Because of the lengthy history of this litigation, we 1

rehearse here only the factual background relevant to the motion

now before us.

 In December of 2004, defendants included UNITE, Bruce 2

Raynor, and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (the

"Teamsters"). This motion to unseal concerns only defendant

UNITE. Mr. Raynor did not filed his summary judgment documents

under seal, and we dismissed the Teamsters before summary

judgment motion practice. See Order of Sept. 23, 2005 (approving

Consent Order between plaintiffs and the Teamsters that settled

all claims between them and dismissed the action against the

Teamsters).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ELIZABETH PICHLER, et al. : CIVIL ACTION

:

 v. :

:

UNITE (UNION OF NEEDLETRADES, :

INDUSTRIAL & TEXTILE EMPLOYEES :

AFL-CIO), et al. : NO. 04-2841

MEMORANDUM

Dalzell, J. December 4, 2006

Plaintiffs move to unseal the portions of the summary

judgment record that the parties filed under seal. Defendant

UNITE HERE ("UNITE") has responded, and both parties have filed

supplemental briefs. The parties have agreed to unseal most of

the documents in question, so today we address whether the

information that UNITE identifies for continued protection should

remain under seal.

I. Background1

In December of 2004, defendants moved for a protective 2

order, suggesting, inter alia, that what they called a

"collective bargaining privilege" insulated information from

Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 227 Filed 12/04/06 Page 1 of 17
 These documents are the parties' Joint Stipulation of 3

Facts and Supplemental Joint Stipulation of Facts, and the

Exhibits thereto; the Declarations of Thomas Kennedy, Ahmer

Qaheed, Megan Chambers, Julie Hodek, Eric Frumin, and the

Exhibits thereto; and the parties' Memoranda of Law filed in

Support of their Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, including

the Exhibits and documents attached thereto.

 That Order resolved some of the arguments raised in the 4

motion and response, so we shall not revisit those matters.

2

disclosure. Because we found no authority that supported such a

broad privilege, we rejected that argument. See Order of Jan. 7,

2005 at 3 n.1. We nevertheless held that, in light of the

contentious history between defendants and Cintas, the company

whose employees the unions are trying to organize, defendants'

concerns identified a risk of injury that was sufficiently

defined and serious to warrant a protective order. Id. at ¶¶

(g)-(j). We therefore allowed defense counsel to "[designate]

potential evidence as confidential if that potential evidence

directly relates to defendants' labor union organizing or

mobilization strategies" and created a procedure whereby

plaintiffs could challenge such designations. See id. at ¶¶ 2-4. 

Pursuant to that protective order, plaintiffs and UNITE filed a

number of documents under seal, including much of the summary

judgment record.

UNITE having appealed our grant of summary judgment to

plaintiffs (but not yet to the class), plaintiffs now move to

unseal the portion of the summary judgment record that the

parties filed under seal, contending that changed circumstances 3

warrant it. Pursuant to our Order of November 9, 2006, the 4

Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 227 Filed 12/04/06 Page 2 of 17
3

parties filed supplemental briefs identifying the portions of the

summary judgment record they believe should remain under seal. 

See Order of Nov. 9, 2006 ¶¶ (i)-(k), n.2, ¶¶ 1-2, n.4. 

Although, as noted, this case is now on appeal, and mindful of

Third Circuit Local Appellate Rule 30.3(b) and Miscellaneous Rule

106.1(c)(2), we hope that by resolving this motion we will

simplify matters for the appellate record.

II. Analysis

A. Legal Standard

Our Court of Appeals has instructed that "[e]ven if the

initial sealing was justified, when there is a subsequent motion

to remove such a seal, the district court should closely examine

whether circumstances have changed sufficiently to allow the

presumption allowing access to court records to prevail." Miller

v. Indiana Hosp., 16 F.3d 549, 551-52 (3d Cir. 1994). It has

also emphasized that "continued sealing must be based on 'current

evidence to show how public dissemination of the pertinent

materials now would cause the competitive harm [they] claim[].'" 

Leucadia, Inc. v. Applied Extrusion Technologies, Inc., 998 F.2d

157, 167 (3d Cir. 1993) (quoting Republic of the Philippines v.

Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 949 F.2d 653, 663 (3d Cir.1991)). 

Almost two years have passed since we issued our

protective order, and since then UNITE has continued to

vigorously wage against Cintas what UNITE describes as "the

Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 227 Filed 12/04/06 Page 3 of 17
4

largest union drive in North America." UNITE HERE,

http://www.unitehere.org (last visited Dec. 4, 2006). In January

of 2005, we were concerned that Cintas might use information

about UNITE's organizing methods "to devise preemptive defenses

to defendants' unionization effort." Order of Jan. 7, 2005 ¶

(f). Now, however, almost four years have passed since UNITE

launched its campaign, and during this time UNITE and Cintas have

learned much about each other's goals, strategies, and tactics. 

Indeed, a visit to their respective Web sites reveals that these

adversaries are intimately aware of each another's activities. 

See UNITE HERE, http://www.uniformjustice.org (last visited Dec.

4, 2006); Cintas, http://www.cintas.com/company/news_media/

cintas_and_unions/union_tactics.asp (last visited Dec. 4, 2006). 

Thus, UNITE no longer faces the same potential harm it did

earlier in the campaign.

Also, much of the information filed under seal is now

part of the public record. When ruling on the cross-motions for

summary judgment and holding that UNITE's license plate retrieval

activities violated the Driver's Privacy Protection Act ("DPPA"),

we expressly relied upon and referred to much of the sealed

information. Release of testimony about publicly available

information is not entitled to continued sealing. See Miller, 16

F.3d at 551 (ordering a district court to unseal a record and

finding it relevant that the district court's published opinions

relied on sealed information). 

On these facts, we find that circumstances have changed

Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 227 Filed 12/04/06 Page 4 of 17
5

sufficiently to warrant reevaluating whether the information

UNITE wants to keep under seal should remain so. We now consider

the standard we must apply to any information that UNITE wants us

to protect. 

The common law right of public access to judicial

records is "beyond dispute," but it is "not absolute." 

Littlejohn v. Bic Corp., 851 F.2d 673, 678 (3d Cir. 1988)

(citation omitted). We must balance "the strong common law

presumption of access . . . against the factors militating

against access." Leucadia, 998 F.2d at 165 (quoting Bank of

America Nat'l Trust & Savings Ass'n. v. Hotel Rittenhouse

Assocs., 800 F.2d 339, 344 (3d Cir. 1986)). Interests overriding

the public's right to access can include "the content of the

information at issue, the relationship of the parties, or the

nature of the controversy." Publicker Industries, Inc. v. Cohen,

733 F.2d 1059, 1073 (3d Cir. 1984).

Notably, when the continued sealing of documents is

challenged, the burden of overriding the presumption of access

rests squarely with the party seeking secrecy, who must "show

that the interest in secrecy outweighs the presumption" by making

"a 'particularized showing of the need for continued secrecy' if

the documents are to remain under seal." Leucadia, 998 F.2d at

165-66 (quoting Bank of America, 800 F.2d at 344, 346). This

party cannot satisfy its burden with "[b]road allegations of

harm, bereft of specific examples or articulated reasoning." In

re Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d 183, 194 (3d Cir. 2001) (citation

Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 227 Filed 12/04/06 Page 5 of 17
6

omitted). Instead, it must show with "specificity" that the

portion of the record it seeks to keep from the public contains

the type of information courts protect and that its "disclosure

will work a clearly defined and serious injury to [it]." Id. 

(quoting Miller, 16 F.3d at 551).

Under this jurisprudence, we must consider whether

UNITE has shown with sufficient particularity that it will suffer

"a clearly defined and serious injury" if we unseal the portions

of the summary judgment record that remain in dispute. UNITE has

in fact agreed that much of the summary judgment record can be

unsealed and has carefully identified those documents or portions

of documents that it believes merit continued sealing. It

separates these documents into two categories: (1) those

containing personal information about non-parties; and (2) those

directly relating to its labor union organizing or mobilization

strategies.

B. Documents containing personal information

As to the first category, UNITE identifies thirteen

documents. It asserts that each contains highly personal

information -- names, addresses, telephone numbers, ages, health

information, and checking account numbers -- about current and

former Cintas workers and others who are not parties to this

litigation. UNITE contends that the public has no legitimate

interest in such documents, while the people whose information is

contained within the documents have the greatest interest in

maintaining their privacy. Moreover, UNITE points out that many

Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 227 Filed 12/04/06 Page 6 of 17
7

of the documents contain information about worker complaints

against Cintas, and Cintas could use that information to

retaliate against workers.

Privacy interests are at the heart of this litigation. 

We agree with UNITE that the release of personal information

could result in "clearly defined and serious injury" by

needlessly exposing to the public precisely the type of personal

information that Congress protected through the DPPA, and

possibly exposing Cintas employees to retaliation for complaints

against their employer. Even plaintiffs agree that most of the

documents UNITE identifies within this category warrant

protection. In light of these facts, and the absence of a

legitimate public interest in this information, we find that the

type of personal information UNITE seeks to protect merits

continued sealing. We examine each of the thirteen documents

that UNITE identifies to ensure that each indeed contains such

personal information.

We begin with the ten that plaintiffs agree should

remain under seal. Exhibit II to the parties' Supplemental Joint

Stipulation of Facts contains motor vehicle records abstracts

with personal information. Exhibits F, G, J, K, L, and M to the

Hodek Declaration, as well as Exhibit E to the Qadeer

Declaration, are Discrimination Inventory Forms containing

personal information of present and former Cintas employees. 

Exhibits I and S to the Frumin Declaration are documents that

were attached to complaints filed with OSHA, and these set forth

Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 227 Filed 12/04/06 Page 7 of 17
8

personal information about some Cintas employees, as well as

descriptive information from which Cintas might determine others'

identities. Having examined these documents, we conclude that

each contains personal information that should be protected and

shall therefore remain under seal.

The three documents over which the parties disagree are

Exhibit A to the Frumin Declaration, Exhibit I to the Qadeer

Declaration, and plaintiffs' Exhibit 32. Exhibit A to the Frumin

Declaration is a completed Laundry Safety Checklist for a named

Cintas employee. Plaintiffs state that their copy of this

document does not provide a name. See Pls.' Supp. Br. at 3 n.5. 

However, the Court's copy does in fact have a name that is

partially obscured, yet still legible. Because a Cintas employee

is identified, this document will remain sealed. 

Next, Exhibit I to the Qadeer Declaration is Wage &

Hour Overtime Surveys that Cintas workers completed. While

employees' names are not on the surveys, the employees provided

sufficient descriptors (i.e., time of hiring, work location, work

hours, compensation) that Cintas could deduce their identities. 

Because of a risk of identification and the possibility of

retaliation, this document will remain under seal. 

Lastly, plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 is a personal check that

Ernest Bennett, UNITE's International Vice-President, gave to

Jason Coulter, a UNITE employee, to reimburse him for Westlaw

expenses incurred on behalf of UNITE's license plate retrieval

activities. We agree with plaintiffs that the check, which UNITE

Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 227 Filed 12/04/06 Page 8 of 17
9

used to advance its "tagging" activities, should be in the public

record. However, the personal information on the check -- the

name of the other account holder, the home address, the account

number, the name of the bank, Coulter's account number on the

back of the check, and any other information that might be used

to ascertain personal banking information -- must be redacted to

protect Mr. Bennett's and the other account holder's privacy. 

We shall also protect some information that UNITE seeks

to seal as related to its campaign (i.e., its second category),

but which we find pertains to privacy interests. First, we shall

redact deposition testimony that identifies the names and

addresses of people whose license plate numbers UNITE allegedly

searched. See Pls.' Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. ("Pls.' Ex.") 19

Dartayet-Rodriguez Dep. 69:13-21, 72:2-25, Jan. 10, 2006. 

Second, we shall redact all information concerning health matters

that are irrelevant to this litigation. See Pls.' Ex. 1 Bennett

Dep. 85:6-17, Jan. 12, 2006, Pls.' Ex. 33 Bennett Dep. 268:8-12,

269:3-6, 272:2-4, Jan. 12, 2006. Third, we shall protect

documents and discussions concerning UNITE's personnel

evaluations and employment decisions. See Supp. to Jt. Stip. of

Facts Ex. FF; Pls.' Ex. 13 Coulter Dep. 40:2-49:11, Oct. 27,

2005; Pls.' Ex. 33 Bennett Dep. 279:17-280:25. Each of these

redactions involves personal information about someone, and the

public has either no legitimate interest therein or a minimal

interest that is outweighed by important privacy concerns.

Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 227 Filed 12/04/06 Page 9 of 17
10

C. Information relating to UNITE's labor union 

organizing or mobilization strategies

UNITE contends that information about its organizing

and mobilizing strategy should remain seal under because of the

"content of the information at issue, the relationship of the

parties or the nature of the controversy." Publicker Industries,

Inc. v. Cohen, 733 F.2d 1059, 1073 (3d Cir. 1984). UNITE asserts

that it and Cintas "could not be greater antagonists" and that

"the real controversy underlying this lawsuit is the ongoing

battle between Cintas and UNITE." UNITE's Supp. Mem. of Law in

Opp'n to Pls.' Mot. to Unseal ("UNITE's Supp. Mem.") 12. As to

the "content" it seeks to protect, in addition to the information

we already discussed, UNITE identifies passages from sixteen

depositions. It subdivides that information into three

categories: (1) campaigns other than the Cintas campaign; (2)

UNITE's internal deliberations and strategy discussions relating

to the Cintas campaign; and (3) information relating to the

agreement between UNITE and the Teamsters concerning the Cintas

campaign. We note that plaintiffs agreed to the continued

sealing of some of this information, but we review all testimony

that UNITE specified with a view to whether our jurisprudence

supports its continued sealing.

First, UNITE contends that release of information about

other campaigns will inflict upon it a serious injury by offering

valuable information about UNITE's operations to targeted

employers. It further asserts that some "campaigns" discussed in

Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 227 Filed 12/04/06 Page 10 of 17
 We note that plaintiffs filed a letter in reply to UNITE's 5

Second Supplemental Memorandum in which they contend that UNITE

misidentified some public campaigns as "probes." Pls.' Letter of

Nov. 30, 2006. 

First, plaintiffs wrongly accuse UNITE of designating the

public Dillard's campaign as a probe. Compare UNITE's Second

Supp. Mem. 1 (requesting redaction for 85:12-86:18 of the Bennett

Deposition) with Pls.' Ex. 1 Bennett Dep. 86:19-87:5 (discussing

Dillard's campaign). 

Second, plaintiffs' exhibits show that some of the passages

that UNITE seeks to redact as containing information about probes

11

depositions were "merely 'probes' by UNITE organizers and never

ripened in to an organizing campaign." UNITE's Supp. Mem. 10. 

UNITE informs us that "[t]here is no public source from which

this information could be obtained." Id. It has also identified

precisely where depositions disclose information about non-public

"probes," as opposed to public campaigns. See UNITE's Second

Supp. Mem. of Law in Opp'n to Pls.' Mot. to Unseal ("UNITE's

Second Supp. Mem.") 1-2.

To the extent that depositions mention UNITE's public

campaigns and its use of longstanding and well-known union

organizing methods, we shall not seal such information. This

information is already in the public realm or is typical of union

campaigning, and therefore testimony about it cannot work the

type of harm that UNITE claims. With respect to non-public

"probes," however, we agree with UNITE that release of such

information could harm UNITE's ability to organize by revealing

its strategic thinking to potentially targeted employers who

might use such information to preempt UNITE's organizing

activities. We shall therefore protect deposition testimony

about "probes."5

Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 227 Filed 12/04/06 Page 11 of 17
actually reference public campaigns. See Pls.' Letter of Nov.

30, 2006, Exhibits. However, counsel often asked deponents to

list campaigns they worked on and did not ask them to distinguish

between public and non-public activities. Therefore, the

deponents' responses often list public and non-public "campaigns"

in the same sentence or paragraph. We are satisfied that if a

short passage of testimony mentions a mix of public campaigns and

non-public probes, it may be redacted. We see no need to slice

this any finer. 

Finally, plaintiffs point to Linens of the Week, which UNITE

deems a probe, but which is in fact a public campaign. Indeed, 

UNITE touts this campaign as a success story on its Web site. 

See UNITE HERE, http://www.unitehere.org/about/historyunite.asp

(last visited Dec. 4, 2006). Therefore, there is no reason to

grant UNITE's request to redact the testimony about Linens of the

Week. See Pls.' Ex. 19 Dartayet-Rodriguez 49:7-11, 53:14-19,

54:17-24, 55:10-12, 56:17-23, 72:14-25.

In sum, we shall protect the following passages because they

concern non-public probes: Pls.' Ex. 1 Bennett Dep. 85:12-86:18;

Pls.' Ex. 8 DeMay Dep. 66:7-67:23, Feb. 8, 2005; Pls.' Ex. 12

Chambers Dep. 63:22-64:7, Sept. 28, 2005; Pls.' Ex. 13 Coulter

Dep. 30:10-31:4; Pls.' Ex. 22 Harden Dep. 18:3-5, 31:18-21,

37:24-40:2, Jan. 10, 2006; Pls.' Ex. 30 Coulter Dep. 171:10-

172:12, 255:24-256:10, Oct. 27, 2005.

12

Second, UNITE seeks to protect internal deliberations

and strategy discussions relating to the Cintas campaign,

particularly information about the percentage of its budget

dedicated to organizing, campaign planning and procedures

(including house calling techniques and license plate retrieval),

and personnel assignments. It argues that because the Cintas

campaign is on-going, revealing its internal deliberations and

strategy will benefit Cintas and harm UNITE.

But UNITE largely relies on broad allegations of harm

and does not address how the passage of time has altered the harm

calculus. We have already noted that at this late date -- almost

four years into UNITE's Cintas campaign -- these two adversaries

are all too familiar with each other's goals, strategies, and

Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 227 Filed 12/04/06 Page 12 of 17
13

techniques, so the depositions are unlikely to contain surprising

and potentially damaging revelations about UNITE's goals or

methods. Nevertheless, we examine the depositions to see if they

reveal anything that today could actually disadvantage UNITE.

To begin, UNITE wants to keep secret testimony about

the percentage of its budget dedicated to organizing. See, e.g.,

UNITE's Supp. Mem. 3 (identifying for continued sealing Bennett's

Deposition 193:19-206:25). We note, however, that UNITE proudly

advertises precisely this information on its Web site: "[o]ver

50% of the new Union's national budget will go toward

organizing." See UNITE HERE, http://www.unitehere.org/

presscenter/factsheet.asp (last visited Dec. 4, 2006); see also

id. at http://www.unitehere.org/presscenter/faq.asp (highlighting

facts about UNITE and HERE, and stating as to UNITE: "Organizing

is a top priority: More than 40% of UNITE’s national budget goes

toward organizing.") (last visited Dec. 4, 2006). Redacting

deposition testimony about the very information that UNITE

publishes on the World Wide Web simply makes no sense. 

As to information about campaign procedures or tactics,

the only testimony that warrants protection under this category

is a conversation about the details of UNITE's Cintas database. 

See Pls.' Ex. 16 Scimone Dep. 128:9-129:13, Aug. 23, 2005. Our

review of all the other deposition testimony that UNITE

identifies reveals that UNITE is employing nothing more than the

Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 227 Filed 12/04/06 Page 13 of 17
 We carefully reviewed all the deposition testimony in 6

question, and we offer herein a few examples typical of what

UNITE wants to keep sealed but whose sealing cannot be supported

under our jurisprudence.

UNITE seeks to keep sealed a discussion about its efforts to

"agitate" workers because this is one of the "goals of the Cintas

campaign." See UNITE's Supp. Mem. 3 (identifying for sealing

Bennett Deposition 245:25-250:23); see also Pls.' Ex. 1 Bennett

Dep. 247:11-13 (describing "agitate" as "to get [workers] focused

on and agitate around the issues that they take care about"). 

Indeed, when asked if one of UNITE's goals "was to agitate

workers on the issues," Mr. Bennett replied, "Yes, as it is in

most organizing campaigns I have ever been involved in in my

entire career." Pls.' Ex. 1 Bennett Dep. 247:2-6. His testimony

highlights the absurdity of sealing such information. "Agitating

workers" is what unionizing campaigns do, so UNITE's admission

that its Cintas campaign included such a goal cannot possibly

inflict on it a "clearly defined and serious injury."

UNITE also wants to protect testimony about "training of

UNITE organizers to do home visits." UNITE's Supp. Mem. 3

(identifying for continued sealing Raynor Deposition 55:18-

56:15); see also id. at 6 (requesting continued sealing for

Scimone Deposition 118:17-124:1, wherein he discusses

instructions concerning house calls). Raynor testified that

organizers are trained "to not harass people" and because Cintas

workers "are afraid," the organizers help the workers "to

overcome that fear and tell us . . . what experiences they have

had at work and find out about the way they have been treated." 

Pls.' Ex. 7 Raynor Dep. 55:19, 25, 56:1-4, Feb. 16, 2005; see

also UNITE's Mem. 6 (requesting continued sealing for DartayetRodriguez Deposition 20:18-22:18, wherein he testifies that the

purpose of house calling is to talk to workers about job issues,

tell them how to organize, and get them to sign cards and vote if

there is a union election). UNITE has not specified how

information about such unsurprising, commonsense techniques could

possibly harm its work. Indeed, we already know, because UNITE

stipulated to it, that "home visits allowed them to talk to

workers in a private setting away from the presence of Cintas

supervisors," Jt. Stip. of Facts ("Stip.") ¶ 28, and that

"finding potential legal claims against Cintas, in part through

home visits, was a component of the campaign," id. ¶ 21. 

There are other examples of testimony that do nothing more

than elaborate upon information discussed in our opinions. For

example, our decision of August 30, 2006 mentions UNITE's

stipulation to obtaining some workers' contact information from

"discarded company lists," Stip. ¶ 29, yet UNITE asks us to

protect testimony that "UNITE organizers went through garbage

that Cintas had discarded" to find "names of workers." Pls.' Ex.

11 Qadeer Dep. 139:24-25, 140:5, Feb. 24, 2006; see also UNITE's

14

techniques unions routinely use. UNITE's broad allegations of 6

Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 227 Filed 12/04/06 Page 14 of 17
Supp. Mem. 4 (requesting that Qadeer Deposition 139:17-145:11

remain sealed). Given UNITE's admission, no one can be surprised

to read confirming testimony.

Our opinion also mentioned that some UNITE workers would get

addresses by following workers home, so release of testimony on

that tactic would not introduce previously unknown information

into the public realm. See, UNITE's Supp. Mem. 5 (seeking

protection for Atkins Deposition 44:2-45:13, wherein deponent

describes following people home from the workplace).

Finally, since UNITE has agreed to unseal its "Campaign

Plan" (Exhibit I to the Stipulation of Facts), we fail to see

what harm it will suffer if we unseal a conversation about the

contents of that document. See UNITE's Supp. Mem. 5 (seeking

continued sealing of Coulter Deposition 122:16-125:18, 142:1-

144:7, wherein Coulter answer questions about the "Campaign

Plan").

15

harm with respect to this unremarkable information is devoid of

the required "specific examples or articulated reasoning" and

fails to meets it burden of showing a "need for continued

secrecy." 

Notably, UNITE has stipulated to using license plate

retrieval "in organizing campaigns since at least the 1970s,"

Stip. ¶ 31, yet it now wants to redact discussions about its use

of this technique in various campaigns. Employers and the public

already know that UNITE has used "tagging" for decades, and UNITE

has not identified with specificity why mentions of this

longstanding practice are now entitled to be kept secret. 

Indeed, our holding that such actions violate the DPPA further

militates against cloaking them in continued secrecy. 

As to UNITE's personnel assignments, employers targeted

in public campaigns know that UNITE organizers are working on

these campaigns. UNITE has not explained with any specificity

how the information that any particular employee is or was

Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 227 Filed 12/04/06 Page 15 of 17
16

assigned to a certain public campaign could damage its efforts. 

If a potentially targeted employer did not know that UNITE was

conducting a "probe," then revealing that an employee is or was

assigned to that "probe" might disadvantage UNITE. However, we

have already accounted for such a problem by redacting all the

discussions of actual probes that UNITE identified.

Lastly, UNITE contends that conversations about the

terms of its agreement with the Teamsters and their reasons for

the unions' working together are internal union deliberations,

and their release would work to the advantage of Cintas and other

employers while harming UNITE. The deposition testimony covers

some very obvious and public matters -- such as (a) the unions'

intent to use litigation to fight Cintas and to publicize how

Cintas treats workers through press conferences and

demonstrations, see Pls.' Ex. 7 Raynor Dep. 104:21-106:2; (b)

their work to prepare mailings that they jointly sent to workers

in several states, see Pls.' Ex. 18 Kane Dep. 103:10-104:1, Jan.

20, 2005; (c) the organizers' efforts to visit Cintas drivers on

evenings and weekends when they were more likely to be at home,

see id. at 107:4-13; and (d) some drivers' complaints about the

visits, id. at 107:14-108:10. Again, UNITE has not sufficiently

explained how disclosure of such mundane information could harm

its work. The only testimony that we shall keep sealed with

respect to the Teamsters involves testimony about economic

consequences for the unions and details about a joint

coordinating committee. See Pls.' Ex. 7 Raynor Dep. 137:2-

Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 227 Filed 12/04/06 Page 16 of 17
17

140:25.

III. Conclusion

After painstakingly reviewing all the information that

UNITE seeks to keep sealed, and applying the standards we must,

we have identified what information merits continued sealing

under the applicable jurisprudence. We shall therefore grant

plaintiffs' motion to unseal in part. In an accompanying Order,

we detail how the parties shall accomplish the continued sealing

of the specified information.

Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 227 Filed 12/04/06 Page 17 of 17