Zakinov et al v. Ripple Labs, Inc. et al

Filing 454

ORDER by Judge Hamilton granting 425 Administrative Motion ; granting 426 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (pjhlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/8/2025)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
6

In re RIPPLE LABS, INC. LITIGATION

Case No. 18-cv-06753-PJH

7
8

This Document Relates To:
All Actions

9

ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL
Re: Dkt. No. 425, 426

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

This is a securities case. In connection with defendant’s summary judgment

13

motion, the parties filed a number of motions to seal. At the hearing, the court denied the

14

sealing motions to the extent they sought to seal any portions of the parties’ briefs. The

15

court then directed the parties to re-assess the scope of their requests to seal exhibits in

16

light of that denial, and then to submit a narrowed motion to seal. See Dkt. 419 at 17;

17

Dkt. 415 at 5.

18

Now before the court are plaintiff’s narrowed motion to seal (Dkt. 425) and

19

defendants’ narrowed motion to seal (Dkt. 426). Having considered the arguments made

20

by the parties, the court hereby rules as follows.
DISCUSSION

21
22
23

A.

Legal standard
“There is a general principle in favor of public access to federal court records.”

24

Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “The proponent of sealing

25

bears the burden with respect to sealing. A failure to meet that burden means that the

26

default posture of public access prevails.” Kamakana v. City & City of Honolulu, 447 F.3d

27

1172, 1182 (9th Cir. 2006).

28

The Ninth Circuit has recognized that two different standards may apply when a

1

request to seal a document is made in connection with a motion—namely the “compelling

2

reasons” standard or the “good cause” standard. Ctr. For Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp.,

3

LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096-97 (9th Cir. 2016). The compelling reasons standard applies

4

to any sealing request made in connection with a motion that is “more than tangentially

5

related to the merits of a case,” including summary judgment motions and related

6

Daubert motions. Id. at 1100-01.
Under the compelling reasons standard, a court may seal a record only if it finds a

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7
8

“compelling reason” to support such treatment and articulates “the factual basis for its

9

ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at

10

1096-97. If it has made such finding, the court “must then conscientiously balance the

11

competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records

12

secret.” Id. at 1097. Factors relevant to that balancing test include the public interest “in

13

understanding the judicial process,” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 679 n.6

14

(9th Cir. 2010), as well as the volume of material sought to be sealed, Algarin v.

15

Maybelline, LLC, 2014 WL 690410, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2014).
The Ninth Circuit has acknowledged that “[w]hat constitutes a ‘compelling reason’

16
17

is best left to the sound discretion of the trial court.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at

18

1097.

19

B.

20

Analysis
Plaintiff’s motion seeks the sealing of portions of exhibits 29, 30, and 33 submitted

21

in support of defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and exhibit 6 submitted in

22

support of defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of Steven P. Feinstein, based on

23

the presence of confidential, sensitive, and personally identifiable information. The court

24

concludes that the narrowed redactions sought by plaintiff do meet the Ninth Circuit’s

25

“compelling reasons” standard, and thus, plaintiff’s motion to seal (Dkt. 425) is

26

GRANTED.

27

Defendants’ motion seeks the sealing of the following: exhibits 13, 14, 17, 42, 45,

28

54, 55 and 72 submitted in support of defendant’s motion for summary judgment; exhibits
2

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

3, 14, 17, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43,

2

44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 67, 69, 72, 75, 93,

3

94, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, and 147 submitted in support of plaintiff’s

4

opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment; exhibits 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13,

5

16, 17, 18, 22, 23, 24, and 26 submitted in support of plaintiff’s opposition to defendants’

6

motion to exclude the testimony of Saifedean Ammous; exhibits 10 and 11 in support of

7

defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of Steven P. Feinstein; exhibit F and G in

8

support of plaintiff’s opposition to defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of Steven

9

P. Feinstein; exhibit 9, 10, and 11 in support of plaintiff’s opposition to defendants’ motion

10

to exclude the testimony of Jeremy Clark; exhibit 1 of plaintiff’s motion to exclude the

11

testimony of Alan Schwartz; and exhibit H and J of defendant’s motion to exclude the

12

testimony of Joel Seligman. The court concludes that the narrowed redactions sought by

13

defendants do meet the Ninth Circuit’s “compelling reasons” standard, and thus,

14

defendants’ motion to seal (Dkt. 426) is GRANTED.

15

The previous motions to seal filed by the parties (Dkt. 338, 340, 342, 343, 347,

16

349, 356, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 373, 379, 380, 381, 382, 387, and 389) are

17

terminated as moot.

18
19
20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 8, 2025
/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
3