eCardless Bancorp, Ltd. v. PayPal Holdings, Inc. et al

Filing 130

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 129 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 5/10/2024. (blflc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/10/2024)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

ECARDLESS BANCORP, LTD.,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

PAYPAL INC,
Defendant.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 24-cv-01054-BLF
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION
[Re: ECF No. 129]

12
Before the court is Plaintiff eCardless Bancorp, Ltd.’s Amended Administrative Motion to

13
14

File Under Seal. ECF No. 129. For the reasons described below, the administrative motion is

15

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

16
17

I.

LEGAL STANDARD
“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records

18

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. Of

19

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435

20

U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong

21

presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.

22

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to

23

motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden

24

of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of

25

access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d

26

1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79.

27

Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits

28

of a case,” however, are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809

1

F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to

2

court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often

3

unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving to seal

4

the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule

5

26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This standard

6

requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the

7

information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206,

8

1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated

9

by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).
II.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff seeks to seal selected portions of two exhibits attached to its JCMS. ECF No.

12
13

129. Plaintiff writes that the Exhibit 1 should be sealed because it is an “[o]rder issued as sealed

14

by the Transferor Court (Western District of Texas) in this litigation. Under the Doctrine of

15

Comity, this Court should not revisit the order previously issued by another district court prior to

16

the transfer.” Id. at 6. Plaintiff writes that Exhibit 2 should be sealed because “[t]o the extent Mr.

17

Sines’ Will is relevant to any issue in dispute in this litigation (eCardless maintains that it is not),

18

the purported relevance is tangential at best.” Id. at 5. Plaintiff argues that the redactions are

19

narrowly tailored. Id. at 2.

20

The Court finds that good cause exists to seal certain portions of Exhibit 2, but not Exhibit

21

1. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. The Court also finds

22

that the request is narrowly tailored for Exhibit 2.
The Court’s ruling is summarized below:

23
24

\\

25

\\

26

\\

27

\\

28

\\
2

1
2
3
4

ECF or
Exhibit No.
ECF No.
129-3, Ex.
1

Document

ECF No.
129-4, Ex.
2

Exhibit 7 to
•
JCMS, August
17, 2023 Will
of Randy D.
Sines (“Will”)
(ECF No. 11710). Document •
produced by
Plaintiff as
eCardless_0000
1829-1837

5
6

Portion(s) to Seal

Exhibit 3 to
Entirety
JCMS, Sealed
Order on
January 24,
2024 Discovery
Dispute (Dkt.
76 and 117-3).

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

III.

Ruling

DENIED. Plaintiff provides no
legal basis for its comity
argument. More importantly,
contrary to Plaintiff’s
representations, the order is not
sealed. See eCardless Bancorp,
Ltd. v. PayPal Holdings, Inc. et
al, 7:22-cv-00245-ADA-DTG at
ECF No. 76 (docket text)
(“Unsealed on 2/1/2024. Per
chambers, order is to be unsealed
due to no redactions by counsel.”)
GRANTED, as the Court finds
Individual names and
that the information sought to be
financial percentages
contained at native pp. 3- sealed is personal in nature. The
Court may revisit this ruling at a
4 of the Will
later time.
(eCardless_000018 3132); and
Names and personal
addresses of two
witnesses who signed the
Will contained at native
p. 9 (eCardless_000018
37).

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the administrative motion is

19

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff SHALL file an unredacted version of

20

the JCMS and its corresponding exhibits (ECF Nos. 117, 118), with redactions limited those

21

granted in this order no later than May 23, 2024.

22
23
24
25

Dated: May 10, 2024
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

26
27
28
3