Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02860/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02860-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

5:14-cv-02860-RMW

ORDER ON MOTIONS TO SEAL

1

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANA SCOTT KRULEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE 

MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:14-cv-02860-RMW 

ORDER ON MOTIONS TO SEAL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 50, 68

Defendants Receivables Performance Management, LLC (“RPM”) and Jefferson Capital 

Systems, LLC (“Jefferson Capital”) filed two motions to seal in connection with a motion to 

compel arbitration. See Dkt. Nos. 50, 68 (Motions to seal); Dkt. No. 51 (Motion to compel 

arbitration). The motions seek to seal in full two Agreements transferring consumer debt from one 

entity to another. See Dkt. No. 50-4 (seeking to seal “Account Purchase Agreement” and 

“Assignments of Accounts” between CompuCredit and Jefferson Capital) and Dkt. No. 68-1 

(seeking to seal “Account Ownership Agreement” between First National Bank of Omaha and 

CompuCredit) (collectively, “Agreements”). 

Plaintiff opposed both motions to seal, arguing that defendants’ requests were not narrowly 

tailored, that there were no compelling reasons to seal the Agreements, and because the 

Agreements were essential to the motion to compel arbitration. Dkt. Nos. 53, 69. Plaintiff also 

argues that he was prejudiced by defendants’ sealing request because he was not able to review 

Case 5:14-cv-02860-RMW Document 70 Filed 05/21/15 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

Northern District of California

unredacted copies of the Agreements. Id. However, plaintiff was given the opportunity to enter 

into a protective order and review unredacted copies of the Agreements but did not do so. Dkt. 

No. 54-1. 

Turning to the merits of the sealing motions, the court finds that the defendants’ sealing 

requests are not narrowly tailored. Applying the standards set forth in Kamakana v. City & 

County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006), defendants’ declarations in support of 

sealing only justify sealing information related to “the pricing and structure for buying open 

(credit card) accounts.” Dkt. No. 68-1 ¶ 3. Accordingly, the court DENIES WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE the motions to file under seal. Defendants shall file narrowly tailored redactions 

directed only to “the pricing and structure for buying open (credit card) accounts” within 14 days 

of this order. 

In addition, by 5 p.m. on Tuesday May 26, 2015, plaintiff and defendants shall enter into a 

protective order, allowing plaintiff (or plaintiff’s counsel) access to the unredacted Agreements for 

purposes of this litigation only.1 Plaintiff shall have 7 days thereafter to submit a letter brief, not 

to exceed 3 pages, explaining any basis revealed by his review of the Agreements for challenging 

the power of Jefferson to enforce the arbitration agreement contained in the “Terms and 

Conditions” relating to the FNBO Emerge Card. See Dkt. No. 51-51 at ¶¶ 6-7. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 21, 2015

______________________________________

Ronald M. Whyte

United States District Judge

 

1

The court assume that the parties can agree upon the terms of a protective order. If necessary, 

they can use the Northern District’s Model Order if they cannot agree. See 

http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/model-protective-orders. 

Case 5:14-cv-02860-RMW Document 70 Filed 05/21/15 Page 2 of 2