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

Filing 505

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken RESOLVING ( #385 , #431 , #458 , and #478 ) MOTIONS TO SEAL RELATED TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/10/2013)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5
6
7

RAINBOW BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, doing
business as PRECISION TUNE AUTO
CARE; DIETZ TOWING, INC.; THE
ROSE DRESS, INC.; VOLKER VON
GLASENAPP; JERRY SU; VERENA
BAUMGARTNER; TERRY JORDAN; ERIN
CAMPBELL; and LEWIS BAE,

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15

Plaintiffs,

18

ORDER RESOLVING
MOTIONS TO SEAL
RELATED TO
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
FOR CLASS
CERTIFICATION
(Docket Nos. 385,
431, 458 and 478)

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.; JAY COHEN; LEONARD
MEZEI; SARA KRIEGER; SAM BUONO;
and SKS ASSOCIATES, LLC,

16
17

No. C 10-1993 CW

Defendants.
________________________________/
The parties have filed several motions to seal documents

19

associated with Plaintiffs’ pending amended motion for class

20

certification, including portions of the motion itself,

21

Plaintiffs’ reply brief, Plaintiffs’ evidence in support of their

22

motion and reply brief and Leasing Defendants’ exhibits in support

23

of their opposition.1

24

number of declarations have been submitted in support of the

Docket Nos. 385, 431, 458 and 478.

A

25
26
27
1

28

The Court directs the Clerk of the Court to update the
caption of this action as indicated above.

1

motions to seal.

2

458-1, 483, 485.

3

See Docket Nos. 411, 415, 416, 419, 420, 422-24,

Because the public interest favors filing all court documents

4

in the public record, any party seeking to file a document under

5

seal in connection with a non-dispositive motion must demonstrate

6

good cause to do so.

7

665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010).2

8

showing that the document is subject to a protective order or by

9

stating in general terms that the material is considered to be

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d
This cannot be established simply by

confidential, but rather must be supported by a sworn declaration

11
12
2

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

If the motion is dispositive, the Ninth Circuit requires
that the party seeking to seal records meet a more stringent
“compelling reasons” standard. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of
Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-81 (9th Cir. 2006). The Ninth
Circuit has not yet addressed whether, or under what
circumstances, a motion for class certification is a dispositive
motion for the purposes of determining whether the “good cause” or
“compelling reasons” standard applies to motions to seal, and
courts within the Northern District of California have reached
different conclusions. Compare Nygren v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
2010 WL 2107434, at *1-3 (N.D. Cal.) (applying good cause
standard); Pecover v. Electronic Arts, Inc., 2010 WL 8742757, at
*25-26 (N.D. Cal.) (same); Rich v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 2009 WL
2168688, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal.) (same), with Labrador v. Seattle
Mortgage Co., 2010 WL 3448523, at *2 (N.D. Cal.) (finding that
“many of the concerns the Ninth Circuit identified in Kamakana for
applying the ‘compelling reasons’ test to dispositive motions are
present” in the context of a motion for class certification); see
also Davis v. Devanlay Retail Group, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
109798, at *4 (E.D. Cal.) (applying compelling reasons standard
when the motion for class certification “is one that will affect
whether or not the litigation proceeds”); Dugan v. Lloyds TSB
Bank, PLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51162 (N.D. Cal.) (“Unless the
denial of a motion for class certification would constitute the
death knell of a case, ‘the vast majority of [] courts within this
circuit’ treat motions for class certification as non-dispositive
motions to which the ‘good cause’ sealing standard applies.”)
(quoting In re High-Tech Emple. Antitrust Litig., 2013 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 6606, at *8-9 & n.1 (N.D. Cal.)) (brackets in original)).
Here, because it is not clear whether denial of the motion for
class certification would be case-dispositive, the Court considers
the motions to seal under both standards.
2

1

demonstrating with particularity the need to file each document

2

under seal.

3

designated as confidential by another party, that party must file

4

a declaration establishing that the document is sealable.

5

Local Rule 79-5(d).

6

Civil Local Rule 79-5(a).

If a document has been

Civil

No party or non-party has submitted a declaration in support
of sealing any portion of Plaintiffs’ reply brief and leave to

8

file the unredacted reply brief under seal is thus denied.

9

However, a sufficient showing has been made to support the sealing

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

7

of portions of Plaintiffs’ amended motion for class certification,

11

their evidence in support of that motion and their reply brief,

12

and Leasing Defendants’ evidence in support of their opposition.

13

These portions are identified in tables below, along with a

14

numerical code that indicates the reason that each section has

15

been found to be sealable or not and grants permission to file the

16

identified sections under seal, as set forth in the tables.

17

Further, in the exhibits marked with an asterisk (*), Plaintiffs

18

are directed to redact social security numbers, taxpayer

19

identification numbers and financial account numbers in compliance

20

with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a), as well as any

21

residential addresses, personal telephone numbers and personal

22

email addresses; Plaintiffs need not file an unredacted version of

23

these documents under seal.

24

Within two weeks of the date of this Order, the parties shall

25

file under seal the documents for which leave is granted herein

26

and shall file in the public record those for which leave to seal

27

is denied.

28

public versions of their motion and reply brief that comply with

As part of this filing, Plaintiffs shall file new

3

1

the terms of this Order.3

2

filed some, but not all, of the exhibits that they did not seek to

3

seal in the public record, in two large PDF files.

4

Nos. 387-1, 479-1.

5

docket more easily in the future, the Court directs Plaintiffs to

6

e-file, within fourteen days of the date of this Order, the

7

declarations of Kristen Simplicio in support of their motion for

8

class certification and reply brief again, with all exhibits

9

attached as separate PDF files, labeled with the exhibit letter in

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

The Court notes that Plaintiffs have

See Docket

So that their exhibits can be located in the

the Description field.
In addition, the chambers copies of the exhibits attached to

12

the Simplicio declarations that Plaintiffs provided consist of

13

over a hundred loose exhibits not bound together.

14

within fourteen days of the date of this Order, Plaintiffs shall

15

also provide an additional set of chambers copies of their

16

exhibits in support of their motion and reply, firmly bound

17

together in binders, separated by exhibit dividers.

18

shall include at the front of the binders a copy of the complete

19

declarations of Ms. Simplicio, in which the exhibits are

20

identified.

Accordingly,

Plaintiffs

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

3

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to remove Docket No. 432 from
the public record. This docket entry contains Plaintiffs’
redacted amended class certification motion. In the document,
Plaintiffs failed to redact properly a portion of the motion that
Merchant Services Defendants had designated as confidential and
that the Court grants permission to seal in this Order. See
Docket No. 432, 15:14-18.

28
4

1

The numerical codes have the meanings set forth in the

2

following table:

3

Code

Explanation

4

1

No party or non-party has submitted a declaration
supporting that this information is sealable or the party
that designated the information as confidential has waived
this.

2

The designating party has not made a sufficient showing
that the information at issue is sealable under either a
good cause or compelling reason standard.

3

The designating party has shown that this exhibit is
sealable in its entirety under both a good cause and a
compelling reason standard because it is an audio file that
contains personally identifiable information of
individuals, including, for example, their social security
numbers and account numbers, which cannot be redacted.

4

The designating party has shown that this exhibit or
portion thereof is sealable under either standard because
it contains particular information about the party’s
contractual agreements, including items such as pricing
arrangements and the acquisition cost of leases, the public
disclosure of which would impede its ability to negotiate
with business partners and to stay competitive in the
marketplace.

5

The designating party has shown that this exhibit or
portion thereof is sealable under either standard. It
contains information about particular internal business
practices of the designating party that it has dedicated
substantial resources to developing. Public disclosure of
this information would allow its competitors to copy or
adopt these practices, taking the benefit of its investment
in developing them and reducing or eliminating the
competitive advantage that this information provides the
designating party.

6

The designating party has shown that this exhibit or
portion thereof is sealable under either standard. It
contains information about the amount of compensation
earned by its employees or independent contractors. In
addition, the exhibit contains information about the
designating party’s compensation structure for its
employees or independent contractors, the public disclosure
of which would give its rivals a competitive advantage over
it.

5
6
7
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

5

1

Code

Explanation

2

7

The designating party has shown that this exhibit or
portion thereof is sealable under either standard. It
contains information about compensation paid to the
designating party by its service providers. The
designating party has shown that public disclosure of this
information would provide insight into its pricing
arrangements, business model and strategies, which its
competitors could utilize to gain a competitive advantage
over it.

