Innovation Ventures LLC et al v. Pittsburg Wholesale Grocers Inc et al
Filing
479
ORDER GRANTING IN PART REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM SEALING ORDER by Hon. William Alsup granting in part and denying in part 476 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/22/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
INNOVATION VENTURES, LLC, et al.,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
Plaintiff,
No. C 12-05523 WHA
v.
14
PITTSBURG WHOLESALE GROCERS,
INC., et al.,
15
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM
SEALING ORDER
/
16
17
An October 16 order denied plaintiffs’ request to seal documents designated confidential
18
by defendant Dan-Dee Company, Inc., because Dan-Dee failed to file a declaration and proposed
19
order in support of the motion to seal. The October 16 order ruled that the documents would be
20
filed on the public docket. Dan-Dee now seeks relief from that order. The request is GRANTED
21
22
IN PART.
Counsel for Dan-Dee admits that the failure to file materials in support of the sealing
23
motion was an error and states that his neglect was inadvertent. Dan-Dee now seeks to seal a
24
subset of the information encompassed by the original sealing motion, described as follows
25
(Admin. Mot. 6):
26
27
28
(1) The names and last four digits of the bank accounts for
Dan-Dee, Kevin Attiq, and Fadi Attiq; (2) a complete
profit-and-loss statement for Dan-Dee that shows its sales
revenues, operating costs, and various other sensitive commercial
matters; and (3) significant disclosures about the personal finances
of Kevin Attiq and Fadi Attiq.
1
Dan-Dee’s primary basis for sealing this information is that it constitutes “sensitive
2
financial information for which there is a recognized . . . privilege of privacy under California
3
law,” submitted in connection with a non-dispositive motion (id. at 6–7). The declarations
4
submitted by Dan-Dee in support of the motion for relief parrot this language but do not add any
5
details.
6
Put differently, Dan-Dee is asserting a per se rule that otherwise private financial
7
information should be sealed. There is no such per se rule in the Federal Rules, Local Rules, or
8
controlling precedent, and Dan-Dee fails to set out with particularity which of the many financial
9
details it seeks to seal are sensitive, as well as the potential harm that would result from their
disclosure. Nevertheless, upon review of the documents at issue this order holds that Dan-Dee
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
may redact the following information relating to individual defendants Kevin Attiq and Fadi
12
Attiq: (1) the names and last four digits of the bank accounts for Kevin Attiq and Fadi Attiq; and
13
(2) the declaration of Kevin Attiq at ¶¶5–8, 14, and the appended Exhibit A, attached as Exhibit
14
B to the declaration of Geoffrey Potter (Dkt. No. 461-4).
15
Dan-Dee shall file the subject documents redacted in a manner consistent with the
16
foregoing by OCTOBER 24 AT NOON. Plaintiffs shall file the remaining documents at issue on
17
the public docket by the same deadline.
18
19
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
21
22
Dated: October 22, 2013.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?