United States District Court, D. New Mexico
MARGARET J. LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Plaintiff,
EL MIRADOR, INCORPORATED and LOUIS PEREA Defendants.
Bohrer Philip Bohrer Scott E. Brady BOHRER BRADY, LLC.
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Montoya Victor P. Montoya Andrea K. Robeda JACKSON LEWIS,
P.C. Counsel for Defendants
MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES
IT PLEASE THE COURT:
a putative collective action brought pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §201, et. seq.
and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act, N.M. Stat. §50-4-22
seeking unpaid overtime. The parties have reached a
settlement of this matter. The Settlement Agreement requires
that the terms of the Settlement be kept confidential and
that the Settlement Agreement be filed under seal.
Settlement Agreement contains an itemization of the specific
settlement amounts available to each Class Member, as well as
each Class Member's name. Thus, the Settlement Agreement
contains personal information that must be kept from public
view to protect the privacy interests of the Class Members.
10th Circuit, Circuit, "' [c]ourts have
long recognized a common-law right of access to judicial
records, ' but this right `is not absolute.'"
Anderson v. Walgreen Co., No. 14-cv-02642, 2016 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 1740(D. Colo. 2016), at *3 (citing JetAway
Aviation, LLC v. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs of Cty. of Montrose,
Colo., 754 F.3d 824, 826 (10th Cir. 2014) (quoting
Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1149 (10th Cir.
2007)). Courts may exercise discretion and restrict a
public's right to access judicial records if that
"`right of access is outweighed by competing
interests.'" Id. (quoting Helm v.
Kansas, 656 F.3d 1277, 1292 (10th Cir. 2011)). In
exercising that discretion, the court "`weigh[s] the
interests of the public, which are presumptively paramount,
against those advanced by the parties.'" Id., at
*3-*4 (citing United States v. Dillard, 795 F.3d
1191, 1205 (10th Cir. 2015) (quoting Crystal Grower's
Corp. v. Dobbins, 616 F.2d 458, 461 (10th Cir. 1980)).
presumption against restriction may be overcome if the party
seeking to restrict access to records "articulate[s] a
real and substantial interest that justifies depriving the
public of access to the records that inform [the court's]
decision-making process." Id., at *4 (citing JetAway,
754 F.3d at 826 (quotation marks and citation omitted)).
"[A] generalized allusion to confidential
information" is insufficient. Id. (citing
JetAway, 754 F.3d at 827). A sufficient showing to overcome
the presumption may be found where the records contain
private or personally identifiable information, or invade
privacy interests. Id., (citing F. R. Civ. P. 5.2
and Huddleson v. City of Pueblo, Colo., 270 F.R.D.
635, 637 (D. Colo. 2010), respectively). The decision to seal
records is best left to the sound discretion of the trial
court to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and
circumstances of the particular case. Id., at *5 (citing
Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599).
Williamson v. Ameriflow Energy Servs., LLC, No.
15-878-MCA/GJF, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66209 (D.N.M., May 1,
2017), this Court recently allowed the parties to file an
FLSA Settlement Agreement under seal stating:
In the interests of maintaining the confidentiality of the
settlement process and agreement in this case, the Court
GRANTS the party's motion to seal all
materials provided to this Court, in camera. These documents
will be kept under seal as attachments 1 through 3 in a
supplement to this Report and Recommendation. The Court also
GRANTS the party's oral argument to seal
the recording of the Fairness Hearing given the specific
terms of the Confidential Settlement Agreement were
explicitly discussed. Id. at *3, fn.1
to protect the integrity of the settlement process and
maintain the privacy rights of the Class Members, including
their names, the parties jointly move this Honorable Court
for leave to file the Settlement Agreement under seal so that
the Court may conduct an in camera review of the Settlement
 Note that, contrary to the motion
before this Court, the Anderson court denied the parties'
motion to seal the FLSA settlement agreement because the
parties failed to engage in any analysis as to why the
interest they sought to protect outweighed the presumption of
public access, they failed to comply with ...