8

These exhibits are credit reports that contain personal
banking information for Plaintiffs Volker Van Glasenapp and
Lewis Bae. Plaintiffs have shown that these exhibits,
other than the portions that contain the names of
Plaintiffs Volker Van Glasenapp and Lewis Bae and the
inquiries and entries made by Defendants, are sealable
because public disclosure of the information would violate
the privacy rights of these Plaintiffs and put them at
significant risk for identity theft and bank fraud.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

Plaintiffs’ amended motion for class certification:

14

Page

Lines

Designating
Party

6

19-23

Leasing
Defendants

X (1)

6

27-28

Leasing
Defendants

X (1)

7

1-3

Leasing
Defendants

X (1)

7

22-24

Merchant
Services
Defendants

X (4)

8

3-4

Leasing
Defendants
and
Merchant
Services
Defendants

X (6) as to
X (1) as
compensation to
amount on
remainder
line 3 only

Granted

Denied

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6

Notes

2

Page

Lines

Designating
Party

8

5-8

Leasing
Defendants
and
Merchant
Services
Defendants

X (2)

10

1317,
21-23

Merchant
Services
Defendants

X (2)

11

1

Merchant
Services
Defendants

X (2)

12

7-12

Merchant
Services
Defendants

X (2)

Although the
Court finds
below that there
is good cause to
seal some
portions of the
exhibits cited,
Defendants have
not shown good
cause that the
statements in
the motion
should be
sealed.

14

1

20-22

Merchant
Services
Defendants

X (5) as to
the sentence
on lines
21-22,
ending with
a citation
to Ex. HHH

X (2) as
to the
clause on
lines 2021,
ending
with a
citation
to Ex.
GGG

The same
information in
lines 20 to 21
also appear in
Plaintiffs’
reply brief,
where Defendants
do not seek to
seal it.

15

14-18

Merchant
Services
Defendants

X (5)

15

26-27

Merchant
Services
Defendants

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Granted

Denied

12
13
14
15
16

Notes

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

X (1)

27
28
7

Lines

Designating
Party

Granted

16

17-20

Merchant
Services
Defendants

X (5)

20

16-19

Leasing
Defendants

X (1)

24

6-7

Leasing
Defendants

X (1)

9-10

Leasing
Defendants

X (1)

29

7-12

Leasing
Defendants
and
Merchant
Services
Defendants

X (1, 2)

34

2

Page

24

1

1

Leasing
Defendants

X (1)

44

5-6

Leasing
Defendants

X (1)

3
4
5
6

Denied

Notes

7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Plaintiffs’ exhibits in support of their motion for class
certification:
Document Designating Granted
Party

Denied

Notes

Sands
Decl.
¶ 8

Merchant
Services
Defendants;
Leasing
Defendants

X (4) as to
the dollar
amount on
line 27

X (2) as
to the
remainder

Defendants do not
provide sufficiently
good cause for
sealing the number
of leases that
appears on line 26.

Sands
Decl.
¶ 9

Merchant
Services
Defendants;
Leasing
Defendants

X (4) as to
the dollar
amount on
line 7

X (2) as
to the
remainder

Defendants do not
provide sufficiently
good cause for
sealing the number
of leases that
appears on line 6.

Sands
Decl.
¶ 10

Leasing
Defendants

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

X (2)

8

1

Document Designating Granted
Party

Denied

2

Leasing
Defendants

X (2)

4

Sands
Decl.
¶ 11
Ex. A

5

Ex. B

Leasing
Defendants

3

X (1)

6
7

X (4) as to
65-69,
258:2-16,
280-81

X (1, 2)
as to
remainder

Ex. C

X (1)

8
Ex. D

Merchant
Services
Defendants

X (5) as to
pages
473:16498:25

Ex. E

Leasing
Defendants

X (1, 2)
X (4) as to
as to
field
remainder
labeled
“Acquisition
Cost”

Ex. F

Leasing
Defendants

X (4) as to
41:2-42:20

X (1) as
to
remainder

Ex. G

Merchant
Services
Defendants;
Leasing
Defendants
Merchant
Services
Defendants;
Leasing
Defendants

X (4) as to
sections 2,
3 and 9

X (1, 2)
as to
remainder

X (4) as to
section 1

X (2) as
to
remainder

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

X (1) as
to
remainder

14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Ex. H

21
22

Notes

23

Ex. I *

X (1)

24

Ex. J *

X (1)

25

Ex. K *

X (1)

26

Ex. L *

X (1)

27
28
9

Leasing Defendants
seek to prevent
public disclosure of
a field called
“equipment basis”;
however, no such
field exists.

