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)

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