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)

Download PDF
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?