Frlekin et al v. Apple Inc.

Filing 270

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL by Judge Alsup granting in part denying in part 263 ; granting in part and denying in part 264 . (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/2/2015)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8
9

AMANDA FRLEKIN, AARON
GREGOROFF, SETH DOWLING,
DEBRA SPEICHER, and TAYLOR
KALIN,
Plaintiffs,

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11
12
13

No. C 13-03451 WHA

v.
APPLE INC.,
Defendant.
/

ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
RECONSIDER AND
GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL

14
15

On May 12, plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to file under seal portions of their

16

class certification motion. The documents sought to be sealed were designated “Confidential” or

17

“Highly Confidential - Attorneys’ Eyes Only” by defendant. Defendant failed to timely file a

18

supporting declaration. By order dated May 22, plaintiffs’ motion was denied.

19

On May 28, defendant filed a motion for leave to seek reconsideration of the denial of

20

plaintiffs’ sealing motion and offers no explanation for its tardy response. The Court feels it is

21

generally a mistake to reconsider a gross over-designation of documents. The appropriate

22

response to such conduct is wholesale denial. This is to incentivize litigants to be reasonable

23

with designations in the first instance, rather than to overreach with the expectation that the

24

Court will pare down any improper designations.

25
26
27
28

In this case, the privacy interests of third parties override these interests. Defendant’s
current motion (Dkt. No. 263) will be treated as its motion to reconsider.
The documents sought to be sealed are highly relevant to the security policies at issue in
this case, and should be available to the absent members of the putative class and the public in
general. This order finds that a legitimate privacy interest permits redaction of very limited

1

portions of the documents sought to be sealed in plaintiffs’ motion. Plaintiffs may redact the

2

following documents and any references to the redacted text in their submissions:

3

Exh.

Permitted Redaction

4

12, 50-53, 76,

GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff shall redact only the references to the name of

5

142, 151, 156,

the employees whose conduct is reported. Please replace names with

6

164

consistent identifying symbols to preserve the coherence of the documents.

7

73-75, 147

GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff shall redact only the references to the names of

8

the employees providing feedback or submitting complaints. Please replace

9

names with consistent identifying symbols to preserve the coherence of the

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

documents.
140

GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff shall redact only the references to the names of

12

the employee subject to the bag search and the employee with whom he or

13

she had a personal conflict. Please replace names with consistent identifying

14

symbols to preserve the coherence of the document.

15

148

GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff shall redact only the references to the names of

16

employees that are the subject of this report. Please replace names with

17

consistent identifying symbols to preserve the coherence of the document.

18
19
20
21

152

GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff shall redact only the references to the names
and identifying information of the employee submitting the complaint and the
subject of that complaint. Please replace names with consistent identifying
symbols to preserve the coherence of the document.

22

All other proposed redactions are DENIED.

23

The clerk shall remove plaintiffs’ public filing (Dkt. No. 268) and plaintiffs shall

24

resubmit their motion for class certification in accordance with the above specifications.

25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27
28

Dated: June 2, 2015.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2