Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03451/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03451-25/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

AMANDA FRLEKIN, TAYLOR KALIN,

AARON GREGOROFF, SETH

DOWLING, and DEBRA SPEICHER, on

behalf of themselves and all others

similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

APPLE INC., a California corporation,

Defendant. /

No. C 13-03451 WHA (lead)

No. C 13-04727 WHA (consolidated)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

UNDER SEAL (DKT. NO. 246)

There is a strong presumption in favor of access to court records. Kamakana v. City &

County of Honolulu, 447 F. 3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). 

On May 11, plaintiffs moved for leave to file under seal 71 exhibits provided by Apple in

their entirety as well as portions of their motion for class certification (Dkt. No. 246). Apple has

not filed a supporting declaration, and the deadline for filing a supporting declaration has long

passed. Civil L.R. 79-5(e). 

Having reviewed each exhibit as well as plaintiffs’ motion, this order finds that no

compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings have been articulated for sealing the

large swath of exhibits and portions of the class certification motion at issue in plaintiffs’

overbroad sealing motion. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ sealing motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 22, 2015. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:13-cv-03451-WHA Document 254 Filed 05/22/15 Page 1 of 1