# Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle International Corporation > District Court, D. Nevada · November 22, 2023 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10300951 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, D. Nevada - **Decided:** November 22, 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/10300951 ## Opinion text 1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Oracle International Corp., a California Case No. 2:14-cv-01699-MMD-DJA 6 corporation; and Oracle America, Inc., a Delaware corporation, 7 Order Plaintiffs, 8 v. 9 Rimini Street, Inc., a Nevada corporation; and 10 Seth Ravin, an individual, 11 Defendants. 12 And related counterclaims. 13 14 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to seal portions of its motion for attorneys’ fees and 15 documents supporting that motion. (ECF No. 1567). Plaintiffs explain that they are seeking to 16 redact portions of these documents that refer to their counsel and vendors’ billing rates. Plaintiffs 17 assert that these documents contain sensitive, case-specific pricing information which would 18 create a risk of competitive injury if released. 19 Plaintiffs also explain that they seek to seal Exhibits 5-6 to the declaration of Benjamin 20 Smith (ECF Nos. 1569-3, 1569-4) and Exhibit 3 to the deposition of Richard Pocker (ECF No. 21 1571-3) because those documents contain information relating to depositions of third-party 22 witnesses in this case and service of process of third-party subpoenas to Rimini Street, Inc.’s 23 customers as part of this litigation. Because the customers are identified by name and because 24 Rimini has repeatedly designated its customer lists as “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes 25 Only,” Plaintiffs seek to file these exhibits under seal. But Plaintiffs explain that they “are not in 26 a position to provide further justification for why filing the document publicly would cause harm 27 sufficient to justify sealing.” Defendants did not respond to Plaintiff’s motion. 1 A party seeking to file a confidential document under seal must file a motion to seal and 2 must comply with the Ninth Circuit’s directives in Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 3 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) and Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092 4 (9th Cir. 2016). A party seeking to seal judicial records attached to motions more than 5 tangentially related to the merits of the case must meet the “compelling reasons” standard. See 6 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1183; Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101. For records attached to 7 motions not more than tangentially related to the merits of the case, the “good cause” standard 8 applies. See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d 1095, 1101. That a party has designated a document 9 as confidential under a protective order does not, standing alone, establish sufficient grounds to 10 seal a filed document. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1133, 1138 11 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). 12 Here, as a preliminary matter, the Court finds that the good cause standard applies because 13 the information Plaintiffs seek to seal is only tangentially related to the merits of the case. The 14 Court finds that Plaintiffs have provided good cause to seal the documents that refer to their 15 counsel and vendors’ billing rates. However, because Rimini has not responded to the motion 16 and provided its own reasoning for sealing the names of its customers in this context, the Court 17 does not find that Rimini has provided good cause to seal Exhibits 5-6 to the declaration of 18 Benjamin Smith (ECF Nos. 1569-3, 1569-4) and Exhibit 3 to the deposition of Richard Pocker 19 (ECF No. 1571-3). The Court will nonetheless retain the documents under seal and will give 20 Rimini thirty days to file a declaration in support of sealing the documents. If Rimini does not 21 file a declaration supporting maintaining these documents under seal within that time, the Court 22 will order the documents unsealed. 23 24 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to seal (ECF No. 1567) is 25 granted in part and denied in part. It is denied in part regarding Exhibits 5-6 to the declaration 26 of Benjamin Smith (ECF Nos. 1569-3, 1569-4) and Exhibit 3 to the deposition of Richard Pocker 27 (ECF No. 1571-3). It is granted in all other respects. 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Rimini shall have until December 22, 2023 to file a 2 declaration in support of maintaining Exhibits 5-6 to the declaration of Benjamin Smith (ECF 3 Nos. 1569-3, 1569-4) and Exhibit 3 to the deposition of Richard Pocker (ECF No. 1571-3) under 4 seal. These documents shall remain under seal for now. If Rimini does not file a declaration 5 supporting maintaining the documents under seal within that time, the Court will order the 6 documents unsealed. 7 8 DATED: November 22, 2023 9 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 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/10300951. Public record. Not legal advice.