Rainbow Business Solutions et al v. Merchant Services, Inc et al
Filing
421
ORDER GRANTING LEASING DEFENDANTS LEAVE TO FILE A FURTHER DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO SEAL AND REQUIRING PLAINTIFFS TO EXPLAIN A DISCREPANCY. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 11/15/2012. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2012)
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
Plaintiffs,
No. C 10-1993 CW
ORDER GRANTING
LEASING DEFENDANTS
LEAVE TO FILE A
FURTHER
DECLARATION IN
SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
TO SEAL AND
REQUIRING
PLAINTIFFS TO
EXPLAIN A
DISCREPANCY
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.
________________________________/
On November 13, 2012, the Court directed Plaintiffs to file a
24
supplemental declaration in support of their motion to seal.
25
On November 14, 2012, Leasing Defendants filed a declaration
26
in support of Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file under seal, as
27
required by the Court in Docket Nos. 408 and 413.
28
Docket No. 419.
1
In their filing, Leasing Defendants requested permission to submit
2
a response to any declaration filed by Plaintiffs pursuant to the
3
Court’s November 13, 2012 order.
4
Later on November 14, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a supplemental
5
declaration in support of their motion to seal.
6
In the supplemental declaration, Plaintiffs corrected certain
7
information that they had provided the Court previously
8
identifying which party or nonparty had designated as confidential
9
each portion of the documents that they sought to seal.
Docket No. 420.
Among
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
other corrections, Plaintiffs stated for the first time that they
11
sought to seal a portion of their motion for leave to amend
12
because it contained facts and argument based on information that
13
Leasing Defendants had designated as confidential.
14
Having reviewed the parties’ filings, the Court finds good
15
cause to grant Leasing Defendants leave to file a supplemental
16
declaration in response to Plaintiffs’ November 14, 2012 filing.
17
Leasing Defendants shall do so by November 21, 2012.
18
The Court notes that, in the declaration filed by Leasing
19
Defendants today, they make numerous conclusory statements that
20
disclosure of certain information “will result in irreparable harm
21
to Leasing Defendants if made publicly available to competitors.”
22
“‘[S]ources of business information that might harm a litigant’s
23
competitive standing’ often warrant protection under seal.’”
24
re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litig., 2012
25
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140779, at *15 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (quoting Nixon v.
26
Warner Communications, 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)) (formatting in
27
original).
28
be based on articulated reasons.”
In
However, “a decision to seal such records must still
Id. (citing Apple Inc. v.
2
1
Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011); Contratto v.
2
Ethicon, Inc., 227 F.R.D. 304, 307 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (finding that
3
an assertion of good cause based on harm to competitive and
4
financial position requires a showing of “specific demonstrations
5
of fact, supported where possible by affidavits and concrete
6
examples”).
7
their supplemental declaration.1
8
court order permitting these documents to be filed in the public
9
record, subject to the privacy protections contained in Federal
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
Leasing Defendants may remedy these deficiencies in
Failure to do so may result in a
Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a).
In Docket Nos. 411 and 420, Plaintiffs identified Leasing
12
Defendants as the only ones who designated Exhibit UUU as
13
confidential.
14
declaration, they state that a third-party, FNBCT, had also
15
produced this document and designated it as highly confidential.
16
Within one Court day of the date of this Order, Plaintiffs shall
17
explain this discrepancy to the Court.
18
document as confidential and later waived or withdrew its
19
designation, Plaintiffs shall provide a copy of any such written
20
waiver or, if the waiver was given in non-written form, a
21
declaration attesting under penalty of perjury that such a waiver
22
was given.
In Leasing Defendants’ November 14, 2012
If FNBCT designated this
23
The Court warns the parties that, in the future, they will be
24
expected to comply with the requirements of Civil Local Rule 79-5,
25
General Order 62 and the Court’s Orders, and to establish that
26
27
28
1
Leasing Defendants should also review pages two and three
of the Court’s November 13, 2012 Order, which address the good
cause and compelling reasons standards for sealing court records.
3
1
documents are sealable without repeated instructions from the
2
Court.
3
parties extra opportunities to do so.
4
Further, absent good cause shown, the Court will not give
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6
7
Dated: 11/15/2012
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
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?