Rainbow Business Solutions et al v. Merchant Services, Inc et al

Filing 416

ORDER SUPPLEMENTING #408 OCTOBER 31, 2012 ORDER Re #411 Declaration. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 11/13/2012. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/13/2012)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 JUST FILM, INC.; RAINBOW BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, doing business as PRECISION TUNE AUTO CARE; BURLINGAME MOTORS, INC.; DIETZ TOWING, INC.; THE ROSE DRESS, INC.; VOLKER VON GLASENAPP; JERRY SU; VERENA BAUMGARTNER; TERRY JORDAN; LEWIS BAE; and ERIN CAMPBELL, on behalf of themselves, the general public and those similarly situated, United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 No. C 10-1993 CW ORDER SUPPLEMENTING OCTOBER 31, 2012 ORDER (DOCKET NO. 411) Plaintiffs, v. MERCHANT SERVICES, INC.; NATIONAL PAYMENT PROCESSING; UNIVERSAL MERCHANT SERVICES, LLC; UNIVERSAL CARD, INC.; JASON MOORE; NATHAN JURCZYK; ROBERT PARISI; ERIC MADURA; FIONA WALSHE; ALICYN ROY; MBF LEASING, LLC; NORTHERN FUNDING, LLC; NORTHERN LEASING SYSTEMS, INC.; GOLDEN EAGLE LEASING, LLC; LEASE SOURCE-LSI, LLC; LEASE FINANCE GROUP, LLC; JAY COHEN; LEONARD MEZEI; SARA KRIEGER; BRIAN FITZGERALD; SAM BUONO; MBF MERCHANT CAPITAL, LLC; RBL CAPITAL GROUP, LLC; WILLIAM HEALY; JOSEPH I. SUSSMAN; JOSEPH I. SUSSMAN, P.C.; and SKS ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendants. ________________________________/ Having reviewed the declaration of Kristen Simplicio offered 24 by Plaintiffs in response to the Court’s October 31, 2012 order, 25 Docket No. 411 (hereinafter, Simplicio declaration), the Court 26 ORDERS as follows: 27 28 1 By November 14, 2012, Plaintiffs shall file in the docket of 2 this action the written consents they have received from non- 3 parties waiving their confidentiality designations to certain 4 exhibits, or portions thereof, that are at issue in the pending 5 motion to seal, and any communication that they have had with 6 MasterCard regarding Exhibit Z after the Simplicio declaration was 7 filed. 8 9 The Court notes that Plaintiffs did not address in the Simplicio declaration the portions of their pending motion for United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 leave to file a third amended complaint that are at issue in the 11 motion to seal. 12 2012, Plaintiffs shall file a supplemental declaration providing 13 the information requested in the October 31, 2012 order for these 14 portions. 15 See Docket No. 383, 3:15, :26. By November 14, In their original motion to seal and supporting declaration, 16 Plaintiffs represented that Defendants had designated the 17 documents that they sought to seal as confidential. 18 385. 19 was actually they or certain nonparties, and not Defendants, that 20 designated some of those documents as confidential. 21 supplemental declaration that Plaintiffs must file by November 14, 22 2012, Plaintiffs shall provide an explanation for the incorrect 23 statements made in the original motion to seal and supporting 24 declaration. 25 Docket No. In the Simplicio declaration, Plaintiffs now attest that it In the In the Simplicio declaration, Plaintiffs purport to provide 26 reasons that they have designated as confidential Exhibits W, 27 PPPP, QQQQ, RRRR, WWWW, VVVV and XXXX. 28 interest favors filing all court documents in the public record, 2 Because the public 1 any party seeking to file a document under seal in connection with 2 a non-dispositive motion must demonstrate good cause to do so. 3 Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010). 4 If the motion is dispositive, the Ninth Circuit requires that the 5 party seeking to seal records meet a more stringent “compelling 6 reasons” standard. 7 F.3d 1172, 1178-81 (9th Cir. 2006). 8 simply by showing that the document is subject to a protective 9 order or by stating in general terms that the material is See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 Neither standard can be met United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 considered to be confidential, but rather must be supported by a 11 sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to 12 file each document under seal. 13 Although Plaintiffs have generally identified the contents of 14 these exhibits as “bank statements and related banking documents” 15 and “consumer credit reports,” they have not provided specific 16 reasons supporting the sealing of these documents, either in part 17 or in their entirety. 18 the supplemental declaration that they must file by November 14, 19 2012. 20 seal as to these documents, subject to the privacy protections 21 contained in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a). 22 23 24 See Civil Local Rule 79-5(a). Plaintiffs are granted leave to do so in Failure to do so will result in denial of their motion to Finally, there appear to be multiple errors in the Simplicio declaration, including: (1) In Table C, Plaintiffs state that no portion of Exhibit U 25 was designated as confidential, but identify Fiona Walshe as 26 having designated Exhibit U as confidential; 27 28 3 1 (2) In Table C, Plaintiffs state that Exhibits HHH, III and 2 JJJ have been designated as confidential in their entirety, but do 3 not identify which party or non-party designated them as such; and 4 (3) In paragraph 3(b), Plaintiffs identify Exhibit XXXX as 5 the “consumer credit reports for Plaintiffs Volker Von Glasenapp 6 and Lewis Bae,” but Exhibit XXXX does not contain a credit report 7 and is not identified as confidential in Table C. 8 Plaintiffs intended to identify Exhibit YYYY, which they state in 9 Table C was designated as confidential by Plaintiffs. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 It appears Plaintiffs shall address these apparent errors in the supplemental declaration that they must file by November 14, 2012. IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 15 Dated: 11/13/2012 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?