Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03451/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03451-27/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, AARON

GREGOROFF, SETH DOWNLING,

DEBRA SPEICHER, and TAYLOR

KALIN,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

APPLE INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 13-03451 WHA

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

FILE UNDER SEAL

Defendant Apple, Inc., moves to file under seal several exhibits to its opposition to

plaintiffs’ class certification motion. Apple seeks to seal seventy video clips of security footage

depicting public and secure areas of Apple retail stores as well as one hundred twenty-seven

photographs depicting similar areas of the stores. Some exhibits depict the faces of Apple

employees and customers. Apple claims it could suffer commercial harm if these exhibits were

made available to the public because potential wrongdoers could glean information about

Apple’s security system, including “what areas the surveillance camera and video covers, and by

deduction, what areas it does not cover . . . .” Apple also argues that public disclosure of these

exhibits would unnecessarily infringe on the privacy rights of its customers and employees. 

Plaintiffs oppose Apple’s motion.

Having reviewed Apple’s submissions, good cause exists to justify sealing the video

evidence, as that evidence contains confidential information relating to Apple’s security systems,

Case 3:13-cv-03451-WHA Document 275 Filed 06/05/15 Page 1 of 2
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

2

which could cause significant commercial harm if disclosed publicly. No such interest justifies

sealing the photographic evidence. Nor has Apple pointed to any privacy interest affected by the

depiction of the faces of customers or employees conducting ordinary business at a retail store. 

Accordingly, Apple’s motion to file under seal is GRANTED as to the video exhibits to the

declaration of Todd K. Boyer in support of Apple’s opposition, which are: Exhibit J to Exhibit

B-1, Exhibit G to Exhibit B-6, Exhibit C to Exhibit GG, Exhibit HH, and Exhibit II. All other

proposed redactions are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 5, 2015. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:13-cv-03451-WHA Document 275 Filed 06/05/15 Page 2 of 2