Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-01993/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-01993-55/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

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, 

 

 Plaintiffs, 

 

 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, 

 Defendants. 

________________________________/ 

No. C 10-1993 CW 

ORDER DENYING 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION 

TO SEAL 

(Docket No. 647) 

 Plaintiffs have filed a motion to file under seal certain 

portions of Appendix A to their motion to lift the stay because 

the redacted information has been designated as confidential by 

Leasing Defendants. 

 Because the public interest favors filing all court documents 

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

seal in connection with a non-dispositive motion must demonstrate 

good cause to do so. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 

665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010). This cannot be established simply by 

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

stating in general terms that the material is considered to be 

Case 4:10-cv-01993-CW Document 655 Filed 04/04/16 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 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 

confidential, but rather must be supported by a sworn declaration 

demonstrating with particularity the need to file each document 

under seal. Civil Local Rule 79-5(a). If a document has been 

designated as confidential by another party, that party must file 

a declaration establishing that the document is sealable within 

four days of the filing of the motion to seal. Civil Local Rule 

79-5(e)(1). 

 Because Leasing Defendants failed to file a supporting 

declaration as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1), the motion 

to seal is DENIED. Plaintiffs shall file an unredacted version of 

the document in the public record as directed by Civil Local Rule 

79-5(e)(2). 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 4, 2016 CLAUDIA WILKEN 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:10-cv-01993-CW Document 655 Filed 04/04/16 Page 2 of 2