Newport et al v. Burger King Corporation

Filing 391

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS/COUNTER-DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL by Hon. William Alsup denying 333 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal.(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ROY D. NEWPORT, et al., 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants, v. 16 Defendant/Counter-Claimant, v. ANTELOPE VALLEY RESTAURANTS, INC, et al. 17 Counter-Defendants. / 18 19 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS/COUNTERDEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL BURGER KING CORPORATION, 14 15 No. C 10-04511 WHA Plaintiffs/counter-defendants have filed an administrative motion pursuant to Civil and 20 Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5 to file portions of the transcript of the deposition of John P.S. Salmen 21 under seal. Pursuant to Local Rule 79-5(d), the party designating the information as 22 “confidential” must file within seven days a declaration establishing that the allegedly 23 confidential information is sealable. Otherwise, the document is automatically made part of the 24 public record. Defendant Burger King Corporation designated as confidential portions of the 25 transcript plaintiffs/counter-defendants seek to submit in support of their opposition to BKC’s 26 motion for summary judgment. BKC, the designating party, has not filed the required 27 declaration. Moreover, given that the document was filed in support of a dispositive motion, the 28 order finds no 1 “compelling reason” to approve the motion to file under seal. See Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of 2 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). The motion is DENIED. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: December 5, 2011. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?