsh filed a motion for leave to file the parties’ joint motion to approve settlement under seal.
Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition to the sealing motion.
The Court considered the presumption of public access to judicial records and the governing standards for sealing (compelling reasons for dispositive-materials).
Defendant primarily argued sealing was warranted to protect its privacy and to avoid encouraging additional litigation; the latter rationale is rejected by precedent.
The Court denied the motion to seal and directed the Clerk to unseal the joint motion to approve settlement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the parties’ joint motion to approve settlement and accompanying settlement agreement should be filed under seal	Supports sealing to protect Defendant’s privacy interests (non-opposition to sealing)	Sealing needed to protect Marsh’s privacy and to avoid encouraging additional FLSA claims	Denied. Public access presumption governs; generalized privacy interest insufficient and risk of encouraging litigation is not a compelling reason per controlling precedent

Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (establishes strong presumption of public access and "compelling reasons" standard for sealing dispositive materials)
Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) (recognizes the public's general right to inspect judicial records)