1

Document Designating Granted
Party

2

Denied

Ex. M

Plaintiffs state
that this exhibit
was intentionally
omitted.

3
4
5

Ex. N

6

Ex. O

Leasing
Defendants
Leasing
Defendants

7
Ex. P

Merchant
Services
Defendants
Merchant
Services
Defendants
Merchant
Services
Defendants

X (4)
X (4) as to
sections 2,
3 and 9

Leasing
Defendants

Ex. Q

8

X (2) as
to
remainder
X (2)

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Ex. R

18
19

Ex. S

20
21

X (1)

X (1)

Plaintiffs state
that this exhibit
was intentionally
omitted.

22
Ex. U

24

Ex. V *

25

Exhibit P does not
contain “excerpts
from the vendor
agreements”
(Exhibits G and H)
as represented by
Leasing Defendants,
Krieger Decl. ¶ 12,
and instead is an
email chain dated
March 6, 2008
involving complaints
made about Leasing
Defendants.

X (4)

Ex. T

23

Notes

X (1)
Merchant
Services
Defendants

X (1)

26
27
28
10

1

Document Designating Granted
Party

Denied

Notes

2

Ex. W *

Plaintiffs

X (1)

Plaintiffs shall
also redact account
balances and
withdrawals for
expenses unrelated
to the instant
litigation.
Plaintiffs need not
file an unredacted
version under seal.

Ex. X

Merchant
Services
Defendants
Merchant
Services
Defendants;
Leasing
Defendants
Non-parties
Visa and
MasterCard
Merchant
Services
Defendants

X (1)

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Ex. Y *
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

Ex. Z

13
14

Ex. AA

15
16
17
Ex. BB

Merchant
Services
Defendants

21

Ex. CC

22

Ex. DD

Non-party
MasterCard
Non-party
MasterCard
Merchant
Services
Defendants
Merchant
Services
Defendants
Merchant
Services
Defendants

18
19
20

23

Ex. EE

24
25

Ex. FF

26
27
28

Ex. GG

X (1) as
X (6) as to
to
the
compensation remainder
amount
X (1)

X (2) as
X (4, 7) as
to
to sections
3(b), 5, 15, remainder
17(a),
17(c)-(d),
17(f)
X (2) as
X (4, 7) as
to
to sections
remainder
2.2, 4.2,
5.2, 8.1(a),
10.4(a) and
Exhibit A
X (1)
X (1)
X (1)

X (5)

X (5)

11

1

Document Designating Granted
Party

Denied

2

Ex. HH

X (1)

3
4

Ex. II

5

Ex. JJ

6
7

Ex. KK

8
9

X (1)
Merchant
Services
Defendants
Merchant
Services
Defendants

X (2)

X (5) as to
X (1) as
pages 194:1- to
199:25
remainder

Ex. LL

Merchant
Services
Defendants

Ex. MM

Merchant
Services
Defendants
Merchant
Services
Defendants

X (5)

X (5) as to
the emails
sent on May
13, 2008

X (2) as
to the
emails
sent on
May 14,
2008

Merchant
Services
Defendants

X (5) as to
unnumbered
pages

X (1) as
to page
MSI 088057

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

Merchant
Services
Defendants

Although Plaintiffs
indicate that
Merchant Services
Defendants
designated Exhibit
LL as confidential,
no Exhibit LL was
included in the
chambers copies
provided to the
Court.

11
12
13
14
15
16
Ex. NN
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Ex. OO

Notes

Ex. PP * Merchant
Services
Defendants

X (1)

24
25
26
27
28
12

1

Document Designating Granted
Party

2

Ex. QQ

Fiona
Walshe;
Merchant
Services
Defendants

X (6) as to
X (1, 2)
section
as to
entitled
remainder
“Merchant
Account Deal
Minimums”
and
Schedules A,
B and C

Ex. RR

Merchant
Services
Defendants

X (6) as to
section 1

X (1) as
to
remainder

Ex. SS

Merchant
Services
Defendants

X (6) as to
email sent
at 12:36
p.m.

X (1) as
to
remainder

Ex. TT

Merchant
Services
Defendants
Merchant
Services
Defendants
Merchant
Services
Defendants
Merchant
Services
Defendants
Merchant
Services
Defendants
Merchant
Services
Defendants
Merchant
Services
Defendants

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
Ex. UU
14
15

Ex. VV

16
17

Ex. WW

18
19
20

Ex. XX

Ex. YY

21
22
23

Ex. ZZ

Denied

Notes

X (2)

X (2)

X (5)

X (5)

X (1)

X (1)

Although Plaintiffs
indicate that
Merchant Services
Defendants
designated this
exhibit as
confidential, no
Exhibit ZZ was
included in the
chambers copies
provided to the
Court.

24
25
26
27
28
13

1

Document Designating Granted
Party

Denied

2

Ex. AAA

X (1)

3

Ex. BBB

4
5

Ex. CCC

6

Ex. EEE

8
9
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

X (1)

Ex. DDD

7

Merchant
Services
Defendants
Merchant
Services

Ex. FFF

11
12

Ex. GGG

13
Ex. HHH
14
15

X (1)
Fiona
Walshe;
Merchant
Services
Defendants
Merchant
Services
Defendants
Merchant
Services
Defendants
Merchant
Services
Defendants

16
Ex. III
17
18

Ex. JJJ

19
20

Ex. KKK

21
22

Ex. LLL

23

Ex. NNN

Merchant
Services
Defendants
Merchant
Services
Defendants
Merchant
Services
Defendants
Nonparty
Transfirst

X (5)

X (5)

X (5)

X (5) as to
the emails
sent on
January 17,
2007

25

X (1) as
to
remainder

X (1)

X (5)

X (1)

X (1)

Ex. MMM

24

X (1)

X (1)
Merchant
Services
Defendants

X (1)

26
27
28
14

Notes

1

Document Designating Granted
Party

2

Denied

Ex. OOO

Plaintiffs indicate
that Exhibit OOO was
intentionally left
blank. See, e.g.,
Docket No. 420, 7.
They appear to have
inadvertently
included an Exhibit
OOO in their
chambers copy, a
single page that is
Bates numbered MSI
115783. Because
Plaintiffs appear
not to have included
this Exhibit OOO
intentionally or to
have provided it to
Defendants, see
Docket No. 424, 13,
the Court disregards
it.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14

Ex. PPP

15

Ex. QQQ

Leasing
Defendants

X (2)

Ex. RRR

Leasing
Defendants
Leasing
Defendants

X (1)

X (1)

16
17
18
19
20
Ex. SSS
21
22

Notes

X (1)

Ex. TTT

X (1)

23
24
25
26
27
28
15

Exhibit QQQ does not
contain “excerpts
from the vendor
agreements”
(Exhibits G and H)
as represented by
Leasing Defendants.
Krieger Decl. ¶ 12.

1

Document Designating Granted
Party

Denied

Notes

2

Ex. UUU
*

X (1, 2)

Leasing Defendants
have made only
conclusory
assertions that the
“transaction
profiles (monetary
thresholds)” and
Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A.’s routing
number are
confidential and
should be protected
from public view,
which is
insufficient under
either legal
standard.

3

Leasing
Defendants

4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

Ex. VVV

X (1)

Ex. WWW
*
Ex. XXX

X (1)
Leasing
Defendants

X (2)

Leasing Defendants
make only conclusory
statements that the
information
contained on page
MPB00032 is “highly
confidential and is
typically only
shared among
Northern’s
accounting and
finance department
and the ACH
processor.” Krieger
Decl. ¶ 14. This is
insufficient under
either legal
standard.

Ex. YYY

Leasing
Defendants

X (1, 2)

Leasing Defendants
assert that pages 15
and 20 should be
sealed but fail to
provide any reason
for this.

