From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litig.

United States District Court, N.D. California
Feb 4, 2009
No. C 04-02676 CRB (N.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2009)

Summary

dismissing FAC where plaintiffs "merely lump[ed] together allegations against holding company and its subsidiary."

Summary of this case from Eastman Kodak Co. v. Epson Imaging Devices Corp.

Opinion

No. C 04-02676 CRB.

February 4, 2009


ORDER


Plaintiffs have moved this Court to file under seal the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"). Plaintiffs contend that the SAC incorporates confidential information pursuant to the Court's Stipulated Protective Order. Civil Local Rule 79-5 provides that a request for filing under seal "must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material." In line with both this rule and the Court's respect for transparency in legal proceedings, Plaintiffs are hereby ordered to submit a declaration addressing which specific portions of the SAC contain confidential material and should be kept under seal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litig.

United States District Court, N.D. California
Feb 4, 2009
No. C 04-02676 CRB (N.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2009)

dismissing FAC where plaintiffs "merely lump[ed] together allegations against holding company and its subsidiary."

Summary of this case from Eastman Kodak Co. v. Epson Imaging Devices Corp.
Case details for

In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litig.

Case Details

Full title:IN RE ATM FEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION

Court:United States District Court, N.D. California

Date published: Feb 4, 2009

Citations

No. C 04-02676 CRB (N.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2009)

Citing Cases

Wilkins-Jones v. Cnty. of Alameda

Indeed, even Krupski acknowledged that "[w]hen the original complaint and the plaintiff's conduct compel the…

Thermolife Int'l LLC v. Neogenis Labs Inc.

B.V. Optische Industrie De Oude Delft v. Hologic, Inc., 909 F. Supp. 162, 171-72 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (alteration…