Frlekin et al v. Apple Inc.

Filing 254

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL 246 by Hon. William Alsup.(whalc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/22/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

AMANDA FRLEKIN, TAYLOR KALIN,
AARON GREGOROFF, SETH
DOWLING, and DEBRA SPEICHER, on
behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiffs,
v.
APPLE INC., a California corporation,

18

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
UNDER SEAL (DKT. NO. 246)

Defendant.
/

16
17

No. C 13-03451 WHA (lead)
No. C 13-04727 WHA (consolidated)

There is a strong presumption in favor of access to court records. Kamakana v. City &
County of Honolulu, 447 F. 3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006).

19

On May 11, plaintiffs moved for leave to file under seal 71 exhibits provided by Apple in

20

their entirety as well as portions of their motion for class certification (Dkt. No. 246). Apple has

21

not filed a supporting declaration, and the deadline for filing a supporting declaration has long

22

passed. Civil L.R. 79-5(e).

23

Having reviewed each exhibit as well as plaintiffs’ motion, this order finds that no

24

compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings have been articulated for sealing the

25

large swath of exhibits and portions of the class certification motion at issue in plaintiffs’

26

overbroad sealing motion. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ sealing motion is DENIED.

27

IT IS SO ORDERED.

28
Dated: May 22, 2015.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE