Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 26, 2022

In Re: Zuora, Inc. Derivative Litigation

Judge
Susan Illston
Docket
3:19-cv-05701
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureSecurities
In one sentence

In Lichter v. Tzuo, Judge Illston granted plaintiffs’ motion to seal sensitive business information in their shareholder-derivative complaint.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs may file the unredacted complaint under seal, while the public version must redact the specified portions containing confidential Zuora business and board information. The defendants and Zuora benefit from keeping that information nonpublic.

What happened

In In Re: Zuora, Inc. Derivative Litigation, the plaintiffs asked to file an unredacted shareholder-derivative complaint under seal. They said the proposed redactions contained information that defendants had designated as confidential under a protective order.

The court reviewed the complaint, the motion, and a supporting declaration from defendants’ counsel. It found that the material included Zuora board meeting minutes, board presentations and deliberations, product-development information, risk-management policies and practices, and details about relationships with key customers.

Judge Illston granted the motion. Plaintiffs could file the unredacted complaint under seal and publicly file a version redacting paragraphs 106 through 116 and part of paragraph 117, identified by the court’s specified page and line ranges.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
In Re: Zuora, Inc. Derivative Litigation · No. 3:19-cv-05701
Judge
Susan Illston
Date
Apr. 26, 2022

Background

This shareholder derivative action concerns alleged actions by officers and directors of Zuora, Inc. Plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to file under seal an unredacted version of their Verified Consolidated Shareholder Derivative Complaint. The motion was docketed as Dkt. No. 66.

Plaintiffs asserted that the proposed redactions contained information defendants had designated as protected and confidential under the court’s protective order. Defendants’ counsel supported the motion with a declaration stating that the information contained sensitive commercial details about Zuora’s business and products, internal processes, sales strategy, product development, and board functions and deliberations.

Legal Standard

The court stated that court records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. That presumption may be overcome by sufficiently compelling reasons, including disclosure of proprietary and confidential business information or information that could allow competitors to learn about a defendant’s technical capabilities.

Ruling

The court found that sealing was appropriate because the material had been designated confidential and included minutes from Zuora’s board meetings, board presentations and deliberations concerning product development, risk-management policies and practices, and details about Zuora’s relationships with key customers.

Judge Illston granted the motion. The plaintiffs were permitted to file the unredacted complaint under seal and were required to publicly file a version with paragraphs 106 through 116 and part of paragraph 117 redacted. The court identified the affected material by page and line ranges: page 29, lines 10–27; page 30, lines 1–26; and page 31, lines 1–3 and part of line 14.

This order addressed access to court filings and did not decide the underlying allegations in the shareholder derivative action.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.