IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION MICHEAL WHITEHEAD PLAINTIFFS 4:20-CV-00234-BRW CONWAY CYCLE SHOP, LLC DEFENDANT ORDER The Joint Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 5) based on settlement is DENIED without prejudice. First, because this is an FLSA case, I would like the parties’ confirmation that the negotiated attorney’s fees “were in fact negotiated separately and without regard to the plaintiff’s FLSA claim, and there was no conflict of interest between the attorney and his or her client.”1 Second, the fact that “[t]he parties wish for their agreement to remain private and do not wish for any reasonableness review to occur”2 is irrelevant. There is a presumption of openness in FLSA settlements.3 Accordingly, when the motion is refiled, the parties must attach a copy of the settlement agreement, Plaintiff’s billing records, and a declaration by Plaintiff’s counsel regarding whether they will be enforcing the contingency fee agreement. IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of July, 2020. Billy Roy Wilson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1Barbee v. Big River Steel, LLC, No. 18-2255,

, at *2, n.1 (8th Cir. June 20, 2019). See Vines v. Welspun Pipes, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-00509-BRW,

(E.D. Ark. Apr. 13, 2020) (discussing the issues that arise when attorneys’ fees and liability are negotiated simultaneously). 2Doc. No. 5. 3Hart v. ITC Serv. Grp., Inc., No. 4:15-CV-00599-DGK,

, at *2 (W.D. Mo. June 23, 2017) (“The parties have not rebutted the presumption of openness. There is no claim that the proposed settlement concerns any highly sensitive matter that would rebut the presumption in favor of openness and justify sealing the record. See Jessup, 277 F.3d at 928; In re Sepracor,

, at *1 (holding confidentiality provision insufficient interest to overcome presumption in unsealing FLSA settlement). This is an ordinary FLSA settlement, thus it should be open to the public. While sealing the