Ochoa et al v. McDonald's Corp et al

Filing 155

Order by Hon. James Donato granting in part and denying in part 100 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/5/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

STEPHANIE OCHOA, et al.,

Case No. 14-cv-02098-JD

Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
10

MCDONALD’S CORP., et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS'
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL
Re: Dkt. No. 100

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

This order addresses defendants’ April 20, 2015, administrative motion to seal portions of

13

plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and various documents associated with it. See Dkt. No.

14

100. Plaintiffs oppose the motion almost in its entirety. See Dkt. No. 102. The Court grants the

15

motion in part and denies it in part.

16
17

I. GOVERNING STANDARD
In our circuit, in evaluating a motion to seal, two different standards apply depending on

18

whether the request is being made in connection with a dispositive motion or a non-dispositive

19

motion.

20

For dispositive motions, the historic, “strong presumption of access to judicial records”

21

fully applies, and a party seeking sealing must establish “compelling reasons” to overcome that

22

presumption. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 2006)

23

(quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003)).

24

This standard presents a “high threshold,” and “a ‘good cause’ showing will not, without more,

25

satisfy” it. Id. at 1180 (citations omitted). When ordering sealing in this context, the district court

26

must also “articulate the rationale underlying its decision to seal.” Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp.,

27

658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011).

28

1

The non-dispositive motion context is different. There, “the usual presumption of the

2

public’s right of access is rebutted,” the “public has less of a need for access to court records

3

attached only to non-dispositive motions,” and the “public policies that support the right of access

4

to dispositive motions, and related materials, do not apply with equal force to non-dispositive

5

materials.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80 (citations omitted). Therefore, in that context,

6

materials may be sealed so long as the party seeking sealing makes a “particularized showing”

7

under the “good cause” standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Id. at 1180 (quoting

8

Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1138).
In our district, in addition to meeting the applicable standard under Kamakana, all parties

9

requesting sealing must also comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5, including that rule’s requirement

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

that the request must “establish[] that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged, protectable

12

as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law” (i.e., is “sealable”). Civil L.R.

13

79-5(b). The sealing request must also “be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable

14

material.” Id.

15

II.

16

DISCUSSION
This sealing request relates to a motion for class certification. Although certification

17

motions may lead, as a practical matter, to a case-ending result, the “vast majority” of courts in

18

this circuit apply the “good cause” standard when evaluating associated administrative motions to

19

seal. See In re High Tech Employee Antitrust Litig., 2013 WL 163779, at *2 n.1 (N.D. Cal.

20

Jan.15, 2013). The Court applies that standard here.

21

Defendants have submitted declarations from Savan Vaghani, see Dkt. No. 100-1, and

22

Michael Smith, see Dkt. No. 100-2, to justify their requests to seal. By and large, the reasons

23

provided in these declarations do not come close to meeting the “good cause” standard -- and on

24

the scant occasions when they do, the proposed redactions are often not “narrowly tailored to seek

25

sealing only of sealable material.” See Civil L.R. 79-5(b). For example, with respect to the

26

franchise agreements for each of the restaurants at issue in this case, the Vaghani declaration

27

simply says that the documents “contain confidential and proprietary business information,

28

including financial terms” that if disclosed “may be exploited by competitors.” Vaghani Decl. ¶ 6
2

1

at 6:1-13. But as the Court has explained previously, see Dkt. No. 99, establishing good cause to

2

seal a portion of a document requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm”

3

will result if the information is disclosed. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180, 1186. “An

4

unsupported assertion of ‘unfair advantage’ to competitors without explaining ‘how a competitor

5

would use th[e] information to obtain an unfair advantage’ is insufficient.” Hodges v. Apple, Inc.,

6

No. 13-cv-01128-WHO, 2013 WL 6070408, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2013) (quoting Dunbar v.

7

Google, Inc., No. 5:12-cv-003305-LHK, 2012 WL 6202719, at *4-5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2013)).

8

With respect to other documents, the declarations claim that “[t]he information sought to

9

be sealed is not available to the public and could not be recreated from publically available
sources.” See, e.g., Vaghani Decl. ¶ 6 at 7:13-15; Smith Decl. ¶ 5 at 3:19-20. The mere fact that

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

information was not previously available cannot be sufficient to seal a document; if it were, the

12

requirement that a party must show “good cause” to seal a document even if it has produced it

13

pursuant to a protective order would be a dead letter. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (requiring

14

a particularized showing of “good cause” even for “preserving the secrecy of sealed discovery

15

material”); Civil L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) (“Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a

16

party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document,

17

or portions thereof, are sealable.”).

18

And as detailed in the following table, the Court finds the grounds for sealing to be

19

implausible in several instances. For example, the Vaghani declaration makes the conclusory

20

assertion that merely disclosing the features of its In-Store Processor would allow McDonald’s

21

competitors a free ride on McDonald’s work. See Vaghani Decl. ¶ 7, at 9:6-18. This is

22

overblown. A competitor might possibly derive unfair benefits if details about the implementation

23

of those features were disclosed, but the fear that McDonald’s would suffer competitive harm

24

from simply describing them is not plausible. It is also hard to see how information about the

25

format in which Smith Family Partnership records time periods in its billing records could cause

26

any competitive harm, as Smith broadly claims. See Smith Decl. ¶ 10. Defendants claim that this

27

type of information is sealable simply because it relates to payroll data, see Dkt. No. 100 at 4, but

28

good cause to seal a document cannot be satisfied by “[s]imply mentioning a general category of
3

1

privilege, without any further elaboration or any specific linkage with the documents . . . .”

2

Martin v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., No. CV 12-06030 SI, 2013 WL 5441973, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept.

3

30, 2013) (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180, 1184). That kind of sealing request appears to

4

be geared more towards hiding information that plaintiffs claim is evidence of wrongdoing from

5

the public than hiding truly sensitive information.
The Court addresses each specific request to seal in the following table. While defendants’

6
7

motion suggests that they seek sealing of Exhibits 65 and 81 to the Declaration of Matthew J.

8

Murray in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, see Dkt. Nos. 84-4, 84-10, neither

9

of their declarations address these two documents, and the Court consequently denies the request
to seal them. In light of the guidance provided in this order, the Court strikes the remaining

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

pending motions to seal, see Dkt. Nos. 101, 106, 120, 128, 142, and orders defendants to refile a

12

single motion by June 12, 2015, covering any remaining materials it believes are sealable given

13

the standards set forth in this order. Any materials that defendants no longer believe are sealable

14

should be filed in the public record at that time. With respect to the documents or portions of

15

documents with respect to which the administrative motion to seal is denied, below, the party

16

submitting the document must comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3) and file revised redacted

17

versions of the document within 7 days, or else the documents sought to be sealed will not be

18

considered by the Court.

19
Tab
20

Exact Portions to be
Sealed

Particularized Reason for Sealing

21
22
23
24
25

1

2:8-9

26
27
28

2:11-18; 3:3, 6-7

This portion of Plaintiffs’ Motion cites
to and relies on confidential payroll
data, public disclosure would provide
competitors with a detailed account of
Smith’s internal operations. See Smith
Declaration, ¶ 9 (10:4-10:6).
This portion of Plaintiffs’ Motion
discusses confidential terms of the
Franchise Agreement between Smith
and McDonald’s USA; disclosure of
which would undermine McDonald’s
4

Grant or Denial of
Request
Denied. No good
cause has been
shown to seal
information
relating to the
number of
individuals
employed by
Smith.
Denied. Not only
has no good cause
been shown to seal
this material, but
both of the quotes

1

Tab

Exact Portions to be
Sealed

Particularized Reason for Sealing
USA’s ability to negotiate future
franchise agreements and compete in
the marketplace. See Vaghani
Declaration, ¶ 8 (12:13-14:10).

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

3:19-26; 4:2-6; 4:13-14;
5:3-11; 5:21-23

20
21
22
23
24
25

7:6, 8, 11-13, 17, FN10;
9:1-2, 4-5

26
27
28

9:9-13

This portion of Plaintiffs’ Motion
discusses the ISP and POS systems,
proprietary hardware and software
applications developed by McDonald’s
specifically for use in running a
McDonald’s restaurant business. The
franchise agreement between
McDonald’s and the Smith’s provides
that McDonald’s “own[s] all
proprietary rights in and to the
McDonald’s system,” and that required
operations procedures and methods
“constitute confidential trade secrets.”
Information relating to POS and ISP
functionality, along with the output of
such systems (e.g., sales data, order
data, product mix, etc.), has commercial
value to competitors and would provide
them with an unfair business advantage,
including knowledge of how to imitate
and/or duplicate the McDonald’s
System. See Vaghani Declaration, ¶ 8
(14:11-15:21); Smith Declaration, ¶ 9
(10:7-10:18).
This portion of the Plaintiffs’ motion
cites to and relies on confidential
payroll data, this information is not
available to the public and could not be
recreated from publicly-available
sources. Public disclosure would
provide competitors with a detailed
account of Smith’s internal operations
See Smith Declaration, ¶ 9 (10:1811:1).
This portion of Plaintiffs’ Motion
discusses the ISP and POS systems,
proprietary hardware and software
applications developed by McDonald’s
specifically for use in running a
5

Grant or Denial of
Request
appear in a version
of the McDonald’s
standard franchise
agreement that has
been publicly filed
in another case.
See Dkt. No. 103-6.

Denied. No good
cause has been
shown to seal this
information, which
relates to general
requirements
McDonald’s
imposes on the
Smith Family
Partnership,
general features of
Smith’s payroll
system, and
features of
defendants’ InStore Processor.
Denied. No good
cause has been
shown to seal the
results of plaintiffs’
expert analysis.
The mere fact that
this information is
not currently public
does not constitute
good cause.
Denied. Good
cause has not been
shown to seal what
types of meal and
rest breaks are

1

Tab

Exact Portions to be
Sealed

McDonald’s restaurant business. The
franchise agreement between
McDonald’s and the Smith’s provides
that McDonald’s “own[s] all
proprietary rights in and to the
McDonald’s system,” and that required
operations procedures and methods
“constitute confidential trade secrets.”
Information relating to POS and ISP
functionality, along with the output of
such systems (e.g., sales data, order
data, product mix, etc.), has commercial
value to competitors and would provide
them with an unfair business advantage,
including knowledge of how to imitate
and/or duplicate the McDonald’s
System. See Vaghani Declaration, ¶ 8
(15:22-16:5).

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Particularized Reason for Sealing

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

10:15-16, FN18

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

13:22

This portion of the Plaintiffs’ Motion
cites to and relies on confidential
payroll data, this information is not
available to the public and could not be
recreated from publicly-available
sources. Public disclosure would
provide competitors with a detailed
account of Smith’s internal operations.
See Smith Declaration, ¶ 9 (10:1811:1).
This portion of Plaintiffs’ Motion
discusses the ISP and POS systems,
proprietary hardware and software
applications developed by McDonald’s
specifically for use in running a
McDonald’s restaurant business. The
franchise agreement between
McDonald’s and the Smith’s provides
that McDonald’s “own[s] all
proprietary rights in and to the
McDonald’s system,” and that required
operations procedures and methods
“constitute confidential trade secrets.”
Information relating to POS and ISP
6

Grant or Denial of
Request
flagged by
defendants’ InStore Processor.

Denied. No good
cause has been
shown to seal
information
relating to the
number of
individuals
employed by
Smith. The mere
fact that this
information is not
currently public
does not constitute
good cause.

Denied. The
information sought
to be sealed simply
relates to the
format in which
Smith transmitted
payroll data to its
payroll vendor, and
no good cause has
been shown to seal
it.

1

Tab

Exact Portions to be
Sealed

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
15:21; 16:7-8

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

16:11-12

25
26
27
28

2

¶¶ 2-3 (1:9-15)

Particularized Reason for Sealing
functionality, along with the output of
such systems (e.g., sales data, order
data, product mix, etc.), has commercial
value to competitors and would provide
them with an unfair business advantage,
including knowledge of how to imitate
and/or duplicate the McDonald’s
System. See Smith Declaration, ¶ 9
(10:18-11:1).
This portion of Plaintiffs’ Motion cites
to and relies on confidential payroll
data, this information is not available to
the public and could not be recreated
from publicly-available sources. Public
disclosure would provide competitors
with a detailed account of Smith’s
internal operations See Smith
Declaration, ¶ 9 (10:18-11:1).
This portion of Plaintiffs’ Motion
discusses the ISP and POS systems,
proprietary hardware and software
applications developed by McDonald’s
specifically for use in running a
McDonald’s restaurant business. The
franchise agreement between
McDonald’s and the Smith’s provides
that McDonald’s “own[s] all
proprietary rights in and to the
McDonald’s system,” and that required
operations procedures and methods
“constitute confidential trade secrets.”
Information relating to POS and ISP
functionality, along with the output of
such systems (e.g., sales data, order
data, product mix, etc.), has commercial
value to competitors and would provide
them with an unfair business advantage,
including knowledge of how to imitate
and/or duplicate the McDonald’s
System. See Vaghani Declaration, ¶ 8
(16:6-16:17).
This portion of the Amissah-Aidoo
declaration cites to and discusses the
contents of confidential McDonald’s
reports generated exclusively for Smith
based on Smith payroll data and related
7

Grant or Denial of
Request

Denied. No good
cause has been
shown to seal these
rough estimates of
the number of
alleged meal and
rest break
violations.

Denied. Good
cause has not been
shown to seal what
types of meal and
rest breaks are
flagged by
defendants’ InStore Processor.
Denied. No good
cause has been
shown to seal this
information. The
mere fact that the

1

Tab

Exact Portions to be
Sealed

Particularized Reason for Sealing
employee data. See Smith Declaration,
¶ 8 (9:15-9:19).

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

¶¶ 4-5 (1:17-18, 20-24,
26-27)

9

¶¶ 7-8 (2:9-10, 12-13,
15-16)

This portion of the Amissah-Aidoo
declaration cites to and discusses the
contents of a confidential McDonald’s
report generated exclusively for Smith
based on Smith payroll data and related
employee data. See Smith Declaration,
¶ 8 (9:15-9:19).
This portion of the Amissah-Aidoo
declaration cites to and discusses the
contents of confidential McDonald’s
reports generated exclusively for Smith
based on Smith payroll data and related
employee data. See Smith Declaration,
¶ 8 (9:15-9:19).

¶ 9 (2:18-21)

This portion of the Amissah-Aidoo
declaration cites to and discusses the
contents of a confidential McDonald’s
report generated exclusively for Smith
based on Smith payroll data and related
employee data. See Smith Declaration,
¶ 8 (9:15-9:19).

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

¶ 6 (2:1-4)

14
15
16
17

This portion of the Amissah-Aidoo
declaration cites to and discusses the
contents of confidential McDonald’s
reports generated exclusively for Smith
based on Smith payroll data and related
employee data. See Smith Declaration,
¶ 8 (9:15-9:19).

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

This portion of the Amissah-Aidoo
declaration cites to and discusses the
contents of a confidential McDonald’s
report generated exclusively for Smith
based on Smith payroll data and related
employee data. See Smith Declaration,
¶ 10 (2:24-28)
¶ 8 (9:15-9:19).
¶¶ 11-12 (3:2-3, 5-6, 8-9) This portion of the Amissah-Aidoo
8

Grant or Denial of
Request
information relates
to payroll data does
not constitute good
cause.
Granted with
respect to the
names of the
employees for
privacy reasons,
and otherwise
denied.
Denied. No good
cause has been
shown to seal this
information. The
mere fact that the
information relates
to payroll data does
not constitute good
cause.
Granted with
respect to the
names of the
employees for
privacy reasons,
and otherwise
denied.
Denied. No good
cause has been
shown to seal this
information. The
mere fact that the
information relates
to payroll data does
not constitute good
cause.
Denied. No good
cause has been
shown to seal this
information. The
mere fact that the
information relates
to payroll data does
not constitute good
cause.
Granted with

1

Tab

Exact Portions to be
Sealed

Particularized Reason for Sealing
declaration cites to and discusses the
contents of a confidential McDonald’s
report generated exclusively for Smith
based on Smith payroll data and related
employee data. See Smith Declaration,
¶ 8 (9:15-9:19).

2
3
4
5
6

¶ 13 (3:11-13)

This portion of the Amissah-Aidoo
declaration cites to and discusses the
contents of a confidential McDonald’s
report generated exclusively for Smith
based on Smith payroll data and related
employee data. See Smith Declaration,
¶ 8 (9:15-9:19).

Employee Data
Generated by Report

Exhibit A to the Amissah-Aidoo
declaration is a confidential
McDonald’s report generated
exclusively for Smith based on Smith
payroll data and related employee data.
See Smith Declaration, ¶ 7 (8:14-9:5).

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

3

18
19
20
21
22
23

4

Employee Data &
Analysis Generated by
Report

5

Employee Data
Generated by Report

24
25
26
27
28

Exhibit B to the Amissah-Aidoo
declaration is a confidential
McDonald’s report generated
exclusively for Smith based on Smith
payroll data and related employee data.
See Smith Declaration ¶ 7 (9:6-9:14).
Exhibit C to the Amissah-Aidoo
declaration is a confidential
McDonald’s report generated
exclusively for Smith based on Smith
payroll data and related employee data.
9

Grant or Denial of
Request
respect to the
names of the
employees for
privacy reasons,
and otherwise
denied.
Denied. No good
cause has been
shown to seal this
information. The
mere fact that the
information relates
to payroll data does
not constitute good
cause.
Granted with
respect to the
employee names
and the IDs in the
second column for
privacy reasons,
and otherwise
denied. The mere
fact that the
information relates
to payroll data does
not constitute good
cause.
Granted with
respect to the
employee names
and the IDs in the
first column for
privacy reasons,
and otherwise
denied. The mere
fact that the
information relates
to payroll data does
not constitute good
cause.
Granted with
respect to the
employee names
and the IDs in the
second column for

1

Tab

Exact Portions to be
Sealed

Particularized Reason for Sealing
See Smith Declaration ¶ 7 (8:14-9:5).

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

6

Employee Data &
Analysis Generated by
Report

Exhibit D to the Amissah-Aidoo
declaration is a confidential
McDonald’s report generated
exclusively for Smith based on Smith
payroll data and related employee data.
See Smith Declaration ¶ 7 (9:6-9:14).

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

7

22
23
24

8

25
26
27
28

9

Exhibit E to the Amissah-Aidoo
declaration is a confidential
McDonald’s report generated
exclusively for Smith based on Smith
Employee Data
payroll data and related employee data.
Generated by Report
See Smith Declaration ¶ 7 (8:14-9:5).
Exhibit F to the Amissah-Aidoo
declaration is a confidential
McDonald’s report generated
Employee Data &
exclusively for Smith based on Smith
Analysis Generated by
payroll data and related employee data.
Report
See Smith Declaration ¶ 7 (9:6-9:14).
This portion of the Breshears
¶¶ 7-15 (2:21-22, 24-25, Declaration cites to and relies on
2:27-3:1, FN; 23:4, 6, 11; confidential payroll data, this
FN3; 3:12, 16-18; FN4;
information is not available to the
FN5; 4:5-7, 9-11; 4:18public and could not be recreated from
19, 21-22; FN5; FN7)
publicly-available sources. See Smith
10

Grant or Denial of
Request
privacy reasons,
and otherwise
denied. The mere
fact that the
information relates
to payroll data does
not constitute good
cause.
Granted with
respect to the
employee names
and the IDs in the
first column for
privacy reasons,
and otherwise
denied. The mere
fact that the
information relates
to payroll data does
not constitute good
cause.
Granted with
respect to the
employee names
and the IDs in the
second column for
privacy reasons,
and otherwise
denied. The mere
fact that the
information relates
to payroll data does
not constitute good
cause.
Denied. The mere
fact that the
information relates
to payroll data does
not constitute good
cause.
Denied. The mere
fact that defendants
have designated
this information
confidential and
that it is not

1

Tab

Exact Portions to be
Sealed

Particularized Reason for Sealing
Declaration ¶ 11 (11:2-11:6).

2
3
4

¶ 16 (5:3-7; FN 8)

This portion of the Breshears
Declaration cites to and relies on
confidential payroll data, this
information is not available to the
public and could not be recreated from
publicly-available sources. See Smith
Declaration, ¶ 11 (11:2-11:6).

¶ 17 (5:11-15; FN10,
FN11, FN12)

This portion of the Breshears
Declaration cites to and relies on
confidential payroll data, this
information is not available to the
public and could not be recreated from
publicly-available sources. See Smith
Declaration, ¶ 11 (11:2-11:6).

¶ 18 (5:19-20)

This portion of the Breshears
Declaration cites to and relies on
confidential payroll data, this
information is not available to the
public and could not be recreated from
publicly-available sources. See Smith
Declaration, ¶ 11 (11:2-11:6).

5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

¶¶ 20-21 (6:9-11, 14-15;
FN14; FN15)

25
26
27
28

¶¶ 22-25 (6:20-24;
FN16; 7:3, 5-6, 8-10, 13)

This portion of the Breshears
Declaration cites to and relies on
confidential payroll data, this
information is not available to the
public and could not be recreated from
publicly-available sources. See Smith
Declaration, ¶ 11 (11:2-11:6).
This portion of the Breshears
Declaration cites to and relies on
confidential payroll data, this
information is not available to the
public and could not be recreated from
publicly-available sources. See Smith
Declaration, ¶ 11 (11:2-11:6).
11

Grant or Denial of
Request
currently public
does not constitute
good cause.
Denied. The mere
fact that defendants
have designated
this information
confidential and
that it is not
currently public
does not constitute
good cause.
Denied. The mere
fact that defendants
have designated
this information
confidential and
that it is not
currently public
does not constitute
good cause.
Denied. The mere
fact that defendants
have designated
this information
confidential and
that it is not
currently public
does not constitute
good cause.
Denied. The mere
fact that defendants
have designated
this information
confidential and
that it is not
currently public
does not constitute
good cause.
Denied. The mere
fact that defendants
have designated
this information
confidential and
that it is not
currently public

1

Tab

Exact Portions to be
Sealed

Particularized Reason for Sealing

2
3
4
5
6

¶¶ 26-30 (7:20-22; 8:2-5,
7-23; FN17, FN18; 8:24
– 9:1-2, 5, 7-8)
¶¶ 33-47 (10:1-3, 7-10,
12-19, 22-23, 26; 11:1, 6,
8-11, 13, 16, 25; FN 20;
FN 23; 12:1, 5-8; FN24;
FN25; 12:10-13; FN26;
FN27; 12:15-17; FN28;
FN29; 12:20-21)

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

¶¶ 51-64 (13:16-19, 2124, 26; 14:1-11, 13-21,
24, 26, FN31, 15:1, 6, 911, 13, 15, 18, 20, 23,
FN33)

13
14
15
16

¶¶ 66-71 (16:4, 6-7, 9-12,
14-17, 19-20, 21-22,
FN34, FN35, FN36,
FN37, FN38, FN39,
FN40, FN41; 17:1-2, 412, 14, 16-18, FN42,
FN43, FN44, FN45,
FN46)

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

¶74 (Page 18, Chart)
26
27
28

This portion of the Breshears
Declaration cites to and relies on
confidential payroll data, this
information is not available to the
public and could not be recreated from
publicly-available sources. See Smith
Declaration, ¶ 11 (11:2-11:6).

Grant or Denial of
Request
does not constitute
good cause.
Denied. The mere
fact that defendants
have designated
this information
confidential and
that it is not
currently public
does not constitute
good cause.

10

¶ 9 (4:9-12); ¶11 (5:1-4);
Appendix 2

This portion of the Breshears
Declaration cites to and relies on
confidential payroll data, this
information is not available to the
public and could not be recreated from
publicly-available sources. See Smith
Declaration, ¶ 11 (11:2-11:6).
This portion of the Breshears
Declaration cites to and summarizes
confidential payroll data and related
employee data, this information is not
available to the public and could not be
recreated from publicly-available
sources. See Smith Declaration, ¶ 11
(11:2-11:6).
This portion of the Drogin Declaration
cites to and summarizes confidential
payroll data and related employee data,
this information is not available to the
12

Denied. The mere
fact that defendants
have designated
this information
confidential and
that it is not
currently public
does not constitute
good cause.
Denied. The mere
fact that defendants
have designated
this information
confidential and
that it is not
currently public
does not constitute
good cause.
Denied. The mere
fact that defendants
have designated
this information

1

Tab

Exact Portions to be
Sealed

Particularized Reason for Sealing
public and could not be recreated from
publicly-available sources. See Smith
Declaration, ¶ 11 (11:2-11:6).

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

11

58:11-64:1; 76:1-4

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

110:21 – 112:14

This portion of the Michael Smith
Deposition Transcript discusses the
ISP and POS systems, proprietary
hardware and software applications
developed by McDonald’s specifically
for use in running a McDonald’s
restaurant business. The franchise
agreement between McDonald’s and
the Smith’s provides that McDonald’s
“own[s] all proprietary rights in and to
the McDonald’s system,” and that
required operations procedures and
methods “constitute confidential trade
secrets.” Information relating to POS
and ISP functionality, along with the
output of such systems (e.g., sales data,
order data, product mix, etc.), has
commercial value to competitors and
would provide them with an unfair
business advantage, including
knowledge of how to imitate and/or
duplicate the McDonald’s System. See
Smith Declaration, ¶ 6 (6:17-7:5);
Vaghani Declaration ¶ 7 (9:21-10:19).

Grant or Denial of
Request
confidential and
that it is not
currently public
does not constitute
good cause.

Denied. No good
cause has been
shown to seal
general information
relating to
defendants’ InStore Processor.
Denied. No good
cause has been
shown to seal
general information
relating to
defendants’
franchise
This portion of the Michael Smith
agreement.
Deposition Transcript discusses details Moreover,
and confidential terms of the franchise
defendants did not
agreements between Smith and
designate this
McDonald’s USA, disclosure of which portion of the
would undermine McDonald’s USA’s
transcript as
ability to negotiate future franchise
confidential
agreements and compete in the
pursuant to the
marketplace. See Smith Declaration, ¶ 6 protective order,
(7:6-7:13).
waiving their claim
13

1

Tab

Exact Portions to be
Sealed

Particularized Reason for Sealing

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
117:9-121:25

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

133:1-15; 137:13-25;
159:1-162:8

25
26
27
28

12

132:25 – 139:25

This portion of the Michael Smith
Deposition Transcript discusses details
and confidential terms of the franchise
agreements between Smith and
McDonald’s USA, including specific
fee arrangements between Smith and
McDonald’s USA, disclosure of which
would undermine McDonald’s USA’s
ability to negotiate future franchise
agreements and compete in the
marketplace. See Vaghani Declaration,
¶ 7 (10:20-11:7).
This portion of the Michael Smith
Deposition Transcript discusses the
functionality of ISP and POS systems,
proprietary hardware and software
applications developed by McDonald’s
specifically for use in running a
McDonald’s restaurant business, and
reports generated through these
systems. The franchise agreement
between McDonald’s and the Smith’s
provides that McDonald’s “own[s] all
proprietary rights in and to the
McDonald’s system,” and that required
operations procedures and methods
“constitute confidential trade secrets.”
Information relating to POS and ISP
functionality, along with the output of
such systems (e.g., sales data, order
data, product mix, etc.), has commercial
value to competitors and would provide
them with an unfair business advantage,
including knowledge of how to imitate
and/or duplicate the McDonald’s
System. See Vaghani Declaration, ¶ 7
(11:8-11:22); Smith Declaration, ¶ 6
(7:13-7:20).
This portion of the Guadalupe Ortega
Deposition Transcript discusses the
functionality of ISP and POS systems,
proprietary hardware and software
applications developed by McDonald’s
14

Grant or Denial of
Request
that it is
confidential. See
Dkt. No. 103-5.

Denied. No good
cause has been
shown to seal this
information
generally
concerning to the
relationship
between
McDonald’s and
Smith.

Denied. The
declarations’
claims of
competitive harm
from the disclosure
of this information
are conclusory, and
do not constitute
good cause.
Granted for
privacy reasons
with respect to the
name at 139:18, 23,
and otherwise

1

Tab

Exact Portions to be
Sealed

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

13

Response to Special
Interrogatory No. 2 (2:19
– 2:26; 3:4 - 5:20)

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Response to Special
Interrogatory No. 3 (6:4
– 6:19)

Particularized Reason for Sealing
specifically for use in running a
McDonald’s restaurant business, and
the contents of reports generated
through these systems. The franchise
agreement between McDonald’s and
the Smith’s provides that McDonald’s
“own[s] all proprietary rights in and to
the McDonald’s system,” and that
required operations procedures and
methods “constitute confidential trade
secrets.” Information relating to POS
and ISP functionality, along with the
output of such systems (e.g., sales data,
order data, product mix, etc.), has
commercial value to competitors and
would provide them with an unfair
business advantage, including
knowledge of how to imitate and/or
duplicate the McDonald’s System. See
Vaghani Declaration, ¶ 7 (11:23-12:7).
This portion of the Smith Interrogatory
Responses lists the names of Smith
employees, their job titles and, in some
instances, their dates of employment.
These individuals are not parties to this
lawsuit and have not consented to the
public disclosure of their employment
information. See Smith Declaration, ¶ 5
(2:13-3:4).
This portion of the Smith Interrogatory
Responses discusses in detail the
functionality of the ISP and POS
systems, proprietary hardware and
software applications developed by
McDonald’s specifically for use in
running a McDonald’s restaurant
business. The franchise agreement
between McDonald’s and the Smith’s
provides that McDonald’s “own[s] all
proprietary rights in and to the
McDonald’s system,” and that required
operations procedures and methods
“constitute confidential trade secrets.”
Information relating to POS and ISP
functionality, along with the output of
such systems (e.g., sales data, order
15

Grant or Denial of
Request
denied. No good
cause has been
shown to seal this
information, and
the request is not
narrowly tailored.
In addition, to the
extent defendants
move to seal other
portions of the
Ortega deposition
transcript not
included in their
proposed order,
see, e.g., Dkt. 1002 ¶ 6, at 7:13-22,
that request is
denied.

Granted for
privacy reasons.

Denied. No good
cause has been
shown to seal
general
functionality of
defendants’ Point
of Sale and InStore Processor
systems.

1

Tab

Exact Portions to be
Sealed

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Response to Special
Interrogatory No. 5 (7:17
– 7:21)

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Response to Special
Interrogatory No. 7 (8:13
– 8:16)

Particularized Reason for Sealing
data, product mix, etc.), has commercial
value to competitors and would provide
them with an unfair business advantage,
including knowledge of how to imitate
and/or duplicate the McDonald’s
System. See Smith Declaration, ¶ 5
(2:13-3:4).
This portion of the Smith Interrogatory
Responses discusses in detail the
functionality of the ISP system and a
specific report. The franchise
agreement between McDonald’s and
the Smith’s provides that McDonald’s
“own[s] all proprietary rights in and to
the McDonald’s system,” and that
required operations procedures and
methods “constitute confidential trade
secrets.” Information relating to POS
and ISP functionality, along with the
output of such systems (e.g., sales data,
order data, product mix, etc.), has
commercial value to competitors and
would provide them with an unfair
business advantage, including
knowledge of how to imitate and/or
duplicate the McDonald’s System. See
Smith Declaration, ¶ 5 (2:13-3:4).
This portion of the Smith Interrogatory
Responses discusses in detail the
functionality of the ISP system. The
franchise agreement between
McDonald’s and the Smith’s provides
that McDonald’s “own[s] all
proprietary rights in and to the
McDonald’s system,” and that required
operations procedures and methods
“constitute confidential trade secrets.”
Information relating to POS and ISP
functionality, along with the output of
such systems (e.g., sales data, order
data, product mix, etc.), has commercial
value to competitors and would provide
them with an unfair business advantage,
including knowledge of how to imitate
and/or duplicate the McDonald’s
System. See Smith Declaration, ¶ 5
16

Grant or Denial of
Request

Denied. No good
cause has been
shown to seal
general
functionality of
defendants’ Point
of Sale and InStore Processor
systems.

Denied. No good
cause has been
shown to seal
general
functionality of
defendants’ Point
of Sale and InStore Processor
systems.

1

Tab

Exact Portions to be
Sealed

Exhibit A (in its entirety)

(2:13-3:4).
This portion of the Smith Interrogatory
Responses lists the names of both
Smith and McDonald’s employees, and
in many instances, their job titles.
These individuals are not parties to this
lawsuit and have not consented to the
public disclosure of their employment
information. See Smith Declaration, ¶ 5
(2:13-3:4).
Exhibit A to the Smith Interrogatory
Responses lists Smith employee names,
positions, dates of hire and wage rates.
These individuals are not parties to this
lawsuit and have not consented to the
public disclosure of their personal
information related to their employment
with Smith. See Smith Declaration, ¶ 5
(2:13-3:4).

Response to
Interrogatory No. 2 (8:312)

This portion of McDonald’s USA’s
Interrogatory Responses summarizes in
detail the terms included in the
franchise agreements between Smith
and McDonald’s USA, disclosure of
which would undermine McDonald’s
USA’s ability to negotiate future
franchise agreements and compete in
the marketplace. See Vaghani
Declaration, ¶ 6 (3:9-3:28).

Response to
Interrogatory No. 5
(11:18 – 12:7); Response
to Interrogatory No. 6
(12:25 – 13:14)
Response to

This portion of McDonald’s USA’s
Interrogatory Responses summarizes in
detail the terms included in the
franchise agreements between Smith
and McDonald’s USA and the benefits
provided to Smith as a McDonald’s
USA franchisee, disclosure of which
would undermine McDonald’s USA’s
ability to negotiate future franchise
agreements and compete in the
marketplace. See Vaghani Declaration,
¶ 6 (3:9-3:28).
This portion of McDonald’s USA’s

2
3
4
5

Response to Special
Interrogatory No. 10
(10:10 – 10:18; 10:20 –
13:7; 13:14 – 13:17)

6
7
8
9
10
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Particularized Reason for Sealing

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

14

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

17

Grant or Denial of
Request

Granted for
privacy reasons.

Granted for
privacy reasons
with respect to the
names and
employee number
columns, and
otherwise denied.
Denied. No good
cause has been
shown to seal
general information
regarding
McDonald’s USA’s
responsibilities
with respect to
Smith. No
concrete evidence
of potential
competitive harm
has been provided.
Denied. No good
cause has been
shown to seal
general information
regarding services
McDonald’s
provides with
respect to Smith.
No concrete
evidence of
potential
competitive harm
has been provided.
Denied. No good

1

Tab

2
3

Exact Portions to be
Sealed
Interrogatory No. 7
(14:11 – 15:1; 15:3 –
15:27)

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

15

Individual Names and
Phone Numbers

16

Entire Document
Excluding Cover Page,
Confidentiality
Disclaimers and Table of
Contents/Headers

25
26
27
28

Particularized Reason for Sealing
Interrogatory Responses discusses in
detail the functionality of the POS, ISP
and R2D2 software and the reports
generated by these tools, including
specific reports received by Smith.
The franchise agreement between
McDonald’s and the Smith’s provides
that McDonald’s “own[s] all
proprietary rights in and to the
McDonald’s system,” and that required
operations procedures and methods
“constitute confidential trade secrets.”
Information relating to POS and ISP
functionality, along with the output of
such systems (e.g., sales data, order
data, product mix, etc.), has commercial
value to competitors and would provide
them with an unfair business advantage,
including knowledge of how to imitate
and/or duplicate the McDonald’s
System. This portion further discusses
confidential terms on the franchise
agreement with Smith and the contents
of tools offered to Smith pursuant to its
franchise relationship with McDonald’s
USA. See Vaghani Declaration, ¶ 6
(3:9-3:28).
Exhibit 5 to the Murray Declaration, the
VES Crew Rules and Regulations,
includes the name of a Smith employee
and her title. This individual is not a
party to this lawsuit and has not
consented to the public disclosure of
her employment information. This
document further contains the personal
telephone number of Michael Smith,
who has not consented to the disclosure
of this information. See Smith
Declaration, ¶ 5 (3:4-3:8).
Exhibit 45 to the Murray Declaration is
the People Practices section of the
Operations and Training Manual. The
franchise agreement specifically grants
Smith access to business manuals, such
as this document, with detailed
information, including operational
18

Grant or Denial of
Request
cause has been
shown to seal
general information
regarding the
relationship
between
McDonald’s and
Smith and the tools
provided by
McDonald’s.

Granted for
privacy reasons
with respect to the
name of the Smith
employee and
Michael Smith’s
telephone number.
Denied. This
request is not
“narrowly tailored
to seek sealing only
of sealable
material.” See
Civil L.R. 79-5(b).

1

Tab

Exact Portions to be
Sealed

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

17

Employee Data &
Analysis Generated by
Report

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

18

Entire Document

Particularized Reason for Sealing
procedures, methods of inventory
control, business practices and policies
and advertising policies for
informational purposes. Disclosure of
the information contained in this
document would provide competitors of
McDonald’s and Smith a detailed
account of McDonald’s business
strategies, policies, and practices that
are available only to McDonald’s
employees and McDonald’s
franchisees, who have paid fees to
obtain these materials as a unique and
valuable benefit of their franchise
relationship with McDonald’s. See
Vaghani Declaration, ¶ 6 (4:1-4:22).
Exhibit 46 to the Murray Declaration is
a report generated exclusively for Smith
based on Smith payroll data and related
employee data. The contents,
information and analysis provided in
this report are derived from Smith
employee data and have commercial
value to competitors and would provide
them with an unfair business advantage,
including knowledge of how to imitate
and/or duplicate the McDonald’s
System. See Smith Declaration, ¶5 (3:83:16).
Exhibit 48 to the Murray Declaration
describes in detail procedures and
information in connection with the use
of the ISP software, disclosure would
risk the likelihood that competitors will
reap the benefits of this document
without incurring the administrative
costs of development. The franchise
agreement between McDonald’s and
the Smith’s provides that McDonald’s
“own[s] all proprietary rights in and to
the McDonald’s system.” Information
relating to POS and ISP functionality,
along with the output of such systems
(e.g., sales data, order data, product
mix, etc.), has commercial value to
competitors and would provide them
19

Grant or Denial of
Request

Granted for
privacy reasons
with respect to the
names and
employee number
columns, and
otherwise denied.

Denied. This
request is not
“narrowly tailored
to seek sealing only
of sealable
material.” See
Civil L.R. 79-5(b).
Good cause has not
been shown to seal
numerous portions
of this document -for example,
general information
on how to use the
In-Store Processor.

1

Tab

Exact Portions to be
Sealed

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

19

Substantive information
in Table of Contents and
pgs. 1-25

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

20

Substantive information
in pgs. 1-4

Particularized Reason for Sealing
with an unfair business advantage,
including knowledge of how to imitate
and/or duplicate the McDonald’s
System. This portion further discusses
confidential terms on the franchise
agreement with Smith and the contents
of tools offered to Smith pursuant to its
franchise relationship with McDonald’s
USA. See Vaghani Declaration, ¶ 6
(4:23-5:13).
Exhibit 52 to the Murray Declaration is
a Business Review Report containing
specifics on Smith business operations
and suggested guidance from
McDonald’s USA as how to maximize
profits. Disclosure of the information
contained in this document would
provide competitors of the McDonald’s
Defendants a strategic and unfair
business advantage by allowing
competitors a detailed and firsthand
account of the key business strategies
and profit-driving factors considered
and offered as optional guidance
exclusively to franchisees of
McDonald’s USA during the interactive
business review process. See Smith
Declaration, ¶ 5 (3:16-4:6).
Exhibit 53 to the Murray Declaration is
a communication between McDonald’s
USA and Smith contains specifics on
Smith business operations and
suggested guidance from McDonald’s
USA as how to maximize profits.
Disclosure of the information contained
in this document would provide
competitors of the McDonald’s
Defendants a strategic and unfair
business advantage by allowing
competitors a detailed and firsthand
account of the key business strategies
and profit-driving factors considered
and offered as optional guidance
exclusively to franchisees of
McDonald’s USA during the interactive
business review process. See Vaghani
20

Grant or Denial of
Request

Granted.
Although the Smith
declaration does
not provide
specificity as to the
competitive harm
defendants might
suffer from public
disclosure of this
information, the
information
appears to be of the
type that might be
exploitable by
competitors.

Granted.
Although the Smith
declaration does
not provide
specificity as to the
competitive harm
defendants might
suffer from public
disclosure of this
information, the
information
appears to be of the
type that might be
exploitable by
competitors.

1

Tab

Exact Portions to be
Sealed

Particularized Reason for Sealing

2

Declaration, ¶ 6 (5:14-5:28).

3

Employee Data
Generated by Report

Exhibit 54 to the Murray Declaration is
a confidential McDonald’s report
generated exclusively for Smith based
on Smith payroll data and related
employee data. See Smith Declaration,
¶ 5 (4:7-4:15).
Exhibit 55 to the Murray Declaration is
a spreadsheet of Smith employee data,
including employee names, ID
numbers, dates and hours of
employment. These individuals are not
parties to this lawsuit and have not
consented to the public disclosure of
their employment information. See
Smith Declaration, ¶ 5 (4:16-4:20).

Employee Data
Generated by Report

Exhibit 56 to the Murray Declaration is
a confidential McDonald’s report
generated exclusively for Smith based
on Smith payroll data and related
employee data. See Smith Declaration,
¶ 5 (4:7-4:15).

4
5
6

21

Employee Data
Generated by Report

7
8
9
10
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Grant or Denial of
Request

22

12
13
14
15

23

16
17
18
19

24

Employee Data
Generated by Report

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

25

Employee Data
Generated by Report

Exhibit 57 to the Murray Declaration is
a confidential McDonald’s report
generated exclusively for Smith based
on Smith payroll data and related
employee data. See Smith Declaration,
¶ 5 (5:1-5:7).
Exhibit 58 to the Murray Declaration is
a spreadsheet of Smith employee data,
including employee names, rates of
pay, dates and hours of employment.
These individuals are not parties to this
lawsuit and have not consented to the
public disclosure of their employment
information. Furthermore, this
spreadsheet contains wage rates,
earnings amounts and check numbers.
Public disclosure of this information
grants competitors of Smith an unfair
advantage by providing insight into
Smith’s wage structure. See Smith
Declaration, ¶ 5 (5:7-5:13).
21

Granted for
privacy reasons
with respect to the
names and
employee number
columns, and
otherwise denied.

Granted for
privacy reasons
with respect to the
names and badge
number columns,
and otherwise
denied.
Granted for
privacy reasons
with respect to the
names and
employee number
columns, and
otherwise denied.
Granted for
privacy reasons
with respect to the
names and
employee number
columns, and
otherwise denied.

Granted for
privacy reasons
with respect to the
name column, and
otherwise denied.

1

Tab

Exact Portions to be
Sealed

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

26

Employee Data
Generated by Report

27

Entire Document

28

Entire Document

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Particularized Reason for Sealing
Exhibit 59 to the Murray Declaration is
a spreadsheet of Smith employee wage
history, including employee names,
rates of pay, dates and hours of
employment. These individuals are not
parties to this lawsuit and have not
consented to the public disclosure of
their employment information.
Furthermore, this spreadsheet includes
pay rates, earnings amounts and check
numbers. Public disclosure of this
information grants competitors of
Smith an unfair advantage by providing
insight into Smith’s wage structure. See
Smith Declaration, ¶ 5 (5:13-5:19).

Grant or Denial of
Request

Granted for
privacy reasons
with respect to the
names and
employee number
columns, and
otherwise denied.
Denied. The
standard agreement
on which this
document was
based was filed in
the public docket in
another case. See
Wilson v.
McDonald’s Corp.,
No. 5:14-cv-11082JCO-MJH (E.D.
Exhibit 60 to the Murray Declaration is Mich.), ECF. No.
the 800 Market Street Franchise
45-14, available at
Agreement, disclosure of this document Dkt. No. 103-6.
would undermine McDonald’s USA’s
Defendants have
ability to negotiate future franchise
not shown good
agreements and compete in the
cause to seal this
marketplace. See Smith Declaration, ¶ 5 particular version
(5:20-6:6).
of the agreement.
Denied. The
standard agreement
on which this
document was
Exhibit 61 to the Murray Declaration is based was filed in
the 6623 San Pablo Franchise
the public docket in
Agreement, disclosure of this document another case. See
would undermine McDonald’s USA’s
Wilson v.
ability to negotiate future franchise
McDonald’s Corp.,
agreements and compete in the
No. 5:14-cv-11082marketplace. See Vaghani Declaration, JCO-MJH (E.D.
¶ 6 (6:1-6:13).
Mich.), ECF. No.
22

1

Tab

Exact Portions to be
Sealed

Particularized Reason for Sealing

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Entire Document

Exhibit 62 to the Murray Declaration is
the 2301 MacDonald Ave Franchise
Agreement, disclosure of this document
would undermine McDonald’s USA’s
ability to negotiate future franchise
agreements and compete in the
marketplace. See Vaghani Declaration,
¶ 6 (6:1-6:13).

Entire Document
Entire Document

Exhibit 63 to the Murray Declaration is
the 4514 Telegraph Ave Franchise
Agreement, disclosure of this document
would undermine McDonald’s USA’s
ability to negotiate future franchise
agreements and compete in the
marketplace. See Vaghani Declaration,
¶ 6 (6:1-6:13).
Exhibit 64 to the Murray Declaration is

13
14
15
16

29

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

30
31

23

Grant or Denial of
Request
45-14, available at
Dkt. No. 103-6.
Defendants have
not shown good
cause to seal this
particular version
of the agreement.
Denied. The
standard agreement
on which this
document was
based was filed in
the public docket in
another case. See
Wilson v.
McDonald’s Corp.,
No. 5:14-cv-11082JCO-MJH (E.D.
Mich.), ECF. No.
45-14, available at
Dkt. No. 103-6.
Defendants have
not shown good
cause to seal this
particular version
of the agreement.
Denied. The
standard agreement
on which this
document was
based was filed in
the public docket in
another case. See
Wilson v.
McDonald’s Corp.,
No. 5:14-cv-11082JCO-MJH (E.D.
Mich.), ECF. No.
45-14, available at
Dkt. No. 103-6.
Defendants have
not shown good
cause to seal this
particular version
of the agreement.
Denied. The

1

Tab

Exact Portions to be
Sealed

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

32

Portions of Pgs. 1-2

33

Entire Document

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Grant or Denial of
Request
the 1330 Jackson Street Franchise
standard agreement
Agreement, disclosure of this document on which this
would undermine McDonald’s USA’s
document was
ability to negotiate future franchise
based was filed in
agreements and compete in the
the public docket in
marketplace. See Vaghani Declaration, another case. See
¶ 6 (6:1-6:13).
Wilson v.
McDonald’s Corp.,
No. 5:14-cv-11082JCO-MJH (E.D.
Mich.), ECF. No.
45-14, available at
Dkt. No. 103-6.
Defendants have
not shown good
cause to seal this
particular version
of the agreement.
Portions of Exhibit 66 to the Murray
Granted for
Declaration contains specific
privacy reasons
information on training tools offered to with respect to
Smith in improving the operations of its individual email
restaurant and the frequency with which addresses, but
Smith takes advantage of these tools.
otherwise denied.
Public disclosure of this information
No particularized
would put Smith and McDonald’s at a
showing of
competitive disadvantage. See Vaghani competitive harm
Declaration, ¶ 7 (6:1-6:21).
has been made.
Granted for
privacy reasons
with respect to the
names and ID
numbers, and
otherwise denied.
Exhibit 67 to the Murray Declaration is The mere fact that
a report containing commercially
the information has
sensitive information made available
been made
exclusively to franchisees of
available
McDonald’s USA in furtherance of
exclusively to
confidential business strategies. This
franchisees does
document is a tool to be used by
not constitute good
franchisees as an optional resource in
cause to seal it, and
developing scheduling practices and
the allegations of
staffing practices and is unique to the
competitive harm
McDonald’s restaurant business. See
are too conclusory
Vaghani Declaration, ¶ 6 (8:24-9:11).
to constitute good
Particularized Reason for Sealing

24

1

Tab

Exact Portions to be
Sealed

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

34

Entire Document

35

Restaurant Operations
Data Generated by
Report

36

Employee Data
Generated by Report

37

Entire Document

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Grant or Denial of
Request
cause to seal.
Denied with
respect to the
portion attached at
Dkt. No. 92-10.
Exhibit 70 to the Murray Declaration
The mere fact that
contains specific information on
the information has
training tools offered to Smith in
been made
improving the operations of its
available
restaurant and the frequency with which exclusively to
Smith takes advantage of these tools.
franchisees does
See Vaghani Declaration, ¶ 6 (8:11not constitute good
8:23).
cause to seal it.
Granted.
Although the Smith
declaration does
not provide
specificity as to the
Exhibit 71 to the Murray Declaration is competitive harm
a confidential report containing detailed defendants might
sales data and related information
suffer from public
regarding the daily operations of a
disclosure of this
Smith restaurant. The information in
information, the
this report (e.g., sales data, order data,
information
transaction time, etc.), has commercial
appears to be of the
value to competitors and would provide type that might be
them with an unfair business advantage. exploitable by
See Smith Declaration, ¶ 5 (6:7-6:13).
competitors.
Granted for
privacy reasons
with respect to the
names and ID
numbers, and
otherwise denied.
The fact that a
report was
Exhibit 73 to the Murray Declaration is generated
a confidential report generated
exclusively for
exclusively for Smith based on Smith
Smith does not
payroll data and related employee data. constitute good
See Smith Declaration, ¶ 5 (5:1-5:7).
cause.
Exhibit 82 to the Murray Declaration
Denied.
contains a specific list of training
Defendants have
curriculum made available exclusively
not made a
to franchisees of McDonald’s USA.
particularized
The McDonald’s Defendants have
showing that they
Particularized Reason for Sealing

25

1

Tab

Exact Portions to be
Sealed

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Grant or Denial of
Request
expended substantial time, effort and
will suffer
resources to develop this curriculum.
competitive harm if
Disclosure of the information contained their competitors
in this document would provide
are aware of the
competitors of McDonald’s and Smith a general topics that
detailed account of McDonald’s
form part of their
business strategies, policies, and
restaurant
practices that are available only to
management
McDonald’s employees and
curriculum.
McDonald’s franchisees, who have paid
fees to obtain these materials as a
unique and valuable benefit of their
franchise relationship with
McDonald’s. See Vaghani Declaration,
¶ 6 (8:24-9:11).
Particularized Reason for Sealing

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 5, 2015

14
________________________
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
26