Postpichal v. Cricket Wireless, LLC
- William Alsup
- 3:19-cv-07270
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Postpichal v. Cricket Wireless, LLC, Judge Alsup denied motions to seal parts of the complaint and expert reports.
The plaintiffs, Cricket Wireless, and members of the public seeking access to the court filings and expert reports.
What happened
In Postpichal v. Cricket Wireless, LLC, the plaintiffs asked to keep parts of their Third Amended Complaint and Mallinson’s expert reports from public view. The materials included information Cricket had marked confidential under a protective order.
The court said that a protective order does not automatically justify sealing information. It found that the materials would help the public understand the lawsuit and that Cricket had not provided compelling reasons to keep them sealed.
The court denied the motion to seal. Judge William Alsup issued the order on June 8, 2021.
The detailed version
- Postpichal v. Cricket Wireless, LLC · No. 3:19-cv-07270
- William Alsup
- June 8, 2021
Background
The plaintiffs sought to seal portions of the Third Amended Complaint and Mallinson’s expert reports. The materials contained information that Cricket Wireless had marked confidential under a stipulated protective order, including admissions to the Federal Communications Commission about Cricket’s financial prospects and its ability to meet consumer demand for wireless services.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that information covered by a protective order is not automatically entitled to secrecy. The materials sought to be sealed would allow the public to understand the subject of the litigation. The court found that no compelling reasons had been provided to meet the applicable standard for sealing court records, citing Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006).
Disposition
The court denied the motion to seal. The order’s heading refers to “Motions to Seal,” while the body states that “the motion to seal is DENIED.”
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.