In re Ripple Labs Inc. Litigation
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:18-cv-06753
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Zakinov v. Ripple Labs, Inc., Judge Hamilton allowed reconsideration and sealed exhibit 13, while warning some financial-statement text may need redaction.
The defendants and the plaintiff in the case, concerning whether exhibit 13—the defendants’ non-public audited financial statements—could remain sealed.
What happened
In Zakinov v. Ripple Labs, Inc., the defendants asked to reconsider part of an earlier order about sealing court filings. Their request concerned exhibit 13, which contained Ripple’s non-public audited financial statements for 2018 and 2019.
The defendants pointed to a sealing decision in a related case and other decisions involving similar documents. They also said the plaintiff did not oppose reconsideration. The court reviewed the arguments and exhibit and allowed exhibit 13 to remain sealed.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granted the defendants’ request for permission to seek reconsideration and treated it as a reconsideration motion, which she also granted as to exhibit 13. She said the narrative portions of the financial statements might later need redactions for summary judgment or trial.
The detailed version
- In re Ripple Labs Inc. Litigation · No. 4:18-cv-06753
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Aug. 30, 2023
Background
The defendants moved for permission to file a motion asking the court to reconsider part of its August 15, 2023 order on the parties’ requests to seal materials. The request concerned only exhibit 13: the defendants’ non-public audited financial statements for 2018 and 2019.
The defendants argued that, after the sealing motions were filed, a court in the Southern District of New York sealed the same document in a case brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission against Ripple. They also cited decisions from courts in the Ninth Circuit that sealed similar documents. The defendants stated that the plaintiff did not oppose sealing exhibit 13 and did not intend to take a position on reconsideration.
Ruling
After reviewing the arguments and the document, the court ruled that exhibit 13 could be sealed. It granted the defendants’ motion for leave to seek reconsideration. Because the plaintiff did not intend to take a position, the court treated that request as a motion for reconsideration and granted reconsideration of the portion of the sealing order concerning exhibit 13.
The court added that, for summary judgment and trial, it was unlikely that all narrative sections of the financial statements would satisfy the “compelling needs” standard. Those sections would instead likely be admitted only after appropriate redactions. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.