Serenium, Inc. v. Zhou
- Beth Freeman
- 5:20-cv-02132
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Serenium v. Zhou, Judge Freeman granted the parties’ motion to seal an entire confidential arbitration award and its translation.
Serenium, Inc., Jason Zhou and the other defendants, the arbitration participants identified in the award, and members of the public seeking access to the sealed court record.
What happened
In Serenium, Inc. v. Zhou, the parties jointly asked the court to seal a final arbitration award and a certified English translation. The documents had been submitted as supplemental evidence related to the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The court explained that judicial records are generally presumed open to the public. It found that the arbitration rules required the proceedings and related information to remain confidential, providing compelling reasons to overcome that presumption.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman found the proposed redactions generally narrow and granted the motion to seal the entire award and translation. The order did not decide the defendants’ motion to dismiss or the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Serenium, Inc. v. Zhou · No. 5:20-cv-02132
- Beth Freeman
- Oct. 26, 2020
Background
The parties filed a joint motion to seal a final arbitral award from a Beijing International Arbitration Center proceeding between New Century Healthcare (International) Holding Co. Limited and Serenium, Inc., together with a certified English translation. The documents were submitted with the parties’ joint notice of supplemental evidence concerning the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Legal standard
The court began with the strong presumption that judicial records should be available to the public. Because the materials concerned a motion more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action, the parties had to show compelling reasons that outweighed public access. They also had to comply with the court’s local procedures, including narrowly tailoring the request to material that was sealable or otherwise legally protected.
Court’s analysis
The court reviewed the sealing motion and the supporting declaration. It found compelling reasons to seal the requested material because the parties were bound by arbitration rules requiring confidentiality of the arbitration proceedings and information concerning them. The court also found that the proposed redactions were generally narrowly tailored.
Disposition
The court granted the joint motion to seal at ECF 66. The table identified the final arbitral award and its certified English translation and stated that the entire document was granted sealing. This order addressed access to the arbitration materials; it did not decide the defendants’ motion to dismiss or the underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.