Stephens v. DOE
- James Donato
- 3:23-cv-04183
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Stephens v. Doe, Judge Donato denied requests to seal filings because they did not contain information warranting secrecy.
P. Bart Stephens must file unredacted public versions of the identified documents; the information will be available in the public court record.
What happened
P. Bart Stephens asked the court to keep parts of his complaint, temporary-restraining-order motions, supporting declarations, and a hearing transcript from public view. He said they contained personal consumer, financial, and communications information.
The court denied the requests because the redactions covered only provider names without identifying information, and did not include information such as Social Security numbers, account numbers, or specific financial details. Stephens also did not show a sufficient reason to hide information about the alleged hackers or his business name.
Judge Donato directed Stephens to file unredacted public versions by November 2, 2023.
The detailed version
- Stephens v. DOE · No. 3:23-cv-04183
- James Donato
- Oct. 27, 2023
Background
P. Bart Stephens sued to recover allegedly stolen cryptocurrency assets. He asked to seal portions of his complaint, motions for a temporary restraining order, supporting declarations, and a hearing transcript. Stephens said the material included personal consumer information, personal financial information, and communications.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that court records are generally presumed to be open to the public. Because Stephens sought to seal documents addressing the merits of his claims, including filings connected to a request for a temporary restraining order, he had to show compelling reasons supported by specific facts that outweighed the public’s interest in access.
The court found that the requested redactions did not reveal the type of information that justified sealing. Stephens sought to hide only the names of his email, cloud-storage, cellphone, and cryptocurrency-exchange providers, without attaching those names to personally identifying information. The court noted that the requests did not involve Social Security numbers, account numbers, other identifiers, or specific financial information. Stephens also did not provide a good reason to seal information about the alleged Doe defendant hackers or the name of his business.
Ruling
The court denied the sealing requests. It directed Stephens to file unredacted public versions of the documents on the docket by November 2, 2023.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.