Brian Dempsey, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals v. Smith’s Food & Drug Centers, Inc., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive

D. Nevada

Brian Dempsey, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals v. Smith’s Food & Drug Centers, Inc., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive

DecidedOctober 28, 2025

Docket3:24-cv-00269

StatusUnknown

This text of Brian Dempsey, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals v. Smith’s Food & Drug Centers, Inc., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive (Brian Dempsey, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals v. Smith’s Food & Drug Centers, Inc., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brian Dempsey, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals v. Smith’s Food & Drug Centers, Inc., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, (D. Nev. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 BRIAN DEMPSEY, on behalf of himself 4 and all other similarly situated Case No. 3:24-cv-00269-ART-CSD individuals, 5 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 6 LEAVE TO FILE REDACTED vs. VERSION OF SETTLEMENT 7 AGREEMENT (ECF NO. 49) SMITH’S FOOD & DRUG CENTERS, 8 INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,

9 Defendants.

10 Brian Dempsey, an Assistant Store Manager at Smith’s Food and Drug 11 Centers, Inc., sues on behalf of himself and similarly situated and typical persons 12 to recover overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and state 13 statutory law. (ECF No. 1.) The parties have reached a settlement agreement, 14 which Smith’s has moved to redact before filing it on the Court’s public docket. 15 (ECF No. 49.) Smith’s motion is DENIED with leave to amend. 16 Smith’s does not explain its reasons for seeking leave to redact the 17 settlement agreement. (Id.) Instead, it justifies its request to redact by gesturing 18 to decisions in other circuits granting limited redaction requests in FLSA 19 collective actions. (Id.) Smith’s also proposes that redactions would be limited to 20 financial terms, such as the total settlement amount, attorney’s fees and costs, 21 service awards to named plaintiffs, and the total amount of the settlement shares. 22 (ECF Nos. 49, 50-3.) Class members seeking more information on the terms of 23 the agreement could request the unredacted version from the Settlement 24 Administrator. (ECF No. 49.) 25 Where movants do not present any compelling reason for keeping the terms 26 of settlement agreements private, courts within the Ninth Circuit must deny 27 requests to redact. Courts in this circuit start with a “strong presumption in favor 28 1 of access” unless a particular record is one “traditionally kept secret.” Kamakana 2 v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.2006) (citing Foltz v. 3 State Farm Mutual Auto. Insurance Company, 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 4 2003); see, e.g., Smith v. Golden Gate LLC, No. 1:13–cv–01319–AWI–MJS, 2015 5 WL 2340231 (E.D. Cal. May 13, 2015) [hereinafter Golden Gate] (applying 6 Kamakana standard to requests to redact); Johnson v. Bank of America, No. CV- 7 16-04410-PHX-JJT, 2017 WL 9988653 (D. Az. May 30, 2017) (same). The strong 8 presumption in favor of access applies to FLSA settlement agreements. Duran v. 9 Hershey Co., No. 14-cv-01184-RS, 2015 WL 4945931 at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 10 2015). A party seeking to overcome the presumption bears the burden to show 11 “compelling reasons,” supported by specific facts, that outweigh public policies 12 favoring disclosure and the tradition of access. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. In 13 FLSA cases, these reasons must also be compelling enough to overcome the 14 public’s independent interest assuring that employees’ wages are fair. Duran, 15 2015 WL 4945931 at *1. Movants reasons may be compelling where “court files 16 might ... become a vehicle for improper purposes, such as the use of records to 17 gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or 18 release trade secrets.” Golden Gate, 2015 WL 2340231 at *1 (quoting Kamakana, 19 447 F.3d at 1179.) However, “[t]he mere fact that the production of records may 20 lead to a litigant's embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation 21 will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d 22 at 1179 (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136). In other words, a movant’s fear of copy- 23 cat lawsuits is not sufficient to overcome the presumption in favor of access. 24 Duran, 2015 WL 4945931 at *2. 25 Smith’s has not met its burden to bring specific facts overcoming the strong 26 presumption in favor of access. Its motion does not allege what the consequences 27 of publicly releasing the financial terms of the settlement agreement may be. (ECF 28 No. 49.) Because this circuit’s rules regarding public access are relatively clear, 1 || Smith’s references to out-of-circuit decisions are not persuasive. 2 || CONCLUSION 3 It is ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Redacted Version 4 || of Settlement Agreement (ECF No. 49) is DENIED without prejudice and with 5 || leave to amend. 6 It is further ORDERED that the parties have until November 11th, 2025 to 7 || file their unredacted versions of their Motion for Preliminary Approval and 8 || Exhibits on this Court’s public docket, unless Defendant renews its motion before 9 || that time. 10 Dated this 28th day of October, 2025

12 Anos 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 BRIAN DEMPSEY, on behalf of himself 4 and all other similarly situated Case No. 3:24-cv-00269-ART-CSD individuals, 5 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 6 LEAVE TO FILE REDACTED vs. VERSION OF SETTLEMENT 7 AGREEMENT (ECF NO. 49) SMITH’S FOOD & DRUG CENTERS, 8 INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,

9 Defendants.

10 Brian Dempsey, an Assistant Store Manager at Smith’s Food and Drug 11 Centers, Inc., sues on behalf of himself and similarly situated and typical persons 12 to recover overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and state 13 statutory law. (ECF No. 1.) The parties have reached a settlement agreement, 14 which Smith’s has moved to redact before filing it on the Court’s public docket. 15 (ECF No. 49.) Smith’s motion is DENIED with leave to amend. 16 Smith’s does not explain its reasons for seeking leave to redact the 17 settlement agreement. (Id.) Instead, it justifies its request to redact by gesturing 18 to decisions in other circuits granting limited redaction requests in FLSA 19 collective actions. (Id.) Smith’s also proposes that redactions would be limited to 20 financial terms, such as the total settlement amount, attorney’s fees and costs, 21 service awards to named plaintiffs, and the total amount of the settlement shares. 22 (ECF Nos. 49, 50-3.) Class members seeking more information on the terms of 23 the agreement could request the unredacted version from the Settlement 24 Administrator. (ECF No. 49.) 25 Where movants do not present any compelling reason for keeping the terms 26 of settlement agreements private, courts within the Ninth Circuit must deny 27 requests to redact. Courts in this circuit start with a “strong presumption in favor 28 1 of access” unless a particular record is one “traditionally kept secret.” Kamakana 2 v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.2006) (citing Foltz v. 3 State Farm Mutual Auto. Insurance Company, 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 4 2003); see, e.g., Smith v. Golden Gate LLC, No. 1:13–cv–01319–AWI–MJS, 2015 5 WL 2340231 (E.D. Cal. May 13, 2015) [hereinafter Golden Gate] (applying 6 Kamakana standard to requests to redact); Johnson v. Bank of America, No. CV- 7 16-04410-PHX-JJT, 2017 WL 9988653 (D. Az. May 30, 2017) (same). The strong 8 presumption in favor of access applies to FLSA settlement agreements. Duran v. 9 Hershey Co., No. 14-cv-01184-RS, 2015 WL 4945931 at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 10 2015). A party seeking to overcome the presumption bears the burden to show 11 “compelling reasons,” supported by specific facts, that outweigh public policies 12 favoring disclosure and the tradition of access. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. In 13 FLSA cases, these reasons must also be compelling enough to overcome the 14 public’s independent interest assuring that employees’ wages are fair. Duran, 15 2015 WL 4945931 at *1. Movants reasons may be compelling where “court files 16 might ... become a vehicle for improper purposes, such as the use of records to 17 gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or 18 release trade secrets.” Golden Gate, 2015 WL 2340231 at *1 (quoting Kamakana, 19 447 F.3d at 1179.) However, “[t]he mere fact that the production of records may 20 lead to a litigant's embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation 21 will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d 22 at 1179 (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136). In other words, a movant’s fear of copy- 23 cat lawsuits is not sufficient to overcome the presumption in favor of access. 24 Duran, 2015 WL 4945931 at *2. 25 Smith’s has not met its burden to bring specific facts overcoming the strong 26 presumption in favor of access. Its motion does not allege what the consequences 27 of publicly releasing the financial terms of the settlement agreement may be. (ECF 28 No. 49.) Because this circuit’s rules regarding public access are relatively clear, 1 || Smith’s references to out-of-circuit decisions are not persuasive. 2 || CONCLUSION 3 It is ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Redacted Version 4 || of Settlement Agreement (ECF No. 49) is DENIED without prejudice and with 5 || leave to amend. 6 It is further ORDERED that the parties have until November 11th, 2025 to 7 || file their unredacted versions of their Motion for Preliminary Approval and 8 || Exhibits on this Court’s public docket, unless Defendant renews its motion before 9 || that time. 10 Dated this 28th day of October, 2025

12 Anos 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Debbie Foltz, Consumer Action United Policyholders Texas Watch, Intervenors, and Tierney Adamson Kevin Snead Daniel P. Johnson, Intervenors-Appellants. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation California Institute of Medical Research & Technology, Inc., a Foreign Corporation Dba Comprehensive Medical Review Ralph Householder Steven Becker v. April Jean Ho Jim Mathis, Plaintiffs-Intervenors. Debbie Foltz, and Tierney Adamson Kevin Snead Daniel P. Johnson, Intervenors-Appellants v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation, and California Institute of Medical Research & Technology, Inc., a Foreign Corporation Dba Comprehensive Medical Review Ralph Householder Steven Becker v. April Jean Ho Jim Mathis, Plaintiffs-Intervenors. Debbie Foltz, April J. Ho Jim Mathis Tierney Adamson Kevin Snead Daniel P. Johnson, Intervenors, and Consumer Action United Policy-Holders Texas Watch, Intervenors-Appellants v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation, and Steven Becker

331 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)

Ramírez v. Arlequín

447 F.3d 19 (First Circuit, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Brian Dempsey, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals v. Smith’s Food & Drug Centers, Inc., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brian-dempsey-on-behalf-of-himself-and-all-other-similarly-situated-nvd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack