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)

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