7-Eleven Attempt to Seal McCord Whistleblower Document Rejected

7-Eleven, Inc.’s request to seal whistleblower Kurt McCord’s allegations has been denied by U.S. Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider.

Schneider claims that  7-Eleven attorney Stephen Sussman failed to provide “a single fact” to support his conclusions, and that the document is already publicly available on the Internet anyway (See 7-ELEVEN Bombshell: Insider Accuses 7-11 of Predatory Franchise Practices )

(UnhappyFranchisee.Com)  Franchisee attorney Jerry Marks claims that Kurt McCord is as important to exposing 7-Eleven’s predatory mission to steal its franchisee’s equity and goodwill as Deep Throat was to exposing the Watergate scandal in the 1970s.

Kurt McCord worked as a 7-Eleven Corporate Investigations Supervisor for 7 months in 2013.

McCord provided a 25-page certification in the lawsuit of 7-Eleven, Inc. v. Karamjeet Sodhi, et. al., alleging that the convenience store giant has assembled a covert team whose mission is to illegally seize franchisee stores for profit and eliminate respected franchisee association leaders they deem to be a “pain in the ass.”

The McCord  Certification is also relevant in other related Marks & Klein cases against 7-Eleven, including Sam Younes, et al v. 7-Eleven, Inc. and Neil Naik, et al v. 7-Eleven, Inc., which share discovery and case management with the Sodhi case.

7-Eleven Denies McCord’s Allegations; Sought to Seal his Certification

According to Judge Schneider, 7-Eleven attorney Stephen Sussman of Duane Morris flip-flopped on the basis of his request to seal McCord’s testimony, but failed to support either one.

Wrote Judge Schneider:

7-Eleven originally argued that McCord’ s Certification should be sealed because it contained “sensitive business information.”  Now, however, 7-Eleven argues the Certification should be sealed because it allegedly contains attorney-client privileged and work-product information… 7-Eleven has not even demonstrated that McCord’ s Certification contains privileged or work-product information.  7-Eleven’s broad and unsubstantiated claims do not satisfy its burden of proof. Accordingly, 7-Eleven’s motion to seal is denied.

Schneider went on to further admonish Stephen Sussman’s Declaration:

Sussman’s Declaration provides no facts to support 7 -Eleven’s arguments but instead it merely sets forth broad boilerplate assertions… Sussman does not set  forth a single fact to support his conclusions. Broad boilerplate assertions are insufficient…

Internet Publication Made McCord Certification “Part of the Public Record”

Even if 7-Eleven had proven that McCord’s Certification contained privileged information that could cause serious injury if disclosed, Schneider says he would still have ruled against 7-Eleven because the Certification had already been published on UnhappyFranchisee.Com and other Internet sites.

Wrote Schneider:

Rightly or wrongly, McCord ‘s Certification has already been published and is available on the internet. Thus, even if the Court granted 7-Eleven’ s motion, which it is not, McCord’ s Certification would still be available to anyone who wanted to see it. The Court will not undergo the pointless exercise of sealing a document that is and  will continue to be publicly available.

“It is well established that once confidential information has been published, it is no longer confidential.” Janssen  Products , L.P.  v . Lupin  Ltd. C.A…

Like the Court in Janssen Products, the Court does “not have the power to put the genie back in the bottle.”

Judge Schneider concluded:  “McCord ‘s Certification is now irretrievably part of the public record even if the Court grants 7-Eleven ‘s motion. A sealing Order at this time would be pointless.”


Certification of Kurt McCord (PDF)

Judge Schneider Decision Denying 7-Eleven Motion (PDF)

Also read:

7-ELEVEN on UnhappyFranchisee.Com (Index of Posts)

7-Eleven Franchise Complaints

7-ELEVEN Bombshell: Insider Accuses 7-11 of Predatory Franchise Practices

7-ELEVEN Stole Our Store – Dev Patel’s Story




Contact UnhappyFranchisee.com

TAGS: 7-Eleven, 7-Eleven franchise, 7-Eleven, 7-Eleven lawsuit, Karamjeet Sodhi, Jerry Marks, Marks & Klein, Stephen Sussman, Duane Morris,  7-Eleven litigation, 7-eleven franchise complaints, 7-Eleven Asset Protection, Kurt McCord, Judge Joel Schneider

6 thoughts on “7-Eleven Attempt to Seal McCord Whistleblower Document Rejected

  • June 29, 2014 at 8:33 am

    Sent to franchisees:

    Dear 7-Eleven Franchise Owners:
    Recently, a former 7-Eleven Asset Protection employee made some serious allegations against the Company. These allegations, which relate to recent activities of 7-Eleven’s Asset Protection team, have been repeated on-line and in the press and have cast 7-Eleven in a negative light. Until now, we have not commented on these misleading characterizations of the Company’s efforts to deal with any fraud or illegality in the 7-Eleven system. However, we believe it is time to provide you with the other side of the story. First, we want you to know this:
    We completely deny this false portrayal of our Company. It’s just not true.
    While 7-Eleven has increased resources in the Asset Protection Department to address possible fraud or illegality in 7-Eleven’s system, we have done so in an open, honest and professional way. We will continue to do so as Franchisees throughout the system, and the integrity of Brand 7-Eleven, demand it and deserve no less.
    The vast majority of 7-Eleven’s franchisees are good, hardworking and honest people who focus on serving guests every day. By contrast, only a very small number of franchisees have been impacted by the recent actions the Company has taken to address fraud and illegality in the system. As well, the majority understand that fraud in the system hurts us all – it drives up costs and more importantly, it tarnishes the 7-Eleven brand.
    Contrary to the allegations of the Company’s former employee, 7-Eleven’s Asset Protection team operates with a high degree of professionalism and expertise. In several instances, that professionalism and thoroughness has been specifically recognized by the federal judges presiding over these cases. The judges’ written opinions in these cases are a matter of public record, and they are available for anyone to review on-line.
    That is 7-Eleven’s side of the story. In closing, I want to sincerely thank all of you for doing a great job of representing Brand 7-Eleven in your efforts to serve your guests, in your stores, every day. I’m pleased to report that as a total system, we have enjoyed strong sales momentum over the past six weeks as a result of those efforts. Thank you again for all you do every day. I wish you a great 100 days of summer and some great sales!

  • June 29, 2014 at 8:55 pm

    If Darren says “it is just not true” then that settles it for me.

  • June 29, 2014 at 9:45 pm

    Yeh should we believe you?

  • June 30, 2014 at 9:00 am

    I think the pending action in CA has the West Point boys very nervous. This is the first time since all the trouble at SEI started that they admit “most FZ’s are honest and hard working.” Since 2011 and the DVR disaster we have been guilty thieves. Mr. Mark Stinde rolled into town promising that mega profits if they bought a 40 million dollar spy system. Nice job….sales and profits down…return on investment is negative…..

  • June 30, 2014 at 9:38 am

    Get ready for the “we are nice guys…really we are!” charm offensive from Dallas boys and girls. They will ask us our opinions and even pretend they care…don’t be fooled, keep pressing forward in the courts, in state legislatures and in our franchise associations.

  • April 3, 2015 at 8:42 pm

    Dear, 7-Eleven Employee’s
    Blowing the Whistle on PRIVACY Act/Data Breach
    7-Eleven failed to keep 7-Eleven Employees’, personal information safe
    A former female corporate employee at Dallas corporate office headquarters was fired due to retaliation and unlawful termination. During scope of her employment, her personal information was breached, by a contractor without her consent.
    Individual involved leaked her information and breach came down to harm her in many ways. Potentially responsible management did not pay attention to her concerns.
    Later on, former female corporate employee discovered that 7-Eleven (IT) information technology department was failing to secure ALL 7-Eleven employee’s (PII) personal private information like social security #, date of birth, pay, dependants information, which indeed violated many federal laws, like Privacy Act of 1974, Privacy Principles, data breach and their own security policies.
    Former female corporate employee raised her concerns ongoing, with respect to her privacy safety and security and respect to rest of ALL 7-Eleven employees’ security privacy.
    Former female corporate employee raised her concerns to management which she believed to be data breach. Months later, management Individual’s involved in wrong doing claimed to have done nothing wrong with keeping up with employee personal information. Dispute to the fact, former female corporate employee provided evidence of the violations.
    Plaintiff’s report and denied that any HIPAA violations had been or were taking place, despite the fact that Plaintiff and at least five other Kaiser employees confirmed that they had witnessed the on-going illegal dumping of patient records
    Disputes to her valid concerns, management individual’s involved in violating the federal laws of keeping employee’s information secured resulted in to covering up the situations with false statements.
    Former female corporate employee has struggled a lot mentally and emotionally due to retaliation and unlawful termination.
    Former female corporate employee recently was at Baylor emergency due to SUICIDE reason, caused by INVASION OF HER PRIVACY and also with emotional stress due to retaliation and unlawful termination.
    7-Eleven could do a better job with understanding the root cause of the issue, including protecting corporate employee victim from invasion of privacy harm caused by unfair work practice; rather than retaliating and terminating the employee who tried to blow the whistle.

    7-Eleven failed to follow federal privacy policies and their own security policies for securing all employees’ secured information.
    Necessary, legal action is being taken to protect former female corporate employee, who has and still facing many harms.
    At this time, when concerns about the privacy and security of electronic health records is a hot topic.
    We allege that 7-Eleven knowingly and repeatedly violated (PII) privacy personal information, HIPAA law and failed to take necessary action in protecting employee’s personal information
    ANY 7-Eleven former and or current employees’ who could be exposed to identity theft, lost of confidential financial information, may be due to un-protected information being stored in 7-Eleven systems AND may not be aware of what caused it.

    Feel free to leave your comments at : [redacted].com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *