# In re Ripple Labs Inc. Litigation

> District Court, N.D. California · August 30, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10076322

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** August 30, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10076322

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10076322. Public record. Not legal advice.