Jack in the Box Inc. vs. Altametrics, LLC

Plaintiff Jack in the Box Inc.’s motion to seal records is DENIED.

Plaintiff has failed to provide a “specific enumeration of the facts sought to be withheld and specific reasons for withholding them.” (H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 879, 894.) “ ‘[S]pecificity is essential. [Citation.] Broad allegations of harm, bereft of specific examples or articulated reasoning, are insufficient.’ [Citation.]” (Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273,1282; McNair v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 25, 35.)

Instead, plaintiff generally requests that the court seal “certain confidential information” from six documents filed on 2/2/26, that purportedly “contain references to confidential competitive financial information....” (ROA No. 38–Mtn. Memo. P&As at p. 3; ROA No. 30 –Tyrell Decl. ¶ 3)

The subject documents total almost 90 pages and it is not the court’s role to compare and contrast each page to determine what information is at issue here. Furthermore, even a cursory comparison of the redacted and unredacted versions of the documents shows that the subject information does not consist of just “confidential competition financial information” (Tyrell Decl. ¶ 3), but includes nonfinancial, nonproprietary, and/or mundane information such as, inter alia, the definitions of “Customer Franchisee” and “Subsidiary”; references to the parties’ Master Consulting Services Agreement, the existence of which is part of the public record; a force majeure clause; and common, run-of-the mill remedies, limitation of liability, and indemnification clauses. (Compare ROA No. 21, with ROA Nos. 39, 43.)

Plaintiff has also failed to state “specific reasons for withholding [the subject information]” or make “ ‘a specific showing of serious injury.’ ” (H.B. Fuller, supra, 151 Cal.App.4th at p. 894 [burden]; Universal, supra, 110 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1281-1282 [moving party must make “ ‘a specific showing of serious injury’ ”]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(1) [motion to seal “must be accompanied by ... a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing”]; see ROA No. 30–Tyrell Decl., in passim.) Plaintiff’s counsel merely concludes that the portions of the documents that it seeks to seal “contain references to confidential competitive financial information of JIB and [Altametrics]” without any explanation or foundation, other than the fact that the parties have agreed to keep the terms of one of the agreements confidential. (ROA No. 30 –Tyrell Decl. ¶ 3.) There is no overriding interest based on a contractual agreement for confidentiality.