# Opinion > District Court, N.D. California · May 1, 2026 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11373306 ## Case - **Full name:** Oracle America, Inc., et al. v. Procore Technologies, Inc., et al. - **Court:** District Court, N.D. California - **Decided:** May 1, 2026 - **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/11373306 ## Opinion text 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ORACLE AMERICA, INC., et al., Case No. 24-cv-07457-JST 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO 9 v. SEAL 10 PROCORE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Re: ECF No. 285, 286 Defendants. 11 12 13 Before the Court are a motion to seal and a motion to consider whether another party’s 14 material should be sealed, both filed by Defendant Procore. ECF Nos. 286, 285. Plaintiff Oracle 15 has filed a statement in support of sealing. ECF No. 290. The motions together seek to seal about 16 a thousand pages of documents in their entirety. Concluding that the sealing requests are 17 overbroad, the Court denies both motions and grants leave to file amended motions within seven 18 days of this order. 19 A party seeking to seal a document filed with the court must (1) comply with Civil Local 20 Rule 79-5; and (2) rebut the “a strong presumption in favor of access” that applies to all 21 documents other than grand jury transcripts or pre-indictment warrant materials. Kamakana v. 22 City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation and internal quotations 23 omitted). 24 With respect to the first prong, Local Rule 79-5 requires, as a threshold, a request that 25 (1) “establishes that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged, protectable as a trade secret 26 or otherwise entitled to protection under the law”; and (2) is “narrowly tailored to seek sealing 27 only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). An administrative motion to seal must also fulfill 1 allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a 2 document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Civil L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). 3 With respect to the second prong, the showing required to overcome the strong 4 presumption of access depends on the type of motion to which the document is attached. Records 5 attached to motions that are only “tangentially related to the merits of a case” are not subject to the 6 strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 7 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, a party need only make a showing under the good cause standard of Rule 8 26(c) to justify the sealing of the materials. Id. at 1097. 9 The two sealing motions do not satisfy this standard. Consider Exhibit 1, the expert report 10 of Andrew Crain. Procore explains that the document “contains highly confidential internal 11 Procore communications” and “confidential information regarding Procore’s business plans, 12 product development, strategies, and computer systems.” ECF No. 286 at 4. Oracle explains that 13 it contains “highly confidential information regarding Oracle’s trade secret files, pricing plans, and 14 business strategies.” ECF No. 290 at 3. Both parties aver that no less restrictive option is 15 available than sealing the document in its entirety. ECF No. 286 at 4; ECF No. 290 at 3. But the 16 expert report is a 71-page document that contains a multitude of information that does not relate to 17 business plans or strategies, trade secret files, or confidential communications, including, at a 18 minimum, the expert’s qualifications, his methodology, much of the account of the actions taken 19 by Mr. Mariano after departing Oracle, many of Mariano’s text messages, and most of the 20 discussion of his laptop metadata and usage history. In fact, a relatively small percentage of the 21 document appears related to the interests that the parties purportedly seek to protect. Redaction is 22 therefore more appropriate than sealing the document in full. 23 Exhibit 8, sought to be sealed only by Oracle, should also be redacted. While it may 24 contain “highly confidential Oracle information regarding Oracle’s trade secret files and business 25 strategies,” it also contains ample testimony that appears to bear no relationship to trade secrets or 26 business strategies. ECF No. 290 at 4; ECF No. 285-7. 27 As to Exhibits 4 and 5, comprised of more than 800 pages of interrogatory responses, ] Procore may refile both motions within seven days of this order, tailoring its sealing 2 || requests more narrowly and/or justifying them more fulsomely. To the extent that the parties 3 amend their sealing requests, they should submit new public and sealed copies of the underlying 4 || documents. For documents containing sealable information of both parties, the parties shall meet 5 and confer and submit a single redacted version of the document. The unsealed highlighted 6 || version shall distinguish between the sealing sought by each party using different colored 7 || highlighting. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 || Dated: May 1, 2026 10 JON S. TIGA! 11 United States District Judge a 12 13 14 15 16 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11373306. Public record. Not legal advice.