Oracle Corporation, et al. v. Crypto Oracle, LLC, et al.
- Joseph Spero
- 3:24-cv-08438
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Oracle v. Crypto Oracle, Magistrate Judge Spero denied Oracle’s motion to seal billing information and invoices.
Oracle Corporation and the public record of the materials supporting Oracle’s fee request. Oracle must publicly file an unredacted Smith Declaration, although it may seek renewed sealing of its billing invoices under the applicable local rule.
What happened
Oracle Corporation, et al. v. Crypto Oracle, LLC, et al. concerns Oracle’s request to keep its lawyers’ billing rates and invoices out of the public record.
Oracle asked to seal invoices supporting its request for attorney fees and its counsel’s billing rates. The opinion states that Oracle offered no evidence showing why those materials should be treated differently here.
Magistrate Judge Spero denied the motion. He ordered Oracle to publicly file an unredacted version of the Smith Declaration by September 14, 2026, while allowing Oracle to file a renewed request to seal the invoices if it follows the court’s narrow-sealing requirements.
The detailed version
- Oracle Corporation, et al. v. Crypto Oracle, LLC, et al. · No. 3:24-cv-08438
- Joseph Spero
- Sept. 8, 2026
Background
Oracle filed an administrative motion to file under seal materials related to its request for attorney fees. Specifically, Oracle sought to seal its counsel’s billing rates and billing invoices, including invoices submitted in support of the fee request.
Court’s reasoning
The court stated that attorney billing rates and hours are generally not privileged or otherwise sealable information. Oracle identified no evidence supporting a different result in this case. The court also concluded that Oracle’s request to seal all of its invoices indiscriminately was not narrowly tailored as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(b). That rule requires sealing requests to seek protection only for material that is properly sealable and counsels redacting only truly sensitive information.
Ruling and effect
The court denied Oracle’s motion. Oracle must file an unredacted version of the Smith Declaration in the public record no later than September 14, 2026. By that same date, Oracle may file a renewed motion to seal its billing invoices that complies with Civil Local Rule 79-5. The order does not state a ruling on the underlying fee request.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.