Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-md-02330/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-md-02330-50/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICK KENNY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CARRIER IQ, INC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 12-md-02330-EMC 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENIN IN PART PLAINTIFFS' 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL; AND 

STRIKING SUPPLEMENTAL LOPEZ 

DECLARATION

Docket No. 410

Plaintiffs have moved to file under seal three documents. Defendants have not opposed the 

motion.

Consistent with its prior order, the Court GRANTS the request to file under seal the 

Mobley declaration (which discusses the financial condition of CarrierIQ) and the Confidential 

Supplemental Agreement (regarding the opt-out threshold). See Docket No. 408 (order requiring 

supplemental briefing). However, the Court DENIES the request to file under seal the 

supplemental Lopez declaration. The supplemental Lopez declaration was filed in response to the 

Court’s request for a more robust analysis regarding the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs 

have asserted that the declaration should be filed under seal because it contains work product, 

including but not limited to attorney mental impressions, and because it contains Plaintiffs’ 

confidential settlement considerations. See Mot. at 1-2. While the Court is not unsympathetic to 

Plaintiffs’ concerns, a publicly filed response to the Court’s request for supplemental briefing on 

the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims is warranted. This is a multi-district litigation that has engendered 

a significant amount of public interest, given the privacy issues involved and the cell phone 

industry that has been implicated. The public has an interest in understanding Plaintiffs’ views of 

Case 3:12-md-02330-EMC Document 416 Filed 02/16/16 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

the merits of their claims, perhaps not at a minute level of detail, but certainly with more detail 

than that provided in the original briefing. 

Accordingly, the Court shall strike the supplemental Lopez declaration, which is consistent 

with Plaintiffs’ statement that they would withdraw the declaration if the Court were to deny the 

request to file under seal. See Docket No. 411 (Supp. Br. at 6) (stating that, “[a]s Plaintiffs have

advised Defendants, in the event the Court denies Plaintiffs’ request to file [the supplemental 

Lopez] declaration under seal, Plaintiffs will withdraw it and promptly submit a supplemental 

response to this section of the Court’s order.”). Within a week of the date of this order, Plaintiffs 

shall publicly file an analysis of the merits of their claims. Cf. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(2) (providing that 

“the document sought to be sealed will not be considered by the Court unless the Submitting Party 

files an unredacted version of the document within 7 days after the motion is denied”).

For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part the motion to file 

under seal. The Court also STRIKES the supplemental Lopez declaration, located at Docket No. 

410-6, and orders Plaintiffs to publicly file a supplemental response regarding the merits of 

Plaintiffs’ claims.

This order disposes of Docket No. 410.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 16, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-md-02330-EMC Document 416 Filed 02/16/16 Page 2 of 2