Ex. ZZZ

Leasing
Defendants

X (1)

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

16

1

Document Designating Granted
Party

Denied

2

Ex. AAAA Leasing
Defendants
Ex. BBBB Leasing
Defendants
Ex. CCCC

X (1)

X (1)

Ex. DDDD

X (1)

Ex. EEEE

X (1)

Ex. FFFF Merchant
Services
Defendants
Ex. GGGG

X (1)

X (1)

Ex. HHHH

X (1)

Ex. IIII

X (1)

Ex. JJJJ

X (1)

Ex. KKKK

X (1)

Ex. LLLL

X (1)

Ex. MMMM

X (1)

Ex. NNNN Plaintiffs
*
Ex. OOOO

X (1)

3
4

X (1)

5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

Notes

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

X (1)

Ex. PPPP Plaintiffs
*

X (1)

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17

Plaintiffs shall
also redact account
balances and
withdrawals for
expenses unrelated
to the instant
litigation.
Plaintiffs need not
file an unredacted
version under seal.

1

Document Designating Granted
Party

Denied

Notes

2

Ex. QQQQ Plaintiffs
*

X (1)

Plaintiffs shall
also redact account
balances and
withdrawals for
expenses unrelated
to the instant
litigation.
Plaintiffs need not
file an unredacted
version under seal.

Ex. RRRR Plaintiffs
*

X (1)

Plaintiffs shall
also redact account
balances and
withdrawals for
expenses unrelated
to the instant
litigation.
Plaintiffs need not
file an unredacted
version under seal.

Ex.
*
Ex.
*
Ex.
*
Ex.

SSSS Nonparty
Transfirst
TTTT

X (1)

UUUU

X (1)

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

VVVV Plaintiffs

X (1)

X (8)

Plaintiffs shall
file a redacted
version of this
exhibit in the
public docket as
proposed.

18
19
20
21

Ex. WWWW Plaintiffs
*

X (1)

Ex. XXXX

X (1)

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
18

Plaintiffs seek to
seal the amounts on
the checks unrelated
to this litigation,
as well as the bank
account information.
Plaintiffs shall
redact this
information and need
not file an
unredacted version
under seal.

1

Document Designating Granted
Party

2

Ex. YYYY Plaintiffs

Denied

X (8)

Plaintiffs shall
file a redacted
version of this
exhibit in the
public docket as
proposed.

3
4
5
6

Ex. ZZZZ

X (1)

7

Ex.
AAAAA
Ex.
BBBBB

X (1)

8

Leasing
Defendants

9
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

Notes

X (1, 2)
X (4) as to
as to
field
remainder
labeled
“Acquisition
Cost”

11
12

Ex.
CCCCC *

13
14

Non-Party
Experian;
Merchant
Services
Defendants

X (1, 2)

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Ex.
DDDDD

X (1)

28
19

Leasing Defendants
also seek to prevent
public disclosure of
a field called
“equipment basis”;
however, no such
field exists.
Experian has not
offered good cause
or compelling
reasons to file the
entirety of this
document under seal.
Merchant Services
Defendants,
including Defendant
Moore, have waived
any possible privacy
interest in the
information, other
than Moore’s social
security number,
home address and
telephone number,
which the Court has
directed be
redacted, and
Experian has not
demonstrated
sufficiently that
disclosure would
allow its
competitors to
compete unfairly
with it.

1

Document Designating Granted
Party

Denied

2

Ex.
EEEEE
Ex.
FFFFF
Ex.
GGGGG

X (1)

3
4
5

Notes

X (1)
X (1)

6
7
8

Leasing Defendants’ exhibits in support of their opposition to
Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification
Granted

9

Ex. 24

Leasing Defendants

X (3)

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

Document Designating Party

Ex. 25

Leasing Defendants

X (3)

11

Ex. 26

Leasing Defendants

X (3)

Ex. 27

Leasing Defendants

X (3)

Ex. 28

Leasing Defendants

X (3)

Ex. 29

Leasing Defendants

X (3)

12
13
14

Denied

Notes

15
16
17

Plaintiffs’ exhibits in support of their reply brief
Exhibit

18

Designating Party

HHHHH

Merchant Services
Defendants

19

Granted

Denied
X (1)

20

IIIII

X (1)

21

JJJJJ

X (1)

22

KKKKK

X (1)

23

LLLLL

X (1)

24

MMMMM

X (1)

25

NNNNN

26
27

Leasing Defendants
X (7) as to
and Merchant
pages 253:11
Services Defendants through
255:25

OOOOO

X (1) as
to
remainder
X (1)

28
20

Notes

1

Exhibit

2

PPPPP

X (1)

3

QQQQQ

X (1)

4

Designating Party

Granted

Denied

Notes

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6
7

Dated:

5/10/2013

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
21