In re Ripple Labs Inc. Litigation
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:18-cv-06753
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 9
In Zakinov v. Ripple Labs, Judge Hamilton granted two sealing motions in part and denied the third in this securities case.
The parties and third parties whose confidential, personal, or commercially sensitive information appeared in the filings were affected by the limited redactions allowed; the parties were required to publicly file the remaining materials, and the public retained access to those records.
What happened
In Vladi Zakinov, et al. v. Ripple Labs, Inc., et al., the parties asked the court to seal briefs, declarations, and exhibits filed with a class-certification motion. The court said the requests were governed by the demanding “compelling reasons” standard because they concerned class certification.
The court denied sealing for all portions of the briefs. It granted the first motion in part for limited redactions of employee email addresses, user names, and a declarant’s city of residence, and denied it otherwise. It granted the second motion in part for one exhibit and limited redactions in other exhibits, and denied it otherwise. The third motion was denied in its entirety.
Judge Hamilton ordered the parties to file public versions of the briefs, declarations, and exhibits consistent with the ruling by September 1, 2023. The court’s stated reason for most denials was that broad claims of confidentiality, competitive harm, or privacy did not justify sealing the materials under the governing standard.
The detailed version
- In re Ripple Labs Inc. Litigation · No. 4:18-cv-06753
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Aug. 15, 2023
Background
This securities case involved three motions to seal materials filed in connection with the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The materials included portions of briefs, declarations, and exhibits. The court had already ruled on class certification and addressed the sealing motions separately.
The court explained that federal court records are generally open to the public. Because the requests were connected to class certification, the court applied the “compelling reasons” standard. Under that standard, the party seeking secrecy must identify a specific, compelling reason and provide a factual basis, after which the court balances public access against the interest in keeping the information private.
First Motion to Seal
The first motion, identified in the conclusion as Dkt. 181 and discussed in the analysis as Dkt. 180, sought to seal portions of the opening class-certification brief, the Spear declaration, and numerous exhibits. The court denied sealing for every portion of the brief and denied sealing of the Spear declaration because it contained only high-level descriptions of documents.
The court rejected broad, generalized assertions that exhibits contained trade secrets, sensitive business strategy, financial information, or confidential valuation information. It also rejected requests to seal entire exhibits based only on the presence of an employee’s work email address, explaining that the requests were not adequately supported or narrowly tailored.
The first motion was granted in part and denied in part. The court allowed limited redactions of employee email addresses in exhibits 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23; user names in column A of exhibit 43; and the declarant’s city of residence in exhibit 64. The motion was denied on all other bases, including requests concerning exhibits 26, 27, 35, 41, and other materials for which the supporting explanations were too broad or unsupported.
Second Motion to Seal
The second motion, Dkt. 200, concerned portions of the defendants’ opposition brief and exhibits 6, 7, 8, and 26 through 51. The court denied sealing of the opposition brief. It denied sealing of exhibit 7 because no argument was offered for keeping it secret, and denied sealing of exhibit 6 because it contained only generalized discussions of trading practices rather than detailed financial information.
The court granted sealing of exhibit 8 because it contained detailed financial information and passport photographs. It also granted sealing of the revised versions of exhibits 26 through 51, which redacted the affiants’ names and addresses. The second motion was therefore granted in part and denied in part: it was granted as to exhibit 8 and the redacted versions of exhibits 26 through 51, and denied otherwise.
Third Motion to Seal
The third motion, Dkt. 218, concerned portions of the plaintiffs’ reply brief, an attorney declaration, and five exhibits. The court denied sealing of the reply brief because it had found nothing in the briefs that met the standard for secrecy. The court also denied the remaining requests because the defendants relied on broad, generalized statements about trade secrets and sensitive business strategy rather than specific support. The court allowed one limited redaction of a declarant’s city of residence in exhibit 64, but the conclusion states that the third motion itself was denied in its entirety.
Disposition
The conclusion states that the first motion to seal was granted in part and denied in part, the second motion was granted in part and denied in part, and the third motion was denied. The parties were ordered to file public versions of the briefs, declarations, and exhibits consistent with the order by September 1, 2023. Judge Hamilton signed the order on August 15, 2023.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.