Postpichal v. Cricket Wireless, LLC

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA || 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 15 reports containing information marked confidential by Cricket pursuant to a stipulated 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 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.

24 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 8, 2021 27 Las PA LLIAM ALSUP 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE