Postpichal v. Cricket Wireless, LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7 8 || JAMIE POSTPICHAL, et al., 9 Plaintiffs, No. C 19-07270 WHA 10 Vv. 11 |) CRICKET WIRELESS, LLC, ORDER DENYING W Defendant. MOTIONS TO SEAL © Plaintiffs seek to seal portions of the Third Amended Complaint and Mallinson’s expert 2 15 reports containing information marked confidential by Cricket pursuant to a stipulated 6 protective order, including admissions to the FCC regarding Cricket’s financial prospects and («17 its ability to meet consumer demand with its wireless services. That these materials were

covered by a protective order does not automatically justify granting a motion to seal. The 9 30 information sought to be sealed allows the public to understand the subject matter of this

litigation and no compelling reasons have been provided to satisfy the requirements of

0 Kamakana vy. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). The motion to seal is DENIED. 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: June 8, 2021 27 Las PA LLIAM ALSUP 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE