Juarez et al v. Jani-King of California, Inc. et al

Filing 153

ORDER by Judge Samuel Conti denying 150 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2011)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ALEJANDRO JUAREZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8

10
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

9

11
12

v.
JANI-KING OF CALIFORNIA, INC., et
al.,
Defendants.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 09-03495 SC
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS'
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
FILE UNDER SEAL DOCUMENTS
IN CONNECTION WITH
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Now before the Court is Defendants Jani-King of California,
Inc., Jani-King, Inc., and Jani-King International, Inc.'s
(collectively "Jani-King") Administrative Motion to file certain
documents under seal.

ECF No. 150 ("Mot.").

For the reasons set

forth below, Jani-King's Motion is DENIED.
Courts have historically recognized a strong presumption in
favor of public access to court documents.
Comm'n, 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978).

See Nixon v. Warner

"[T]he strong presumption of

access applies fully to dispositive pleadings, including motions
for summary judgment and related attachments . . . because the
resolution of a dispute on the merits . . . is at the heart of the
interest in ensuring the public's understanding of the judicial
process and of significant public events."

Kamakana v. City &

County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal
quotations and citations omitted).

A party seeking to seal

1

judicial records attached to a dispositive motion must overcome

2

this strong presumption by meeting the "compelling reasons"

3

standard.

4

compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings,

5

[citation] that outweigh the general history of access and the

6

public policies favoring disclosure . . . ."

7

quotations omitted).

8

may be used to "promote public scandal, circulate libelous

9

statements, or release trade secrets."

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

Id. at 1178-79.

"That is, the party must articulate[]

Id. at 1178 (internal

Compelling reasons exist when court documents

Id. at 1179.

In the instant action, Jani-King moves to file under seal

11

exhibits 21 and 24 to the Declaration of Eileen Hunter in support

12

of Jani-King's Motion for Summary Judgment.

13

("Hunter Decl.").

14

Procedures Manual, which includes guidance for franchisees on

15

training, "starting and operating your business," financial

16

management, and business management.

17

manual "contains invaluable information about the Jani-King

18

franchise system, and provides confidential trade secret

19

information on how franchisees should operate their Jani-King

20

franchise business."

21

spreadsheets which itemize the check stubs and various proofs of

22

payment received by Nano's Janitors as well as copies of documents

23

produced by Plaintiffs that provide the basis for the summaries

24

contained in the spreadsheets.

25

documents set forth confidential financial information as to Nano's

26

janitors and Plaintiffs . . . , including personal billing,

27

payment, and tax information."

28

See ECF No. 149-2

Exhibit 21 is Jani-King's Policies and

Mot. at 1.

Jani-King submits that this

Exhibit 24 contains a series of

Jani-King argues that "[t]hese

Id.

The Court finds that Jani-King has failed to enunciate

2

1

compelling reasons for sealing either Exhibit 21 or Exhibit 24.

2

is unclear why the Policies and Procedures Manual should be sealed.

3

Jani-King asserts that the manual is a trade secret, but does not

4

offer an adequate explanation for that assertion.

5

unclear why Exhibit 24 should be sealed.

6

explain why information concerning a number of payments received by

7

Nano's Janitors should remain confidential.

8

contain some tax records related to the payments, personal

9

information such as tax identification numbers and social security

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10
11

It is also

Jani-King does not

While the exhibit does

numbers have been redacted.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Jani-King's

12

administrative motion to file documents under seal.

13

reconsider its decision if Jani-King submits additional briefing

14

that articulates compelling reasons for sealing the documents.

The court will

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18
19

It

Dated:

December 2, 2011
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3