Blockchain Innovation, LLC v. Franklin Resources, Inc. et al

Filing 292

ORDER RE: 233 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Certain Exhibits to the Declarations of Brent Bumgardner and Alina Trombley in Support of Plaintiff' Response to Defendants' Motion for Sanctions filed by Blockchain Innovation, LLC, 221 Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed filed by Jennifer Johnson, Franklin Templeton Companies, LLC, FT Fintech Holdings, LLC, Franklin Resources, Inc., 234 Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed in Support of Plaintiff' Response to Defendants' Motion for Sanctions filed by Blockchain Innovation, LLC, 235 Administrative Motion t o Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed in Support of Plaintiff' Response to Defendants' Motion for Sanctions filed by Blockchain Innovation, LLC. Signed by Judge Thomas S. Hixson on 8/30/2024. (tshlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/30/2024)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

BLOCKCHAIN INNOVATION, LLC,

8

Plaintiff,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL

v.

9

Case No. 21-cv-08787-AMO (TSH)

Re: Dkt. Nos. 221, 233, 234, 235

10

FRANKLIN RESOURCES, INC., et al.,

11

Defendants.

12
13
14

A.

ECF No. 221
With respect to ECF No. 221, Blockchain does not request sealing as to Exhibits 2-4, 6,

15

17-19, 25, 26, 35, 36 and 39. See ECF No. 225. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Defendants to

16

file these exhibits in the public record within five days.

17

The Court GRANTS the motion to seal as to Exhibit 13.

18

The Court APPROVES Blockchain’s proposed redactions to Exhibits 1, 11, 20, 28, 29,

19

30, 31, 32, 37 and 38. As Blockchain has already filed the redacted versions of these exhibits in

20

the public record, no further action is required.

21

The Court has reviewed the unredacted motion for sanctions (ECF No. 221-3). The

22

redacted language comes from Exhibits 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35 and 36. Blockchain does not seek

23

any sealing with respect to Exhibits 35 and 36. Blockchain seeks limited sealing of Exhibits 28,

24

29, 30, 31 and 32, but the motion does not quote the portions of those exhibits for which

25

Blockchain requests sealing. Accordingly, there is no need for any part of the sanctions motion to

26

be filed under seal, and the Court ORDERS Defendants to file the motion unredacted in the public

27

record within five days.

28

1

B.

2

In ECF Nos. 233, 234 and 235, Blockchain asks the Court to rule on the sealing status of

3

Bumgardner Exhibits 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37,

4

38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53 and Alina Trombley Exhibit 4.

5

Defendants ask the Court to seal or strike the exhibits because they are irrelevant to the sanctions

6

motion. ECF Nos. 238, 239.1 With respect to ECF Nos. 234 and 235, Blockchain acknowledges

7

that its opposition brief cites only Bumgardner Exhibits 49, 50, 51 and 52. ECF No. 241. Once

8

ECF No. 233 is included, Blockchain’s brief also cites Bumgardner Exhibit 17.
Civil Local Rule 79-5(a) states that “[a] party must explore all reasonable alternatives to

9

United States District Court
Northern District of California

ECF Nos. 233, 234, 235

10

filing documents under seal” and must “minimize the number of documents filed under seal . . .”

11

Filing under seal 31 exhibits that total hundreds of pages and that Blockchain did not think were

12

important enough to merit a citation in its brief does not comply with this local rule. For most (but

13

not all) of these exhibits, Blockchain says the Bumgardner Declaration cites to them, and that they

14

relate to Defendants’ efforts to preserve and produce ESI from their own employees, which

15

Blockchain says is relevant to judging the reasonableness of Blockchain’s efforts to preserve and

16

produce ESI. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that Blockchain is right in the abstract and

17

that reasonableness can be informed by what its opponent did. Here, Blockchain’s discussion of

18

that point in its opposition brief consists of a couple of rhetorical swipes at Defendants’ ESI

19

productions. All of Blockchain’s legal arguments against sanctions discuss Rule 37 and

20

applicable case law. Blockchain doesn’t actually make any sort of developed legal argument that

21

Defendants’ ESI productions inform what should be considered a reasonable effort. It was not

22

consistent with Local Rule 79-5(a) to file so many documents under seal that were not cited in

23

Blockchain’s opposition brief, and when most of them relate to a rhetorical point that was never

24

developed into a real legal argument.
Accordingly, the Court STRIKES the motions at ECF No. 233, 234 and 235, and the

25
26
27
28

1

Technically, the FT Defendants argue this as to the motion at ECF No. 235, and Bayston makes
this argument as to the motion at ECF No. 234. However, Bumgardner Exhibit 11 is common to
all three sealing motions (ECF Nos. 233, 234 and 235), so due consideration of Defendants’
argument requires considering it for ECF No. 233 as well.
2

1

associated exhibits from the record, except for the five exhibits cited in the opposition brief. As to

2

four of them, Defendants have made a sufficient showing that sealing is warranted (see ECF Nos.

3

238 & 238-1), and the Court ORDERS Bumgardner Exhibits 49-52 filed under seal. Blockchain

4

has made a sufficient showing that Bumgardner Exhibit 17 should be redacted, and the Court

5

APPROVES Blockchain’s redactions.

6

This order terminates ECF Nos. 233, 244 and 235.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated: August 30, 2024

10
THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3