Ochoa et al v. McDonald's Corp et al

Filing 253

ORDER by Judge James Donato finding as moot 101 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; finding as moot 106 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; finding as moot 120 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; finding as moot 128 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; finding as moot 142 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 177 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 196 Administrativ e Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 219 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 220 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 221 Admin istrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 222 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; finding as moot 227 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 232 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/11/2015)

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.

ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL

9
10

MCDONALD'S CORP., et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Re: Dkt. Nos. 101, 106, 120, 128, 142, 177,
196, 227, and 232

This order addresses the pending administrative motions to seal in this case. Of the

12
13

currently-pending motions, the ones at Dkt. Nos. 101, 106, 120, and 142 are moot in light of the

14

Court’s prior order at Dkt. No. 155, after which defendants filed a notice that they were no longer

15

seeking to seal some of the documents that were subjects of the earlier motions, see Dkt. No. 165,

16

and filed a new administrative motion to seal at Dkt. No. 177. In addition, the administrative

17

motion to seal at Dkt. No. 128 is essentially moot, because it seeks to seal a subset of the

18

documents covered by Dkt. No. 142. Finally, the motion at Dkt. No. 227 is also moot because

19

defendants have filed a statement agreeing to de-designate essentially all the material as

20

confidential, apart from a single exhibit that has been re-redacted consistent with the Court’s prior

21

orders. See Dkt. Nos. 238, 238-1. The Court strikes those motions, and in this order rules on the

22

motions at Dkt. Nos. 177, 196, and 232.

23

I.

24

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

25

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

26

motion.

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003)).

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011).
The non-dispositive motion context is different. There, “the usual presumption of the

8

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

9

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

10

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

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

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

12

context, materials may be sealed so long as the party seeking sealing makes a “particularized

13

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

14

(quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1138). In either case, however, “[a]n unsupported assertion of ‘unfair

15

advantage’ to competitors without explaining ‘how a competitor would use th[e] information to

16

obtain an unfair advantage’ is insufficient.” Hodges v. Apple, Inc., No. 13-cv-01128-WHO, 2013

17

WL 6070408, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2013) (quoting Dunbar v. Google, Inc., No. 5:12-cv-

18

003305-LHK, 2012 WL 6202719, at *4-5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2013)).
In our district, in addition to meeting the applicable standard under Kamakana, all parties

19
20

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

21

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

22

privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law,” i.e., is

23

“sealable.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). The sealing request must also “be narrowly tailored to seek

24

sealing only of sealable material.” Id.

25

II.

DISCUSSION

26

The disputed portions of the motion at Dkt. No. 180, as well as the motions at Dkt. Nos.

27

196, 227, and 232 involve documents filed in connection with a motion for summary judgment.

28

Since motions for summary judgment are dispositive, the “compelling reasons” standard applies.
2

1

Applying this standard, the Court rules on the requests to seal as follows. In each case

2

where a request is denied, personally identifiable information of individuals may be redacted.

3

A.

Dkt. No. 177

4
5

Tab

Exact Portions to be
Sealed

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
1

Individual names and
phone numbers

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

2

Name at 139:18, 23

23
24
25
26
27
28

6

Entire Document

Defendants’ Reason for Sealing
Exhibit G to Smith’s Opposition to
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class
Certification (Dkt. No. 106). Exhibit G
is the VES Crew Rules and Regulations
and includes the name of a Smith
employee. 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.
This Court previously sealed this
material in its June 5, 2015 Order. (Dkt.
No. 155).
Exhibit A to Plaintiffs’ Reply in
Support of their Motion for Class
Certification (Guadalupe Ortega
Deposition Transcript) (Dkt. No. 120).
This portion of the Guadalupe Ortega
deposition transcript includes the name
of an individual who is not a party to
this lawsuit and has not consented to the
public disclosure of her employment
information. See Smith Declaration, ¶ 5.
This Court previously sealed this
material in its June 5, 2015 Order. (Dkt.
No. 155).
Exhibit P to the McRee Declaration
(McDonald’s USA’s National
Franchising Standards) (Dkt. No.
142). This Exhibit is McDonald’s
USA’s National Franchising Standards,
disclosure of which would provide
competitors of the McDonald’s
Defendants a strategic and unfair
business advantage by allowing
competitors a detailed and firsthand
3

Grant or Denial of
Request
Granted.

Granted.

Denied.

1

Tab

Exact Portions to be
Sealed

Defendants’ Reason for Sealing
account of the key business strategies
and profit-driving factors considered
and offered as optional guidance
exclusively to franchisees of
McDonald’s USA. See Vaghani
Declaration, ¶ 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
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Grant or Denial of
Request

7

Entire Document
B.

Exhibit Q to the McRee Declaration
(Full Operations Review) (Dkt. No.
142). This Exhibit is the Full Operations
Review portion of the QSC Playbook.
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
Declaration, ¶ 6.

Denied. A prior
version of the entire
document from
which this exhibit is
drawn has been
filed in the public
record in the
Eastern District of
Michigan, and
defendants provide
no reason why the
disclosure of this
version would
inflict additional
competitive harm.
See Wilson v.
McDonald’s Corp.,
No. 5:14-cv-11082JCO-MJH (E.D.
Mich. filed Mar.
24, 2014), Dkt. 116; Pullen v.
McDonald’s Corp.,
No. 5:14-cv-11081JCO-MJH (E.D.
Mich. filed Mar.
24, 2014), Dkt. 1210.

Dkt. No. 196

Tab Exact Portions to be
Sealed
1
3:18-6:7; 13:1-7; 20:1316; FN34; 21:7-21

Defendants’ Reason for Sealing
Plaintiffs’ Opposition to the
McDonald’s Defendants Motion for
Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 183).
This portion of Plaintiffs’ Opposition
cites to and describes in detail the
contents of McDonald’s USA’s
McDonald’s USA’s National
Franchising Standards and internal
business review process, disclosure of
4

Grant or Denial of
Request
Denied. The
portions the
McDonald’s
defendants seek to
file under seal are
necessary to
understand the

which 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. See Vaghani
Declaration, ¶ 8.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

2

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

3

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4

Declaration of John Gordon in
3:13-25; 6:17-7:7; 7:148:3; FN 16; 13:13-23; FN Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to
the McDonald’s Defendants Motion
26
for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No.
190). This portion of the Gordon
Declaration cites to and describes in
detail the contents of McDonald’s
USA’s National Franchising Standards,
disclosure of which 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. See Vaghani
Declaration, ¶ 8.
Portions directly citing to Chart of Business Review Documents
(Exhibit A to the Declaration of
Business Review
Carlina Perna). Exhibit A to the Perna
Reports, Recap Letters
Declaration cites directly to Exhibits 49,
and Operations Reviews. 50, 51, 52, 53, 143 to the Pitts
Declaration and Exhibits 122 and 123 to
the Perna Declaration. This information
contains specific on Smith business
operations and suggested guidance from
McDonald’s USA on how to maximize
profits. Disclosure of 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
Declaration ¶ 7.
Entire Document.
Full Operations Review Report
5

resolution of the
issues raised in
their motion, and
they have not
shown a concrete
likelihood of
competitive harm
from disclosure of
the specific
portions that they
seek to file under
seal.
Denied.

Denied.

Denied.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

5

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

6

Entire Document.

(Exhibit B to the Declaration of
Carlina Perna). Exhibit B contains
specific information on Smith business
operations and suggested guidance from
McDonald’s USA on how to maximize
profits. Disclosure of 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
operations review process See Vaghani
Declaration ¶ 7.
ROIP Performance Matrix – QSCP
Denied.
List, Full and Short Operations
Review Reports (Exhibit 122 to the
Declaration of Carlina Perna). Exhibit
122 contains specific information on
Smith business operations and suggested
guidance from McDonald’s USA on
how to maximize profits. Disclosure of
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
operations review process See Vaghani
Declaration ¶ 7.
QSCP Matrix, Full and Short
Operations Review Reports (Exhibit
123 to the Declaration of Carlina
Perna). Exhibit 123 contains specific
information on Smith business
operations and suggested guidance from
McDonald’s USA on how to maximize
profits. Disclosure of 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
operations review process See Vaghani
6

Denied.

1

7

139:18; 139:23

8

161:15-21; 164:7-11;
168:1-25; 170:1-25;
172:17-21

9

103:4-104:22; 115:1116:22; 124:11-22;
133:3-22

10

90:22-91:6; 99:7-16;
103:2-8; 103:22-24;
132:18-24

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
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Declaration ¶ 7.
Portions of Deposition Transcript of
Guadalupe Ortega (Exhibit B to the
Declaration of Casey Pitts). This
portion of the Guadalupe Ortega
deposition transcript includes the name
of an individual who is not a party to
this lawsuit and has not consented to the
public disclosure of her employment
information. See Smith Declaration, ¶ 5.
This Court previously sealed this
material in its June 5, 2015 Order. (Dkt.
No. 155).
Portions of Deposition Transcript of
Bruce Steinhilper (Exhibit C to the
Declaration of Casey Pitts). This
portion of the Steinhilper transcript cites
to and describes in detail the contents of
disclosure of which 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. See Vaghani
Declaration, ¶ 7.
Portions of the Deposition Transcript
of Daniel Gehret (Exhibit H to the
Declaration of Casey Pitts). This
portion of the Gehret transcript cites to
and describes in detail the contents of
McDonald’s USA’s National
Franchising Standards, disclosure of
which 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. See Vaghani
Declaration, ¶ 7.
Portions of the Deposition Transcript
of Ed Smith (Exhibit I to the
Declaration of Casey Pitts). This
portion of the Smith transcript cites to
and describes in detail the contents of
McDonald’s USA’s National
Franchising Standards, disclosure of
which would provide competitors of the
McDonald’s Defendants a strategic and
unfair business advantage by allowing
7

Granted.

Denied.

Denied.

Denied.

1
2
3
4

11

Response to Special
Interrogatory No. 2
(2:19-2:26, 3:4-5:20);
Response to Special
Interrogatory No. 10
(10:10-18; 10:20-13:7;
13:14-13:17); Exhibit A
(only with respect to the
names and employee
number columns).

12

Employee names and
employee ID numbers.

13

Employee names and
employee ID numbers.

14

Entire Document.

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
25
26
27
28

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. See Vaghani
Declaration, ¶ 7.
Smith Family Partnership Responses
to Plaintiff Ernestina Sandoval’s
Special Interrogatories, Set One
(Exhibit J to the Declaration of Casey
Pitts). These portions of the Smith
Interrogatory Responses list the names
of Smith and McDonald’s employees.
These individuals are not parties to this
lawsuit and have not consented to the
public disclosure of their personal
information related to their employment.
See Smith Declaration, ¶ 5. This Court
previously sealed this material in its
June 5, 2015 Order. (Dkt. No. 155).
Time Punch Change Approval Report
(Exhibit 22 to the Declaration of
Casey Pitts). Exhibit 22 includes the
names and employee ID numbers of
Smith employees. These individuals
have not consented to the public
disclosure of this information. See
Smith Declaration, ¶ 5. This Court
previously sealed this material in its
June 5, 2015 Order. (Dkt. No. 155).
Daily Crew Schedule report (Exhibit
47 to the Declaration of Casey Pitts).
Exhibit 47 includes the names and
employee ID numbers of Smith
employees. These individuals have not
consented to the public disclosure of this
information. See Smith Declaration, ¶
5. This Court previously sealed this
material in its June 5, 2015 Order. (Dkt.
No. 155).
Business Review Report (Exhibit 49
to the Declaration of Casey Pitts).
Exhibit 49 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
8

Granted.

Granted.

Granted.

Denied. Although
the Court
previously held that
there was good
cause to seal similar
documents, the
Court finds that
they are not
sealable under the
more stringent
standard applicable
to requests to seal
associated with

exclusively to franchisees of
McDonald’s USA during the interactive
business review process. See Vaghani
Declaration, ¶ 6. This Court previously
sealed Business Review Reports in its
June 5, 2015 Order. (Dkt. No. 155).

1
2
3

dispositive motions.

4
5

15

Contents of letter.

16

Entire Document.

17

Entire Document.

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
25
26
27
28

Business Review Report Recap Letter Denied.
(Exhibit 50 to the Declaration of
Casey Pitts). Exhibit 50 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
Declaration ¶ 6. This Court previously
sealed Business Review Recap Letters
in its June 5, 2015 Order. (Dkt. No.
155).
Business Review Report (Exhibit 51
Denied.
to the Declaration of Casey Pitts).
Exhibit 51 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 Vaghani
Declaration, ¶ 6. This Court previously
sealed Business Review Reports in its
June 5, 2015 Order. (Dkt. No. 155).
Business Review Report (Exhibit 52
Denied.
to the Declaration of Casey Pitts).
Exhibit 52 is a Business Review Report
9

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

18

Contents of letter.

19

Data in report.

20

Data in report.

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

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 Vaghani
Declaration, ¶ 6. This Court previously
sealed Business Review Reports in its
June 5, 2015 Order. (Dkt. No. 155).
Business Review Report Recap Letter
(Exhibit 53 to the Declaration of
Casey Pitts). Exhibit 53 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
Declaration ¶ 6. This Court previously
sealed Business Review Recap Letters
in its June 5, 2015 Order. (Dkt. No.
155).
Labor Analysis Summary Report
(Exhibit 69 to the Declaration of
Casey Pitts). Exhibit 69 includes
specific financial data, including sales
information. This information is not
publicly available and could not be
recreated from publicly available
sources. See Smith Declaration, ¶ 6.
Daily Activity Report (Exhibit 71 to
the Declaration of Casey Pitts).
Exhibit 71 includes specific financial
data includes sales information. See
Smith Declaration, ¶ 6. This Court
previously sealed this material in its
June 5, 2015 Order. (Dkt. No. 155).
10

Denied.

Granted as to the
specific numbers,
but otherwise
denied.

Granted, except as
to the first bullet
point.

1

21

Entire Document

22

Entire Document

23

Entire Document.

24

Entire Document.

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
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

QSC PlayBook (Exhibit 106 to the
Declaration of Casey Pitts). This
Exhibit is Version 7.0 of the QSC
Playbook. 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
Declaration, ¶ 6.
National Franchising Standards
(Exhibit 107 to the Declaration of
Casey Pitts). This Exhibit is
McDonald’s USA’s National
Franchising Standards, disclosure of
which 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. See Vaghani
Declaration, ¶ 6.
National Franchising Standards
(Exhibit 109 to the Declaration of
Casey Pitts; Exhibit 3 to the
Declaration of John Gordon). This
Exhibit is McDonald’s USA’s National
Franchising Standards, disclosure of
which 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. See Vaghani
Declaration, ¶ 6.

Denied.

Improvement Process for
Underperforming Restaurants &
Related Documents (Exhibit 112 to
the Declaration of Casey Pitts). This
Exhibit includes specific details
regarding McDonald’s USA’s
Improvement Process for
11

Denied.

Denied.

Denied.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

25

Employee names and
employee ID numbers.

26

Employee names and
employee ID numbers.

27

Sales data and employee
names.

28

Entire Document.

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
25
26
27
28

Underperforming Restaurants,
disclosure of which 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. See Vaghani
Declaration, ¶ 6.
Time Punch Change Approval Report
(Exhibit 129 to the Declaration of
Casey Pitts). Exhibit 129 includes the
names and employee ID numbers of
Smith employees. These individuals
have not consented to the public
disclosure of this information. See
Smith Declaration, ¶ 5. This Court
previously sealed this material in its
June 5, 2015 Order. (Dkt. No. 155).
Time Punch Change Approval Report
(Exhibit 130 to the Declaration of
Casey Pitts). Exhibit 130 includes the
names and employee ID numbers of
Smith employees. These individuals
have not consented to the public
disclosure of this information. See
Smith Declaration, ¶ 5. This Court
previously sealed this material in its
June 5, 2015 Order. (Dkt. No. 155).
Focus on Service Daily Report
(Exhibit 131 to the Declaration of
Casey Pitts). Exhibit 131 describes in
detail confidential Smith business
records and data related to the daily
operations of the restaurant as well as
employee names. These individuals are
not parties to this action and have not
consented to the public disclosure of this
information. The information sought to
be sealed is not available to the public
and could not be recreated from publicly
available sources. This confidential
report contains detailed sales data and
related information regarding the daily
operations of a Smith restaurant. The
information in this report (e.g., sales
data, order data, transaction time, etc.),
has commercial value to competitors
and would provide them with an unfair
business advantage. See Smith
Declaration, ¶ 6.
Visit Preparation Report (Exhibit 142
to the Declaration of Casey Pitts).
12

Granted.

Granted.

Granted.

Denied.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

29

Entire Document.

30

Entire Report.

31

Entire Report.

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

Exhibit 142 contains specific
information on Smith business
operations and suggested guidance from
McDonald’s USA on how to maximize
profits. Disclosure of 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
operations review process See Vaghani
Declaration ¶ 7.
Full Operations Review Report
(Exhibit 143 to the Declaration of
Casey Pitts). Exhibit 143 contains
specific information on Smith business
operations and suggested guidance from
McDonald’s USA on how to maximize
profits. Disclosure of 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
operations review process See Vaghani
Declaration ¶ 7.
Full Operations Review Report
(Exhibit 144 to the Declaration of
Casey Pitts). Exhibit 144 contains
specific information on Smith business
operations and suggested guidance from
McDonald’s USA on how to maximize
profits. Disclosure of 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
operations review process See Vaghani
Declaration ¶ 7.
Action Plan Report (Exhibit 145 to
the Declaration of Casey Pitts).
Exhibit 145 contains specific
information on Smith business
13

Denied.

Denied.

Denied.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

32

Sales data.

33

Employee names and
employee ID numbers.

34

Contents of email.

35

Contents of email and

9
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

operations and suggested guidance from
McDonald’s USA on how to maximize
profits. Disclosure of 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
operations review process. See Vaghani
Declaration ¶ 7.
Crew Size Planning Matrix (Exhibit
206 to the Declaration of Casey Pitts).
Exhibit 206 describes in detail
confidential Smith business records and
data related to the daily operations of
the restaurant. The information sought
to be sealed is not available to the public
and could not be recreated from publicly
available sources. This confidential
report contains detailed sales data and
related information regarding the daily
operations of a Smith restaurant. The
information in this report (e.g., sales
data, order data, transaction time, etc.),
has commercial value to competitors
and would provide them with an unfair
business advantage. See Smith
Declaration, ¶ 6.
Spreadsheet of LMS Completion Date
by Employee (Exhibit 243 to the
Declaration of Casey Pitts). Exhibit
243 includes the names and employee
ID numbers of Smith employees. These
individuals have not consented to the
public disclosure of this information.
See Smith Declaration, ¶ 5. This Court
previously sealed this material in its
June 5, 2015 Order. (Dkt. No. 155).
Email from J. Watt to S. Dubois
(Exhibit 265 to the Declaration of
Casey Pitts). Exhibit 265 is an internal
email between McDonald’s employees
and U.S. owner-operators. The contents
of this email contain information related
to resources offered to franchisees, such
as Smith, in the context of employee
engagement, including sensitive
information regarding McDonald’s
strategies in response to employee
engagement. See Vaghani Declaration, ¶
6.
Email from E. DeLuna to Owner14

Granted.

Granted.

Denied.

Denied.

attachments.

Operators (Exhibit 266 to the
Declaration of Casey Pitts). Exhibit
265 is an internal email between a
McDonald’s employee and U.S. owneroperators. The contents of this email
contain information related to resources
offered to franchisees, such as Smith, in
the context of employee engagement,
including sensitive information
regarding McDonald’s strategies in
response to employee engagement. See
Vaghani Declaration, ¶ 6.

36

Consents of letter.

37

Entire Document.

38

Entire Document.

Business Review Report Recap Letter Denied.
(Exhibit 296 to the Declaration of
Casey Pitts). Exhibit 296 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
Declaration ¶ 6. This Court previously
sealed Business Review Recap Letters
in its June 5, 2015 Order. (Dkt. No.
155).
National Restaurant Building and
Denied.
Equipment Standards for Traditional
Restaurants FAQs (Exhibit 324 to the
Pitts Declaration). This Exhibit
includes specific details regarding the
National Restaurant Building and
Equipment Standards, disclosure of
which 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. See Vaghani
Declaration, ¶ 6.
National Restaurant Building and
Denied.
Equipment Standards for Traditional
15

1
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
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

39

Entire Document.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16

Restaurants (Exhibit 325 to the
Declaration of Casey Pitts). This
Exhibit includes specific details
regarding the National Restaurant
Building and Equipment Standards,
disclosure of which 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. See Vaghani
Declaration, ¶ 6.
National Franchising Standards
FAQs (Exhibit 344 to the Declaration
of Casey Pitts). This Exhibit includes
specific details regarding McDonald’s
USA’s National Franchising Standards,
disclosure of which 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. See Vaghani
Declaration, ¶ 6.

Denied.

17

C.

18

Although defendants filed a statement of non-opposition at Dkt. No. 238 agreeing that

Dkt. No. 227

19

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Miscalculated Wages and Daily Overtime

20

Violations and Derivative Claims and Exhibits A, B, D, 310, and 311 to the Declaration of Abigail

21

E. Shafroth in Support of the Motion, can be filed in the public record, it appears that unredacted

22

versions have not been filed in the public record. The parties are directed to file unredacted

23

versions of these documents within 7 days of this order.

24
25
26
27
28

D.

Dkt. No. 232

Tab Exact Portions to be
Sealed
1
4:11-18

Defendants’ Reason for Sealing
McDonald’s Defendants Reply Brief
in Support of Motion for Summary
Judgment. This portion of the
16

Grant or Denial of
Request
Denied.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

2

216:8-13; 216:23-217:13

3

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

McDonald’s Defendants’ Reply cites to
and describes in detail the contents of
McDonald’s USA’s National
Franchising Standards and internal
business review process, disclosure of
which 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. See Vaghani
Declaration, ¶ 8.
Portions of Deposition Transcript of
Steve Dubois (Exhibit H to the
Declaration of Elizabeth B. McRee).
This portion of the Steve Dubois
transcript cites to and describes in detail
the contents of optional advice offered
by McDonald’s USA to Smith during
the operations review process,
disclosure of which 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. See Vaghani
Declaration, ¶ 7.
Exhibit 49 to the Declaration of
Elizabeth B. McRee (Business Review
Report – February 27, 2012). Exhibit
49 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
17

Denied.

Denied.

1
2
3
4
5

4

Entire Document

5

Entire Document

6

McDonald’s USA’s
internal business

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
25
26
27
28

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
Declaration, ¶ 6. This Court previously
sealed Business Review Reports in its
June 5, 2015 Order. (Dkt. No. 155).
Exhibit 51 to the Declaration of
Denied.
Elizabeth B. McRee (Business Review
Report – April 28, 2010). Exhibit 51 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 Vaghani
Declaration, ¶ 6. This Court previously
sealed Business Review Reports in its
June 5, 2015 Order. (Dkt. No. 155).
Exhibit 52 to the Declaration of
Denied.
Elizabeth B. McRee (Business Review
Report – January 22, 2014). Exhibit 52
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 Vaghani
Declaration, ¶ 6. This Court previously
sealed Business Review Reports in its
June 5, 2015 Order. (Dkt. No. 155).
Exhibit 106 to the Declaration of
Denied.
Elizabeth B. McRee (QSC PlayBook).
18

strategies

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

7

Entire Document

8

Entire Document

9

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

Exhibit 106 is Version 7.0 of the QSC
Playbook. 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
Declaration, ¶ 6.
Exhibit 107 to the Declaration of
Elizabeth B. McRee (National
Franchising Standards). Exhibit 107
is McDonald’s USA’s National
Franchising Standards, disclosure of
which 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. See Vaghani
Declaration, ¶ 6.
Exhibit 109 to the Declaration of
Elizabeth B. McRee (National
Franchising Standards). Exhibit 109 is
McDonald’s USA’s National
Franchising Standards, disclosure of
which 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. See Vaghani
Declaration, ¶ 6.
Exhibit 122 to the Declaration of
Elizabeth B. McRee (ROIP
Performance Matrix – QSCP List,
Full and Short Operations Review
Reports). Exhibit 122 contains specific
19

Denied.

Denied.

Denied.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

10

Entire Document

11

Entire Document

9
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

information on Smith business
operations and suggested guidance from
McDonald’s USA on how to maximize
profits. Disclosure of 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
operations review process See Vaghani
Declaration ¶ 6.
Exhibit 123 to the Declaration of
Elizabeth B. McRee (QSCP Matrix,
Full and Short Operations Review
Reports). Exhibit 123 contains
specific information on Smith business
operations and suggested guidance from
McDonald’s USA on how to maximize
profits. Disclosure of 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
operations review process See Vaghani
Declaration ¶ 6.
Exhibit 325 to the Declaration of
Elizabeth B. McRee (National
Restaurant Building and Equipment
Standards for Traditional
Restaurants). Exhibit 325 includes
specific details regarding the National
Restaurant Building and Equipment
Standards, disclosure of which 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 guidance exclusively to
franchisees of McDonald’s USA. See
Vaghani Declaration, ¶ 6.

28
20

Denied.

Denied.

1

III.

CONCLUSION
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f), the parties must file revised documents comporting

2
with this order within 7 days if they wish the Court to consider the documents sought to be sealed.
3
4
5

In addition, the Court requests that the parties jointly lodge binders of Plaintiffs’ Response to the
McDonald’s Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, see Dkt. No. 183, and the McDonald’s
Defendants’ Reply, see Dkt. No. 229, including unredacted copies of any associated declarations

6
and exhibits.
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
Dated: August 11, 2015
9
10
________________________
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

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
21