Opinion
Case No. 14-cv-02098-JD
06-05-2015
STEPHANIE OCHOA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MCDONALD'S CORP., et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL
Re: Dkt. No. 100
This order addresses defendants' April 20, 2015, administrative motion to seal portions of plaintiffs' motion for class certification and various documents associated with it. See Dkt. No. 100. Plaintiffs oppose the motion almost in its entirety. See Dkt. No. 102. The Court grants the motion in part and denies it in part.
I. GOVERNING STANDARD
In our circuit, in evaluating a motion to seal, two different standards apply depending on whether the request is being made in connection with a dispositive motion or a non-dispositive motion.
For dispositive motions, the historic, "strong presumption of access to judicial records" fully applies, and a party seeking sealing must establish "compelling reasons" to overcome that presumption. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003)). This standard presents a "high threshold," and "a 'good cause' showing will not, without more, satisfy" it. Id. at 1180 (citations omitted). When ordering sealing in this context, the district court must also "articulate the rationale underlying its decision to seal." Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011).
The non-dispositive motion context is different. There, "the usual presumption of the public's right of access is rebutted," the "public has less of a need for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions," and the "public policies that support the right of access to dispositive motions, and related materials, do not apply with equal force to non-dispositive materials." Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80 (citations omitted). Therefore, in that context, materials may be sealed so long as the party seeking sealing makes a "particularized showing" under the "good cause" standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Id. at 1180 (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1138).
In our district, in addition to meeting the applicable standard under Kamakana, all parties requesting sealing must also comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5, including that rule's requirement that the request must "establish[] that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law" (i.e., is "sealable"). Civil L.R. 79-5(b). The sealing request must also "be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material." Id.
II. DISCUSSION
This sealing request relates to a motion for class certification. Although certification motions may lead, as a practical matter, to a case-ending result, the "vast majority" of courts in this circuit apply the "good cause" standard when evaluating associated administrative motions to seal. See In re High Tech Employee Antitrust Litig., 2013 WL 163779, at *2 n.1 (N.D. Cal. Jan.15, 2013). The Court applies that standard here.
Defendants have submitted declarations from Savan Vaghani, see Dkt. No. 100-1, and Michael Smith, see Dkt. No. 100-2, to justify their requests to seal. By and large, the reasons provided in these declarations do not come close to meeting the "good cause" standard -- and on the scant occasions when they do, the proposed redactions are often not "narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material." See Civil L.R. 79-5(b). For example, with respect to the franchise agreements for each of the restaurants at issue in this case, the Vaghani declaration simply says that the documents "contain confidential and proprietary business information, including financial terms" that if disclosed "may be exploited by competitors." Vaghani Decl. ¶ 6 at 6:1-13. But as the Court has explained previously, see Dkt. No. 99, establishing good cause to seal a portion of a document requires a "particularized showing" that "specific prejudice or harm" will result if the information is disclosed. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180, 1186. "An unsupported assertion of 'unfair advantage' to competitors without explaining 'how a competitor would use th[e] information to obtain an unfair advantage' is insufficient." Hodges v. Apple, Inc., No. 13-cv-01128-WHO, 2013 WL 6070408, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2013) (quoting Dunbar v. Google, Inc., No. 5:12-cv-003305-LHK, 2012 WL 6202719, at *4-5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2013)).
With respect to other documents, the declarations claim that "[t]he information sought to be sealed is not available to the public and could not be recreated from publically available sources." See, e.g., Vaghani Decl. ¶ 6 at 7:13-15; Smith Decl. ¶ 5 at 3:19-20. The mere fact that information was not previously available cannot be sufficient to seal a document; if it were, the requirement that a party must show "good cause" to seal a document even if it has produced it pursuant to a protective order would be a dead letter. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (requiring a particularized showing of "good cause" even for "preserving the secrecy of sealed discovery material"); Civil L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) ("Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.").
And as detailed in the following table, the Court finds the grounds for sealing to be implausible in several instances. For example, the Vaghani declaration makes the conclusory assertion that merely disclosing the features of its In-Store Processor would allow McDonald's competitors a free ride on McDonald's work. See Vaghani Decl. ¶ 7, at 9:6-18. This is overblown. A competitor might possibly derive unfair benefits if details about the implementation of those features were disclosed, but the fear that McDonald's would suffer competitive harm from simply describing them is not plausible. It is also hard to see how information about the format in which Smith Family Partnership records time periods in its billing records could cause any competitive harm, as Smith broadly claims. See Smith Decl. ¶ 10. Defendants claim that this type of information is sealable simply because it relates to payroll data, see Dkt. No. 100 at 4, but good cause to seal a document cannot be satisfied by "[s]imply mentioning a general category of privilege, without any further elaboration or any specific linkage with the documents . . . ." Martin v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., No. CV 12-06030 SI, 2013 WL 5441973, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2013) (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180, 1184). That kind of sealing request appears to be geared more towards hiding information that plaintiffs claim is evidence of wrongdoing from the public than hiding truly sensitive information.
The Court addresses each specific request to seal in the following table. While defendants' motion suggests that they seek sealing of Exhibits 65 and 81 to the Declaration of Matthew J. Murray in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, see Dkt. Nos. 84-4, 84-10, neither of their declarations address these two documents, and the Court consequently denies the request to seal them. In light of the guidance provided in this order, the Court strikes the remaining pending motions to seal, see Dkt. Nos. 101, 106, 120, 128, 142, and orders defendants to refile a single motion by June 12, 2015, covering any remaining materials it believes are sealable given the standards set forth in this order. Any materials that defendants no longer believe are sealable should be filed in the public record at that time. With respect to the documents or portions of documents with respect to which the administrative motion to seal is denied, below, the party submitting the document must comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3) and file revised redacted versions of the document within 7 days, or else the documents sought to be sealed will not be considered by the Court.
| Tab | Exact Portions to beSealed | Particularized Reason for Sealing | Grant or Denial ofRequest |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2:8-9 | This portion of Plaintiffs' Motion citesto and relies on confidential payrolldata, public disclosure would providecompetitors with a detailed account ofSmith's internal operations. See SmithDeclaration, ¶ 9 (10:4-10:6). | Denied. No goodcause has beenshown to sealinformationrelating to thenumber ofindividualsemployed bySmith. |
| 2:11-18; 3:3, 6-7 | This portion of Plaintiffs' Motiondiscusses confidential terms of theFranchise Agreement between Smithand McDonald's USA; disclosure ofwhich would undermine McDonald's | Denied. Not onlyhas no good causebeen shown to sealthis material, butboth of the quotes |
| Tab | Exact Portions to beSealed | Particularized Reason for Sealing | Grant or Denial ofRequest |
|---|---|---|---|
| USA's ability to negotiate futurefranchise agreements and compete inthe marketplace. See VaghaniDeclaration, ¶ 8 (12:13-14:10). | appear in a versionof the McDonald'sstandard franchiseagreement that hasbeen publicly filedin another case.See Dkt. No. 103-6. | ||
| 3:19-26; 4:2-6; 4:13-14;5:3-11; 5:21-23 | This portion of Plaintiffs' Motiondiscusses the ISP and POS systems,proprietary hardware and softwareapplications developed by McDonald'sspecifically for use in running aMcDonald's restaurant business. Thefranchise agreement betweenMcDonald's and the Smith's providesthat McDonald's "own[s] allproprietary rights in and to theMcDonald's system," and that requiredoperations procedures and methods"constitute confidential trade secrets."Information relating to POS and ISPfunctionality, along with the output ofsuch systems (e.g., sales data, orderdata, product mix, etc.), has commercialvalue to competitors and would providethem with an unfair business advantage,including knowledge of how to imitateand/or duplicate the McDonald'sSystem. See Vaghani Declaration, ¶ 8(14:11-15:21); Smith Declaration, ¶ 9(10:7-10:18). | Denied. No goodcause has beenshown to seal thisinformation, whichrelates to generalrequirementsMcDonald'simposes on theSmith FamilyPartnership,general features ofSmith's payrollsystem, andfeatures ofdefendants' In-Store Processor. | |
| 7:6, 8, 11-13, 17, FN10;9:1-2, 4-5 | This portion of the Plaintiffs' motioncites to and relies on confidentialpayroll data, this information is notavailable to the public and could not berecreated from publicly-availablesources. Public disclosure wouldprovide competitors with a detailedaccount of Smith's internal operationsSee Smith Declaration, ¶ 9 (10:18-11:1). | Denied. No goodcause has beenshown to seal theresults of plaintiffs'expert analysis.The mere fact thatthis information isnot currently publicdoes not constitutegood cause. | |
| 9:9-13 | This portion of Plaintiffs' Motiondiscusses the ISP and POS systems,proprietary hardware and softwareapplications developed by McDonald'sspecifically for use in running a | Denied. Goodcause has not beenshown to seal whattypes of meal andrest breaks are |
| Tab | Exact Portions to beSealed | Particularized Reason for Sealing | Grant or Denial ofRequest |
|---|---|---|---|
| McDonald's restaurant business. Thefranchise agreement betweenMcDonald's and the Smith's providesthat McDonald's "own[s] allproprietary rights in and to theMcDonald's system," and that requiredoperations procedures and methods"constitute confidential trade secrets."Information relating to POS and ISPfunctionality, along with the output ofsuch systems (e.g., sales data, orderdata, product mix, etc.), has commercialvalue to competitors and would providethem with an unfair business advantage,including knowledge of how to imitateand/or duplicate the McDonald'sSystem. See Vaghani Declaration, ¶ 8(15:22-16:5). | flagged bydefendants' In-Store Processor. | ||
| 10:15-16, FN18 | This portion of the Plaintiffs' Motioncites to and relies on confidentialpayroll data, this information is notavailable to the public and could not berecreated from publicly-availablesources. Public disclosure wouldprovide competitors with a detailedaccount of Smith's internal operations.See Smith Declaration, ¶ 9 (10:18-11:1). | Denied. No goodcause has beenshown to sealinformationrelating to thenumber ofindividualsemployed bySmith. The merefact that thisinformation is notcurrently publicdoes not constitutegood cause. | |
| 13:22 | This portion of Plaintiffs' Motiondiscusses the ISP and POS systems,proprietary hardware and softwareapplications developed by McDonald'sspecifically for use in running aMcDonald's restaurant business. Thefranchise agreement betweenMcDonald's and the Smith's providesthat McDonald's "own[s] allproprietary rights in and to theMcDonald's system," and that requiredoperations procedures and methods"constitute confidential trade secrets."Information relating to POS and ISP | Denied. Theinformation soughtto be sealed simplyrelates to theformat in whichSmith transmittedpayroll data to itspayroll vendor, andno good cause hasbeen shown to sealit. |
| Tab | Exact Portions to beSealed | Particularized Reason for Sealing | Grant or Denial ofRequest |
|---|---|---|---|
| functionality, along with the output ofsuch systems (e.g., sales data, orderdata, product mix, etc.), has commercialvalue to competitors and would providethem with an unfair business advantage,including knowledge of how to imitateand/or duplicate the McDonald'sSystem. See Smith Declaration, ¶ 9(10:18-11:1). | |||
| 15:21; 16:7-8 | This portion of Plaintiffs' Motion citesto and relies on confidential payrolldata, this information is not available tothe public and could not be recreatedfrom publicly-available sources. Publicdisclosure would provide competitorswith a detailed account of Smith'sinternal operations See SmithDeclaration, ¶ 9 (10:18-11:1). | Denied. No goodcause has beenshown to seal theserough estimates ofthe number ofalleged meal andrest breakviolations. | |
| 16:11-12 | This portion of Plaintiffs' Motiondiscusses the ISP and POS systems,proprietary hardware and softwareapplications developed by McDonald'sspecifically for use in running aMcDonald's restaurant business. Thefranchise agreement betweenMcDonald's and the Smith's providesthat McDonald's "own[s] allproprietary rights in and to theMcDonald's system," and that requiredoperations procedures and methods"constitute confidential trade secrets."Information relating to POS and ISPfunctionality, along with the output ofsuch systems (e.g., sales data, orderdata, product mix, etc.), has commercialvalue to competitors and would providethem with an unfair business advantage,including knowledge of how to imitateand/or duplicate the McDonald'sSystem. See Vaghani Declaration, ¶ 8(16:6-16:17). | Denied. Goodcause has not beenshown to seal whattypes of meal andrest breaks areflagged bydefendants' In-Store Processor. | |
| 2 | ¶¶ 2-3 (1:9-15) | This portion of the Amissah-Aidoodeclaration cites to and discusses thecontents of confidential McDonald'sreports generated exclusively for Smithbased on Smith payroll data and related | Denied. No goodcause has beenshown to seal thisinformation. Themere fact that the |
| Tab | Exact Portions to beSealed | Particularized Reason for Sealing | Grant or Denial ofRequest |
|---|---|---|---|
| employee data. See Smith Declaration,¶ 8 (9:15-9:19). | information relatesto payroll data doesnot constitute goodcause. | ||
| ¶¶ 4-5 (1:17-18, 20-24,26-27) | This portion of the Amissah-Aidoodeclaration cites to and discusses thecontents of confidential McDonald'sreports generated exclusively for Smithbased on Smith payroll data and relatedemployee data. See Smith Declaration,¶ 8 (9:15-9:19). | Granted withrespect to thenames of theemployees forprivacy reasons,and otherwisedenied. | |
| ¶ 6 (2:1-4) | This portion of the Amissah-Aidoodeclaration cites to and discusses thecontents of a confidential McDonald'sreport generated exclusively for Smithbased on Smith payroll data and relatedemployee data. See Smith Declaration,¶ 8 (9:15-9:19). | Denied. No goodcause has beenshown to seal thisinformation. Themere fact that theinformation relatesto payroll data doesnot constitute goodcause. | |
| ¶¶ 7-8 (2:9-10, 12-13,15-16) | This portion of the Amissah-Aidoodeclaration cites to and discusses thecontents of confidential McDonald'sreports generated exclusively for Smithbased on Smith payroll data and relatedemployee data. See Smith Declaration,¶ 8 (9:15-9:19). | Granted withrespect to thenames of theemployees forprivacy reasons,and otherwisedenied. | |
| ¶ 9 (2:18-21) | This portion of the Amissah-Aidoodeclaration cites to and discusses thecontents of a confidential McDonald'sreport generated exclusively for Smithbased on Smith payroll data and relatedemployee data. See Smith Declaration,¶ 8 (9:15-9:19). | Denied. No goodcause has beenshown to seal thisinformation. Themere fact that theinformation relatesto payroll data doesnot constitute goodcause. | |
| ¶ 10 (2:24-28) | This portion of the Amissah-Aidoodeclaration cites to and discusses thecontents of a confidential McDonald'sreport generated exclusively for Smithbased on Smith payroll data and relatedemployee data. See Smith Declaration,¶ 8 (9:15-9:19). | Denied. No goodcause has beenshown to seal thisinformation. Themere fact that theinformation relatesto payroll data doesnot constitute goodcause. | |
| ¶¶ 11-12 (3:2-3, 5-6, 8-9) | This portion of the Amissah-Aidoo | Granted with |
| Tab | Exact Portions to beSealed | Particularized Reason for Sealing | Grant or Denial ofRequest |
|---|---|---|---|
| declaration cites to and discusses thecontents of a confidential McDonald'sreport generated exclusively for Smithbased on Smith payroll data and relatedemployee data. See Smith Declaration,¶ 8 (9:15-9:19). | respect to thenames of theemployees forprivacy reasons,and otherwisedenied. | ||
| ¶ 13 (3:11-13) | This portion of the Amissah-Aidoodeclaration cites to and discusses thecontents of a confidential McDonald'sreport generated exclusively for Smithbased on Smith payroll data and relatedemployee data. See Smith Declaration,¶ 8 (9:15-9:19). | Denied. No goodcause has beenshown to seal thisinformation. Themere fact that theinformation relatesto payroll data doesnot constitute goodcause. | |
| 3 | Employee DataGenerated by Report | Exhibit A to the Amissah-Aidoodeclaration is a confidentialMcDonald's report generatedexclusively for Smith based on Smithpayroll data and related employee data.See Smith Declaration, ¶ 7 (8:14-9:5). | Granted withrespect to theemployee namesand the IDs in thesecond column forprivacy reasons,and otherwisedenied. The merefact that theinformation relatesto payroll data doesnot constitute goodcause. |
| 4 | Employee Data &Analysis Generated byReport | Exhibit B to the Amissah-Aidoodeclaration is a confidentialMcDonald's report generatedexclusively for Smith based on Smithpayroll data and related employee data.See Smith Declaration ¶ 7 (9:6-9:14). | Granted withrespect to theemployee namesand the IDs in thefirst column forprivacy reasons,and otherwisedenied. The merefact that theinformation relatesto payroll data doesnot constitute goodcause. |
| 5 | Employee DataGenerated by Report | Exhibit C to the Amissah-Aidoodeclaration is a confidentialMcDonald's report generatedexclusively for Smith based on Smithpayroll data and related employee data. | Granted withrespect to theemployee namesand the IDs in thesecond column for |
| Tab | Exact Portions to beSealed | Particularized Reason for Sealing | Grant or Denial ofRequest |
|---|---|---|---|
| See Smith Declaration ¶ 7 (8:14-9:5). | privacy reasons,and otherwisedenied. The merefact that theinformation relatesto payroll data doesnot constitute goodcause. | ||
| 6 | Employee Data &Analysis Generated byReport | Exhibit D to the Amissah-Aidoodeclaration is a confidentialMcDonald's report generatedexclusively for Smith based on Smithpayroll data and related employee data.See Smith Declaration ¶ 7 (9:6-9:14). | Granted withrespect to theemployee namesand the IDs in thefirst column forprivacy reasons,and otherwisedenied. The merefact that theinformation relatesto payroll data doesnot constitute goodcause. |
| 7 | Employee DataGenerated by Report | Exhibit E to the Amissah-Aidoodeclaration is a confidentialMcDonald's report generatedexclusively for Smith based on Smithpayroll data and related employee data.See Smith Declaration ¶ 7 (8:14-9:5). | Granted withrespect to theemployee namesand the IDs in thesecond column forprivacy reasons,and otherwisedenied. The merefact that theinformation relatesto payroll data doesnot constitute goodcause. |
| 8 | Employee Data &Analysis Generated byReport | Exhibit F to the Amissah-Aidoodeclaration is a confidentialMcDonald's report generatedexclusively for Smith based on Smithpayroll data and related employee data.See Smith Declaration ¶ 7 (9:6-9:14). | Denied. The merefact that theinformation relatesto payroll data doesnot constitute goodcause. |
| 9 | ¶¶ 7-15 (2:21-22, 24-25,2:27-3:1, FN; 23:4, 6, 11;FN3; 3:12, 16-18; FN4;FN5; 4:5-7, 9-11; 4:18-19, 21-22; FN5; FN7) | This portion of the BreshearsDeclaration cites to and relies onconfidential payroll data, thisinformation is not available to thepublic and could not be recreated frompublicly-available sources. See Smith | Denied. The merefact that defendantshave designatedthis informationconfidential andthat it is not |
| Tab | Exact Portions to beSealed | Particularized Reason for Sealing | Grant or Denial ofRequest |
|---|---|---|---|
| Declaration ¶ 11 (11:2-11:6). | currently publicdoes not constitutegood cause. | ||
| ¶ 16 (5:3-7; FN 8) | This portion of the BreshearsDeclaration cites to and relies onconfidential payroll data, thisinformation is not available to thepublic and could not be recreated frompublicly-available sources. See SmithDeclaration, ¶ 11 (11:2-11:6). | Denied. The merefact that defendantshave designatedthis informationconfidential andthat it is notcurrently publicdoes not constitutegood cause. | |
| ¶ 17 (5:11-15; FN10,FN11, FN12) | This portion of the BreshearsDeclaration cites to and relies onconfidential payroll data, thisinformation is not available to thepublic and could not be recreated frompublicly-available sources. See SmithDeclaration, ¶ 11 (11:2-11:6). | Denied. The merefact that defendantshave designatedthis informationconfidential andthat it is notcurrently publicdoes not constitutegood cause. | |
| ¶ 18 (5:19-20) | This portion of the BreshearsDeclaration cites to and relies onconfidential payroll data, thisinformation is not available to thepublic and could not be recreated frompublicly-available sources. See SmithDeclaration, ¶ 11 (11:2-11:6). | Denied. The merefact that defendantshave designatedthis informationconfidential andthat it is notcurrently publicdoes not constitutegood cause. | |
| ¶¶ 20-21 (6:9-11, 14-15;FN14; FN15) | This portion of the BreshearsDeclaration cites to and relies onconfidential payroll data, thisinformation is not available to thepublic and could not be recreated frompublicly-available sources. See SmithDeclaration, ¶ 11 (11:2-11:6). | Denied. The merefact that defendantshave designatedthis informationconfidential andthat it is notcurrently publicdoes not constitutegood cause. | |
| ¶¶ 22-25 (6:20-24;FN16; 7:3, 5-6, 8-10, 13) | This portion of the BreshearsDeclaration cites to and relies onconfidential payroll data, thisinformation is not available to thepublic and could not be recreated frompublicly-available sources. See SmithDeclaration, ¶ 11 (11:2-11:6). | Denied. The merefact that defendantshave designatedthis informationconfidential andthat it is notcurrently public |
| Tab | Exact Portions to beSealed | Particularized Reason for Sealing | Grant or Denial ofRequest |
|---|---|---|---|
| does not constitutegood cause. | |||
| ¶¶ 26-30 (7:20-22; 8:2-5,7-23; FN17, FN18; 8:24- 9:1-2, 5, 7-8) | This portion of the BreshearsDeclaration cites to and relies onconfidential payroll data, thisinformation is not available to thepublic and could not be recreated frompublicly-available sources. See SmithDeclaration, ¶ 11 (11:2-11:6). | Denied. The merefact that defendantshave designatedthis informationconfidential andthat it is notcurrently publicdoes not constitutegood cause. | |
| ¶¶ 33-47 (10:1-3, 7-10,12-19, 22-23, 26; 11:1, 6,8-11, 13, 16, 25; FN 20;FN 23; 12:1, 5-8; FN24;FN25; 12:10-13; FN26;FN27; 12:15-17; FN28;FN29; 12:20-21)¶¶ 51-64 (13:16-19, 21-24, 26; 14:1-11, 13-21,24, 26, FN31, 15:1, 6, 9-11, 13, 15, 18, 20, 23,FN33)¶¶ 66-71 (16:4, 6-7, 9-12,14-17, 19-20, 21-22,FN34, FN35, FN36,FN37, FN38, FN39,FN40, FN41; 17:1-2, 4-12, 14, 16-18, FN42,FN43, FN44, FN45,FN46) | This portion of the BreshearsDeclaration cites to and relies onconfidential payroll data, thisinformation is not available to thepublic and could not be recreated frompublicly-available sources. See SmithDeclaration, ¶ 11 (11:2-11:6). | Denied. The merefact that defendantshave designatedthis informationconfidential andthat it is notcurrently publicdoes not constitutegood cause. | |
| ¶74 (Page 18, Chart) | This portion of the BreshearsDeclaration cites to and summarizesconfidential payroll data and relatedemployee data, this information is notavailable to the public and could not berecreated from publicly-availablesources. See Smith Declaration, ¶ 11(11:2-11:6). | Denied. The merefact that defendantshave designatedthis informationconfidential andthat it is notcurrently publicdoes not constitutegood cause. | |
| 10 | ¶ 9 (4:9-12); ¶11 (5:1-4);Appendix 2 | This portion of the Drogin Declarationcites to and summarizes confidentialpayroll data and related employee data,this information is not available to the | Denied. The merefact that defendantshave designatedthis information |
| Tab | Exact Portions to beSealed | Particularized Reason for Sealing | Grant or Denial ofRequest |
|---|---|---|---|
| public and could not be recreated frompublicly-available sources. See SmithDeclaration, ¶ 11 (11:2-11:6). | confidential andthat it is notcurrently publicdoes not constitutegood cause. | ||
| 11 | 58:11-64:1; 76:1-4 | This portion of the Michael SmithDeposition Transcript discusses theISP and POS systems, proprietaryhardware and software applicationsdeveloped by McDonald's specificallyfor use in running a McDonald'srestaurant business. The franchiseagreement between McDonald's andthe Smith's provides that McDonald's"own[s] all proprietary rights in and tothe McDonald's system," and thatrequired operations procedures andmethods "constitute confidential tradesecrets." Information relating to POSand ISP functionality, along with theoutput of such systems (e.g., sales data,order data, product mix, etc.), hascommercial value to competitors andwould provide them with an unfairbusiness advantage, includingknowledge of how to imitate and/orduplicate the McDonald's System. SeeSmith Declaration, ¶ 6 (6:17-7:5);Vaghani Declaration ¶ 7 (9:21-10:19). | Denied. No goodcause has beenshown to sealgeneral informationrelating todefendants' In-Store Processor. |
| 110:21 - 112:14 | This portion of the Michael SmithDeposition Transcript discusses detailsand confidential terms of the franchiseagreements between Smith andMcDonald's USA, disclosure of whichwould undermine McDonald's USA'sability to negotiate future franchiseagreements and compete in themarketplace. See Smith Declaration, ¶ 6(7:6-7:13). | Denied. No goodcause has beenshown to sealgeneral informationrelating todefendants'franchiseagreement.Moreover,defendants did notdesignate thisportion of thetranscript asconfidentialpursuant to theprotective order,waiving their claim | |
| Tab | Exact Portions to beSealed | Particularized Reason for Sealing | Grant or Denial ofRequest |
|---|---|---|---|
| that it isconfidential. SeeDkt. No. 103-5. | |||
| 117:9-121:25 | This portion of the Michael SmithDeposition Transcript discusses detailsand confidential terms of the franchiseagreements between Smith andMcDonald's USA, including specificfee arrangements between Smith andMcDonald's USA, disclosure of whichwould undermine McDonald's USA'sability to negotiate future franchiseagreements and compete in themarketplace. See Vaghani Declaration,¶ 7 (10:20-11:7). | Denied. No goodcause has beenshown to seal thisinformationgenerallyconcerning to therelationshipbetweenMcDonald's andSmith. | |
| 133:1-15; 137:13-25;159:1-162:8 | This portion of the Michael SmithDeposition Transcript discusses thefunctionality of ISP and POS systems,proprietary hardware and softwareapplications developed by McDonald'sspecifically for use in running aMcDonald's restaurant business, andreports generated through thesesystems. The franchise agreementbetween McDonald's and the Smith'sprovides that McDonald's "own[s] allproprietary rights in and to theMcDonald's system," and that requiredoperations procedures and methods"constitute confidential trade secrets."Information relating to POS and ISPfunctionality, along with the output ofsuch systems (e.g., sales data, orderdata, product mix, etc.), has commercialvalue to competitors and would providethem with an unfair business advantage,including knowledge of how to imitateand/or duplicate the McDonald'sSystem. See Vaghani Declaration, ¶ 7(11:8-11:22); Smith Declaration, ¶ 6(7:13-7:20). | Denied. Thedeclarations'claims ofcompetitive harmfrom the disclosureof this informationare conclusory, anddo not constitutegood cause. | |
| 12 | 132:25 - 139:25 | This portion of the Guadalupe OrtegaDeposition Transcript discusses thefunctionality of ISP and POS systems,proprietary hardware and softwareapplications developed by McDonald's | Granted forprivacy reasonswith respect to thename at 139:18, 23,and otherwise |
| Tab | Exact Portions to beSealed | Particularized Reason for Sealing | Grant or Denial ofRequest |
|---|---|---|---|
| specifically for use in running aMcDonald's restaurant business, andthe contents of reports generatedthrough these systems. The franchiseagreement between McDonald's andthe Smith's provides that McDonald's "own[s] all proprietary rights in and tothe McDonald's system," and thatrequired operations procedures andmethods "constitute confidential tradesecrets." Information relating to POSand ISP functionality, along with theoutput of such systems (e.g., sales data,order data, product mix, etc.), hascommercial value to competitors andwould provide them with an unfairbusiness advantage, includingknowledge of how to imitate and/orduplicate the McDonald's System. SeeVaghani Declaration,¶ 7 (11:23-12:7). | denied. No goodcause has beenshown to seal thisinformation, andthe request is notnarrowly tailored.In addition, to theextent defendantsmove to seal otherportions of theOrtega depositiontranscript notincluded in theirproposed order,see, e.g., Dkt. 100-2 ¶ 6, at 7:13-22,that request isdenied. | ||
| 13 | Response to SpecialInterrogatory No. 2 (2:19- 2:26; 3:4 - 5:20) | This portion of the Smith InterrogatoryResponses lists the names of Smithemployees, their job titles and, in someinstances, their dates of employment.These individuals are not parties to thislawsuit and have not consented to thepublic disclosure of their employmentinformation. See Smith Declaration, ¶ 5(2:13-3:4). | Granted forprivacy reasons. |
| Response to SpecialInterrogatory No. 3 (6:4- 6:19) | This portion of the Smith InterrogatoryResponses discusses in detail thefunctionality of the ISP and POSsystems, proprietary hardware andsoftware applications developed byMcDonald's specifically for use inrunning a McDonald's restaurantbusiness. The franchise agreementbetween McDonald's and the Smith'sprovides that McDonald's "own[s] allproprietary rights in and to theMcDonald's system," and that requiredoperations procedures and methods"constitute confidential trade secrets."Information relating to POS and ISPfunctionality, along with the output ofsuch systems (e.g., sales data, order | Denied. No goodcause has beenshown to sealgeneralfunctionality ofdefendants' Pointof Sale and In-Store Processorsystems. |
| Tab | Exact Portions to beSealed | Particularized Reason for Sealing | Grant or Denial ofRequest |
|---|---|---|---|
| data, product mix, etc.), has commercialvalue to competitors and would providethem with an unfair business advantage,including knowledge of how to imitate and/or duplicate the McDonald'sSystem. See Smith Declaration, ¶ 5(2:13-3:4). | |||
| Response to SpecialInterrogatory No. 5 (7:17- 7:21) | This portion of the Smith InterrogatoryResponses discusses in detail thefunctionality of the ISP system and aspecific report. The franchiseagreement between McDonald's andthe Smith's provides that McDonald's"own[s] all proprietary rights in and tothe McDonald's system," and thatrequired operations procedures andmethods "constitute confidential tradesecrets." Information relating to POSand ISP functionality, along with theoutput of such systems (e.g., sales data,order data, product mix, etc.), hascommercial value to competitors andwould provide them with an unfairbusiness advantage, includingknowledge of how to imitate and/orduplicate the McDonald's System. SeeSmith Declaration, ¶ 5 (2:13-3:4). | Denied. No goodcause has beenshown to sealgeneralfunctionality ofdefendants' Pointof Sale and In-Store Processorsystems. | |
| Response to SpecialInterrogatory No. 7 (8:13- 8:16) | This portion of the Smith InterrogatoryResponses discusses in detail thefunctionality of the ISP system. Thefranchise agreement betweenMcDonald's and the Smith's providesthat McDonald's "own[s] allproprietary rights in and to theMcDonald's system," and that requiredoperations procedures and methods"constitute confidential trade secrets."Information relating to POS and ISPfunctionality, along with the output ofsuch systems (e.g., sales data, orderdata, product mix, etc.), has commercialvalue to competitors and would providethem with an unfair business advantage,including knowledge of how to imitateand/or duplicate the McDonald'sSystem. See Smith Declaration, ¶ 5 | Denied. No goodcause has beenshown to sealgeneralfunctionality ofdefendants' Pointof Sale and In-Store Processorsystems. | |
| Tab | Exact Portions to beSealed | Particularized Reason for Sealing | Grant or Denial ofRequest |
|---|---|---|---|
| (2:13-3:4). | |||
| Response to SpecialInterrogatory No. 10(10:10 - 10:18; 10:20 -13:7; 13:14 - 13:17) | This portion of the Smith InterrogatoryResponses lists the names of bothSmith and McDonald's employees, andin many instances, their job titles.These individuals are not parties to thislawsuit and have not consented to thepublic disclosure of their employmentinformation. See Smith Declaration, ¶ 5(2:13-3:4). | Granted forprivacy reasons. | |
| Exhibit A (in its entirety) | Exhibit A to the Smith InterrogatoryResponses lists Smith employee names,positions, dates of hire and wage rates.These individuals are not parties to thislawsuit and have not consented to thepublic disclosure of their personalinformation related to their employmentwith Smith. See Smith Declaration, ¶ 5(2:13-3:4). | Granted forprivacy reasonswith respect to thenames andemployee numbercolumns, andotherwise denied. | |
| 14 | Response toInterrogatory No. 2 (8:3-12) | This portion of McDonald's USA'sInterrogatory Responses summarizes indetail the terms included in thefranchise agreements between Smithand McDonald's USA, disclosure ofwhich would undermine McDonald'sUSA's ability to negotiate futurefranchise agreements and compete inthe marketplace. See VaghaniDeclaration, ¶ 6 (3:9-3:28). | Denied. No goodcause has beenshown to sealgeneral informationregardingMcDonald's USA'sresponsibilitieswith respect toSmith. Noconcrete evidenceof potentialcompetitive harmhas been provided. |
| Response toInterrogatory No. 5(11:18 - 12:7); Responseto Interrogatory No. 6(12:25 - 13:14) | This portion of McDonald's USA'sInterrogatory Responses summarizes indetail the terms included in thefranchise agreements between Smithand McDonald's USA and the benefitsprovided to Smith as a McDonald'sUSA franchisee, disclosure of whichwould undermine McDonald's USA'sability to negotiate future franchiseagreements and compete in themarketplace. See Vaghani Declaration,¶ 6 (3:9-3:28). | Denied. No goodcause has beenshown to sealgeneral informationregarding servicesMcDonald'sprovides withrespect to Smith.No concreteevidence ofpotentialcompetitive harmhas been provided. | |
| Response to | This portion of McDonald's USA's | Denied. No good |
| Tab | Exact Portions to beSealed | Particularized Reason for Sealing | Grant or Denial ofRequest |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interrogatory No. 7(14:11 - 15:1; 15:3 -15:27) | Interrogatory Responses discusses indetail the functionality of the POS, ISPand R2D2 software and the reportsgenerated by these tools, includingspecific reports received by Smith.The franchise agreement betweenMcDonald's and the Smith's providesthat McDonald's "own[s] allproprietary rights in and to theMcDonald's system," and that requiredoperations procedures and methods"constitute confidential trade secrets."Information relating to POS and ISPfunctionality, along with the output ofsuch systems (e.g., sales data, orderdata, product mix, etc.), has commercialvalue to competitors and would providethem with an unfair business advantage,including knowledge of how to imitateand/or duplicate the McDonald'sSystem. This portion further discussesconfidential terms on the franchiseagreement with Smith and the contentsof tools offered to Smith pursuant to itsfranchise relationship with McDonald'sUSA. See Vaghani Declaration, ¶ 6(3:9-3:28). | cause has beenshown to sealgeneral informationregarding therelationshipbetweenMcDonald's andSmith and the toolsprovided byMcDonald's. | |
| 15 | Individual Names andPhone Numbers | Exhibit 5 to the Murray Declaration, theVES Crew Rules and Regulations,includes the name of a Smith employeeand her title. This individual is not aparty to this lawsuit and has notconsented to the public disclosure ofher employment information. Thisdocument further contains the personaltelephone number of Michael Smith,who has not consented to the disclosureof this information. See SmithDeclaration, ¶ 5 (3:4-3:8). | Granted forprivacy reasonswith respect to thename of the Smithemployee andMichael Smith'stelephone number. |
| 16 | Entire DocumentExcluding Cover Page,ConfidentialityDisclaimers and Table ofC ontents/Headers | Exhibit 45 to the Murray Declaration isthe People Practices section of theOperations and Training Manual. Thefranchise agreement specifically grantsSmith access to business manuals, suchas this document, with detailedinformation, including operational | Denied. Thisrequest is not"narrowly tailoredto seek sealing onlyof sealablematerial." SeeCivil L.R. 79-5(b). |
| Tab | Exact Portions to beSealed | Particularized Reason for Sealing | Grant or Denial ofRequest |
|---|---|---|---|
| procedures, methods of inventorycontrol, business practices and policiesand advertising policies forinformational purposes. Disclosure ofthe information contained in thisdocument would provide competitors ofMcDonald's and Smith a detailedaccount of McDonald's businessstrategies, policies, and practices thatare available only to McDonald'semployees and McDonald'sfranchisees, who have paid fees toobtain these materials as a unique andvaluable benefit of their franchiserelationship with McDonald's. SeeVaghani Declaration, ¶ 6 (4:1-4:22). | |||
| 17 | Employee Data &Analysis Generated byReport | Exhibit 46 to the Murray Declaration isa report generated exclusively for Smithbased on Smith payroll data and relatedemployee data. The contents,information and analysis provided inthis report are derived from Smithemployee data and have commercialvalue to competitors and would providethem with an unfair business advantage,including knowledge of how to imitateand/or duplicate the McDonald'sSystem. See Smith Declaration, ¶5 (3:8-3:16). | Granted forprivacy reasonswith respect to thenames andemployee numbercolumns, andotherwise denied. |
| 18 | Entire Document | Exhibit 48 to the Murray Declarationdescribes in detail procedures andinformation in connection with the useof the ISP software, disclosure wouldrisk the likelihood that competitors willreap the benefits of this documentwithout incurring the administrativecosts of development. The franchiseagreement between McDonald's andthe Smith's provides that McDonald's"own[s] all proprietary rights in and tothe McDonald's system." Informationrelating to POS and ISP functionality,along with the output of such systems(e.g., sales data, order data, productmix, etc.), has commercial value tocompetitors and would provide them | Denied. Thisrequest is not"narrowly tailoredto seek sealing onlyof sealablematerial." SeeCivil L.R. 79-5(b).Good cause has notbeen shown to sealnumerous portionsof this document --for example,general informationon how to use theIn-Store Processor. |
