DFND Security, Inc. v. CrowdStrike, Inc.

Background

The court considered two administrative motions to seal documents and exhibits. DFND Security, Inc. asked the court to consider sealing materials that CrowdStrike, Inc. had designated confidential in connection with DFND’s supplemental briefing on jurisdiction. CrowdStrike supported sealing three exhibits in full and two in part, citing sensitive, nonpublic information about its corporate structure and private board discussions. CrowdStrike also asked the court to strike DFND’s publicly filed supplemental jurisdiction brief and require a version that redacted the confidential information.

CrowdStrike separately filed an unopposed motion to seal excerpts of deposition testimony attached to its supplemental brief supporting its motion to dismiss. CrowdStrike argued that the excerpts referred to sensitive, nonpublic matters involving private board discussions. DFND did not object to either motion.

Legal standard

The court stated that judicial records and documents are generally presumed to be open to public inspection. Because the materials were connected to a motion to dismiss, the court applied the higher “compelling reasons” standard. Under that standard, the party seeking secrecy must make a particularized showing that disclosure would cause specific prejudice or harm. Local Rule 79-5 also requires the request to identify the private or public interests supporting sealing, the injury that would result from disclosure, and why a less restrictive alternative would not suffice. Any sealing request must be narrowly tailored to the material that can properly be kept confidential.

Rulings

The court found that CrowdStrike had shown compelling reasons to seal the proposed redactions. It granted sealing for the following materials:

- Exhibit C-1 to the Thomas Declaration, concerning confidential information about CrowdStrike’s corporate structure from a private board meeting of its parent company, CrowdStrike Holdings’s Inc., which the opinion states is not a party to the action. - Exhibit C-2 to the Thomas Declaration, concerning confidential information from a board meeting. - Exhibit C-3 to the Thomas Declaration, concerning organizational charts and reporting structure. - Exhibit F-1 to the Thomas Declaration, pages 43:15–44:14. - Exhibit F-2 to the Thomas Declaration, pages 122–125 and 130–33. - Exhibit G to the Thomas Declaration, pages 30–33. - Specified portions of Exhibit A to the Plunkett Declaration: page 130 lines 7–25; page 131 lines 1–25; page 144 lines 1–25; page 156 lines 1–25; and page 157 lines 1–25 and page 159 lines 1–25, as listed in the court’s table. - Specified portions of Exhibit B to the Plunkett Declaration: page 52 lines 1–25. - Specified portions of Exhibit C to the Plunkett Declaration: page 128 lines 7–25 and pages 146–147 lines 1–25.

The court also granted CrowdStrike’s request to strike DFND’s supplemental brief and ordered DFND to file a redacted version because the brief contained information redacted from Exhibits C-1, C-2, C-3, F-1, F-2, and G.

The court denied the motion to seal Exhibits D and E to DFND’s supplemental brief. DFND had sought to seal them because CrowdStrike had designated them confidential, but CrowdStrike did not ask that those exhibits remain sealed.

Disposition

The court ordered that documents for which sealing was granted would remain under seal. It ordered DFND to refile a redacted version of its supplemental brief, redacted versions of Exhibits F-1 and F-2, and a redacted version of Exhibit G. It also ordered DFND to refile unredacted versions of Exhibits D and E. The court required these filings by April 12, 2024. The administrative motions were granted in part and denied in part.