Frlekin et al v. Apple Inc.

Filing 275

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL by Hon. William Alsup re 259 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/5/2015)

Download PDF
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 12 AMANDA FRLEKIN, AARON GREGOROFF, SETH DOWNLING, DEBRA SPEICHER, and TAYLOR KALIN, Plaintiffs, 13 14 15 16 No. C 13-03451 WHA v. ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL APPLE INC., Defendant. / 17 18 Defendant Apple, Inc., moves to file under seal several exhibits to its opposition to 19 plaintiffs’ class certification motion. Apple seeks to seal seventy video clips of security footage 20 depicting public and secure areas of Apple retail stores as well as one hundred twenty-seven 21 photographs depicting similar areas of the stores. Some exhibits depict the faces of Apple 22 employees and customers. Apple claims it could suffer commercial harm if these exhibits were 23 made available to the public because potential wrongdoers could glean information about 24 Apple’s security system, including “what areas the surveillance camera and video covers, and by 25 deduction, what areas it does not cover . . . .” Apple also argues that public disclosure of these 26 exhibits would unnecessarily infringe on the privacy rights of its customers and employees. 27 Plaintiffs oppose Apple’s motion. 28 Having reviewed Apple’s submissions, good cause exists to justify sealing the video evidence, as that evidence contains confidential information relating to Apple’s security systems, 1 which could cause significant commercial harm if disclosed publicly. No such interest justifies 2 sealing the photographic evidence. Nor has Apple pointed to any privacy interest affected by the 3 depiction of the faces of customers or employees conducting ordinary business at a retail store. 4 Accordingly, Apple’s motion to file under seal is GRANTED as to the video exhibits to the 5 declaration of Todd K. Boyer in support of Apple’s opposition, which are: Exhibit J to Exhibit 6 B-1, Exhibit G to Exhibit B-6, Exhibit C to Exhibit GG, Exhibit HH, and Exhibit II. All other 7 proposed redactions are DENIED. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Dated: June 5, 2015. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 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?