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

Filing 421


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 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?