Opinion

In re Ripple Labs Inc. Litigation

Court
District Court, N.D. California
Filed
Aug 30, 2023
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

1

2

3

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

7 VLADI ZAKINOV, et al.,

Case No. 18-cv-06753-PJH

8 Plaintiffs,

9 v. ORDER RE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

SEEK RECONSIDERATION OF

10 RIPPLE LABS, INC., et al., SEALING ORDER

11 Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 270

12

13

14 Defendants in the above-captioned case have filed a motion for leave to file a

15 motion for reconsideration of the court’s August 15, 2023 order regarding the parties’

16 motions to seal. See Dkt. 270. Defendants seek reconsideration of only the portion of

17 the order pertaining to exhibit 13, defendants’ non-public audited financial statements for

18 the years 2018 and 2019.

19 Defendants argue that, after the time that the sealing motions were filed, the

20 Southern District of New York court presiding over the case brought by the SEC against

21 Ripple granted a request to seal the same document. See id. at 4. Defendants also cite

22 cases from courts within the Ninth Circuit sealing similar documents. See, e.g., Brown v.

23 Brown, 2013 WL 12400041 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2013).

24 Defendants point out that plaintiff did not oppose the motion to seal this exhibit,

25 and defendants also represent that they have conferred with plaintiff and that he does not

26 intend to take a position on the motion for reconsideration. See Dkt. 270 at 4, n.1.

27 After reviewing the arguments and the document itself, the court rules that, for the

1 the court will allow exhibit 13 to be sealed. Accordingly, defendants’ motion for leave to

2 seek reconsideration is GRANTED, and based on the representation that plaintiff does

3 not intend to take a position on the motion, the court construes the motion as a motion for

4 reconsideration and GRANTS reconsideration of the portion of the sealing order

5 pertaining to exhibit 13. However, for purposes of summary judgment and trial, it is

6 unlikely that the entirety of the narrative sections of the financial statements will meet the

7 “compelling needs” standard, and will instead likely be admitted only with appropriate

8 redactions.

9 IT IS SO ORDERED.

10 Dated: August 30, 2023

11 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

12 United States District Judge

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.