| Tab | Exact Portions to beSealed | Particularized Reason for Sealing | Grant or Denial ofRequest |
|---|---|---|---|
| with an unfair business advantage,including knowledge of how to imitateand/or duplicate the McDonald'sSystem. This portion further discussesconfidential terms on the franchiseagreement with Smith and the contentsof tools offered to Smith pursuant to itsfranchise relationship with McDonald'sUSA. See Vaghani Declaration, ¶ 6(4:23-5:13). | |||
| 19 | Substantive informationin Table of Contents andpgs. 1-25 | Exhibit 52 to the Murray Declaration isa Business Review Report containingspecifics on Smith business operationsand suggested guidance fromMcDonald's USA as how to maximizeprofits. Disclosure of the informationcontained in this document wouldprovide competitors of the McDonald'sDefendants a strategic and unfairbusiness advantage by allowingcompetitors a detailed and firsthandaccount of the key business strategiesand profit-driving factors consideredand offered as optional guidanceexclusively to franchisees ofMcDonald's USA during the interactivebusiness review process. See SmithDeclaration, ¶5 (3:16-4:6). | Granted.Although the Smithdeclaration doesnot providespecificity as to thecompetitive harmdefendants mightsuffer from publicdisclosure of thisinformation, theinformationappears to be of thetype that might beexploitable bycompetitors. |
| 20 | Substantive informationin pgs. 1-4 | Exhibit 53 to the Murray Declaration isa communication between McDonald'sUSA and Smith contains specifics onSmith business operations andsuggested guidance from McDonald'sUSA as how to maximize profits.Disclosure of the information containedin this document would providecompetitors of the McDonald'sDefendants a strategic and unfairbusiness advantage by allowingcompetitors a detailed and firsthandaccount of the key business strategiesand profit-driving factors consideredand offered as optional guidanceexclusively to franchisees ofMcDonald's USA during the interactivebusiness review process. See Vaghani | Granted.Although the Smithdeclaration doesnot providespecificity as to thecompetitive harmdefendants mightsuffer from publicdisclosure of thisinformation, theinformationappears to be of thetype that might beexploitable bycompetitors. |
| Tab | Exact Portions to beSealed | Particularized Reason for Sealing | Grant or Denial ofRequest |
|---|---|---|---|
| 21 | Employee DataGenerated by Report | Declaration, ¶ 6 (5:14-5:28).Exhibit 54 to the Murray Declaration isa confidential McDonald's reportgenerated exclusively for Smith basedon Smith payroll data and relatedemployee data. See Smith Declaration,¶ 5 (4:7-4:15). | Granted forprivacy reasonswith respect to thenames andemployee numbercolumns, andotherwise denied. |
| 22 | Employee DataGenerated by Report | Exhibit 55 to the Murray Declaration isa spreadsheet of Smith employee data,including employee names, IDnumbers, dates and hours ofemployment. These individuals are notparties to this lawsuit and have notconsented to the public disclosure oftheir employment information. SeeSmith Declaration, ¶ 5 (4:16-4:20). | Granted forprivacy reasonswith respect to thenames and badgenumber columns,and otherwisedenied. |
| 23 | Employee DataGenerated by Report | Exhibit 56 to the Murray Declaration isa confidential McDonald's reportgenerated exclusively for Smith basedon Smith payroll data and relatedemployee data. See Smith Declaration,¶ 5 (4:7-4:15). | Granted forprivacy reasonswith respect to thenames andemployee numbercolumns, andotherwise denied. |
| 24 | Employee DataGenerated by Report | Exhibit 57 to the Murray Declaration isa confidential McDonald's reportgenerated exclusively for Smith basedon Smith payroll data and relatedemployee data. See Smith Declaration,¶ 5 (5:1-5:7). | Granted forprivacy reasonswith respect to thenames andemployee numbercolumns, andotherwise denied. |
| 25 | Employee DataGenerated by Report | Exhibit 58 to the Murray Declaration isa spreadsheet of Smith employee data,including employee names, rates ofpay, dates and hours of employment.These individuals are not parties to thislawsuit and have not consented to thepublic disclosure of their employmentinformation. Furthermore, thisspreadsheet contains wage rates,earnings amounts and check numbers.Public disclosure of this informationgrants competitors of Smith an unfairadvantage by providing insight intoSmith's wage structure. See SmithDeclaration, ¶ 5 (5:7-5:13). | Granted forprivacy reasonswith respect to thename column, andotherwise denied. |
| Tab | Exact Portions to beSealed | Particularized Reason for Sealing | Grant or Denial ofRequest |
|---|---|---|---|
| 26 | Employee DataGenerated by Report | Exhibit 59 to the Murray Declaration isa spreadsheet of Smith employee wagehistory, including employee names,rates of pay, dates and hours ofemployment. These individuals are notparties to this lawsuit and have notconsented to the public disclosure oftheir employment information.Furthermore, this spreadsheet includespay rates, earnings amounts and checknumbers. Public disclosure of thisinformation grants competitors ofSmith an unfair advantage by providinginsight into Smith's wage structure. SeeSmith Declaration, ¶ 5 (5:13-5:19). | Granted forprivacy reasonswith respect to thenames andemployee numbercolumns, andotherwise denied. |
| 27 | Entire Document | Exhibit 60 to the Murray Declaration isthe 800 Market Street FranchiseAgreement, disclosure of this documentwould undermine McDonald's USA'sability to negotiate future franchiseagreements and compete in themarketplace. See Smith Declaration, ¶ 5(5:20-6:6). | Denied. Thestandard agreementon which thisdocument wasbased was filed inthe public docket inanother case. SeeWilson v.McDonald's Corp.,No. 5:14-cv-11082-JCO-MJH (E.D.Mich.), ECF. No.45-14, available atDkt. No. 103-6.Defendants havenot shown goodcause to seal thisparticular versionof the agreement. |
| 28 | Entire Document | Exhibit 61 to the Murray Declaration isthe 6623 San Pablo FranchiseAgreement, disclosure of this documentwould undermine McDonald's USA'sability to negotiate future franchiseagreements and compete in themarketplace. See Vaghani Declaration,¶ 6 (6:1-6:13). | Denied. Thestandard agreementon which thisdocument wasbased was filed inthe public docket inanother case. SeeWilson v.McDonald's Corp.,No. 5:14-cv-11082-JCO-MJH (E.D.Mich.), ECF. No. |
| Tab | Exact Portions to beSealed | Particularized Reason for Sealing | Grant or Denial ofRequest |
|---|---|---|---|
| 45-14, available atDkt. No. 103-6.Defendants havenot shown goodcause to seal thisparticular versionof the agreement. | |||
| 29 | Entire Document | Exhibit 62 to the Murray Declaration isthe 2301 MacDonald Ave FranchiseAgreement, disclosure of this documentwould undermine McDonald's USA'sability to negotiate future franchiseagreements and compete in themarketplace. See Vaghani Declaration,¶ 6 (6:1-6:13). | Denied. Thestandard agreementon which thisdocument wasbased was filed inthe public docket inanother case. SeeWilson v.McDonald's Corp.,No. 5:14-cv-11082-JCO-MJH (E.D.Mich.), ECF. No.45-14, available atDkt. No. 103-6.Defendants havenot shown goodcause to seal thisparticular versionof the agreement. |
| 30 | Entire Document | Exhibit 63 to the Murray Declaration isthe 4514 Telegraph Ave FranchiseAgreement, disclosure of this documentwould undermine McDonald's USA'sability to negotiate future franchiseagreements and compete in themarketplace. See Vaghani Declaration,¶ 6 (6:1-6:13). | Denied. Thestandard agreementon which thisdocument wasbased was filed inthe public docket inanother case. SeeWilson v.McDonald's Corp.,No. 5:14-cv-11082-JCO-MJH (E.D.Mich.), ECF. No.45-14, available atDkt. No. 103-6.Defendants havenot shown goodcause to seal thisparticular versionof the agreement. |
| 31 | Entire Document | Exhibit 64 to the Murray Declaration is | Denied. The |
| Tab | Exact Portions to beSealed | Particularized Reason for Sealing | Grant or Denial ofRequest |
|---|---|---|---|
| the 1330 Jackson Street FranchiseAgreement, disclosure of this documentwould undermine McDonald's USA'sability to negotiate future franchiseagreements and compete in themarketplace. See Vaghani Declaration,¶ 6 (6:1-6:13). | standard agreementon which thisdocument wasbased was filed inthe public docket inanother case. SeeWilson v.McDonald's Corp.,No. 5:14-cv-11082-JCO-MJH (E.D.Mich.), ECF. No.45-14, available atDkt. No. 103-6.Defendants havenot shown goodcause to seal thisparticular versionof the agreement. | ||
| 32 | Portions of Pgs. 1-2 | Portions of Exhibit 66 to the MurrayDeclaration contains specificinformation on training tools offered toSmith in improving the operations of itsrestaurant and the frequency with whichSmith takes advantage of these tools.Public disclosure of this informationwould put Smith and McDonald's at acompetitive disadvantage. See VaghaniDeclaration, ¶ 7 (6:1-6:21). | Granted forprivacy reasonswith respect toindividual emailaddresses, butotherwise denied.No particularizedshowing ofcompetitive harmhas been made. |
| 33 | Entire Document | Exhibit 67 to the Murray Declaration isa report containing commerciallysensitive information made availableexclusively to franchisees ofMcDonald's USA in furtherance ofconfidential business strategies. Thisdocument is a tool to be used byfranchisees as an optional resource indeveloping scheduling practices andstaffing practices and is unique to theMcDonald's restaurant business. SeeVaghani Declaration, ¶ 6 (8:24-9:11). | Granted forprivacy reasonswith respect to thenames and IDnumbers, andotherwise denied.The mere fact thatthe information hasbeen madeavailableexclusively tofranchisees doesnot constitute goodcause to seal it, andthe allegations ofcompetitive harmare too conclusoryto constitute good |
| Tab | Exact Portions to beSealed | Particularized Reason for Sealing | Grant or Denial ofRequest |
|---|---|---|---|
| cause to seal. | |||
| 34 | Entire Document | Exhibit 70 to the Murray Declarationcontains specific information ontraining tools offered to Smith inimproving the operations of itsrestaurant and the frequency with whichSmith takes advantage of these tools.See Vaghani Declaration, ¶ 6 (8:11-8:23). | Denied withrespect to theportion attached atDkt. No. 92-10.The mere fact thatthe information hasbeen madeavailableexclusively tofranchisees doesnot constitute goodcause to seal it. |
| 35 | Restaurant OperationsData Generated byReport | Exhibit 71 to the Murray Declaration isa confidential report containing detailedsales data and related informationregarding the daily operations of aSmith restaurant. The information inthis report (e.g., sales data, order data,transaction time, etc.), has commercialvalue to competitors and would providethem with an unfair business advantage.See Smith Declaration, ¶ 5 (6:7-6:13). | Granted.Although the Smithdeclaration doesnot providespecificity as to thecompetitive harmdefendants mightsuffer from publicdisclosure of thisinformation, theinformationappears to be of thetype that might beexploitable bycompetitors. |
| 36 | Employee DataGenerated by Report | Exhibit 73 to the Murray Declaration isa confidential report generatedexclusively for Smith based on Smithpayroll data and related employee data.See Smith Declaration, ¶ 5 (5:1-5:7). | Granted forprivacy reasonswith respect to thenames and IDnumbers, andotherwise denied.The fact that areport wasgeneratedexclusively forSmith does notconstitute goodcause. |
| 37 | Entire Document | Exhibit 82 to the Murray Declarationcontains a specific list of trainingcurriculum made available exclusivelyto franchisees of McDonald's USA.The McDonald's Defendants have | Denied.Defendants havenot made aparticularizedshowing that they |
| Tab | Exact Portions to beSealed | Particularized Reason for Sealing | Grant or Denial ofRequest |
|---|---|---|---|
| expended substantial time, effort andresources to develop this curriculum.Disclosure of the information containedin this document would providecompetitors of McDonald's and Smith adetailed account of McDonald'sbusiness strategies, policies, andpractices that are available only toMcDonald's employees andMcDonald's franchisees, who have paidfees to obtain these materials as aunique and valuable benefit of theirfranchise relationship withMcDonald's. See Vaghani Declaration,¶ 6 (8:24-9:11). | will suffercompetitive harm iftheir competitorsare aware of thegeneral topics thatform part of theirrestaurantmanagementcurriculum. |
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 5, 2015
/s/_________
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge