Blockchain Innovation, LLC v. Franklin Resources, Inc.

Nature of the order

This order addresses motions under Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 79-5 to seal materials connected to the parties’ motions to exclude expert testimony. The court did not decide the underlying dispute or the motions to exclude expert testimony. It ruled on whether specified filings and exhibits should be withheld from public access.

Legal standard

Because the materials were connected to nondispositive motions, the court applied the “good cause” standard. That standard starts with a strong presumption that court filings should be publicly accessible. A party seeking to seal information must make a particularized showing that disclosure would cause specific prejudice or harm. The court also considered whether the information involved confidential business or technical information, trade secrets, personal information, or privileged communications.

Rulings on ECF Nos. 298, 301, and 303

The court granted Plaintiff’s motions to seal specified portions of Dr. Stephen Melvin’s report, Mr. Philip Green’s report, Dr. Seoyoung Kim’s report, and the requested portions of Dr. Melvin’s report containing confidential business, technical, personal, or trade-secret information. The court found that the parties had shown likely competitive, privacy, or other harm from disclosure.

The court denied Plaintiff’s motion as to the motion to exclude expert testimony, the remainder of Dr. Kim’s report, Dr. Melvin’s deposition transcript, and Mr. Green’s deposition transcript. Plaintiff was ordered to file those materials in the public record no sooner than three days and no later than seven days after the order.

Rulings on ECF Nos. 300 and 302

The court granted Defendants’ motions to seal highlighted portions of Mr. Daniel Gillett’s expert report because they concerned Franklin’s internal investments, strategies, and related confidential information, as well as confidential legal advice identified by Plaintiff.

The court denied Defendants’ motion as to the motion to exclude expert testimony and the depositions of Michael Fahlman, Austin Trombley, and Daniel Gillett. Defendants were ordered to file those materials publicly within the stated three-to-seven-day period.

Rulings on ECF Nos. 331 and 332

The court granted Defendants’ motions to seal highlighted portions of Dr. Kim’s and Dr. Melvin’s reports because they described asserted trade secrets and source code. It denied Defendants’ motion as to the opposition and the depositions of Dr. Melvin, Mr. Green, and Mr. Fahlman. Those documents were to be filed publicly within three to seven days.

Ruling on ECF No. 338

The court granted Plaintiff’s motion to seal highlighted portions of its opposition to Defendants’ motion to exclude expert testimony; Roger Bayston’s deposition; Rob Carlson’s deposition; Douglas Squasoni’s rebuttal expert report; Austin Trombley’s deposition; and a July 30, 2020 email and its attachments. The court accepted the asserted grounds involving trade secrets, confidential third-party financial information, and confidential attorney-client communications.

Rulings on ECF Nos. 339 and 340

The court granted Plaintiff’s motions to seal highlighted portions of its opposition and Jennifer Johnson’s deposition identified in Defendants’ response, based on commercially sensitive and proprietary business information.

The court denied the requests as to the depositions of Michael Fahlman, Philip Green, and Roger Bayston; Squasoni’s rebuttal report and deposition; and the excerpts from the July 30, 2020 email and attached memo. Plaintiff was ordered to file those materials publicly within three to seven days.

Rulings on ECF Nos. 349 and 350

The court denied Plaintiff’s motions concerning Philip Green’s deposition and excerpts from Squasoni’s rebuttal expert report. The court ordered the identified materials to be filed in the public record within three to seven days.

Ruling on ECF No. 351

The court denied Defendants’ motion concerning Austin Trombley’s deposition and ordered Defendants to file that exhibit publicly within three to seven days.

Disposition

Overall, the court granted in part and denied in part the pending motions to seal. The order required materials covered by denied sealing requests to be made part of the public record on the schedule stated in the order.