# Opinion > District Court, N.D. California · June 3, 2026 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11379702 ## Case - **Full name:** Oracle America, Inc., Oracle International Corporation, and Textura Corporation v. Procore Technologies, Inc., et al. - **Court:** District Court, N.D. California - **Decided:** June 3, 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/11379702 ## 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 ON MOTIONS TO SEAL v. 9 Re: ECF Nos. 305, 306 10 PROCORE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants. 11 12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiffs Oracle America Inc., Oracle International Corporation, and 14 Textura Corporation’s (together, “Oracle” or “Plaintiffs”) Administrative Motion to Seal 15 Plaintiffs’ Confidential Information in Exhibits 4, 5, 6, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 16 30, 32, 34, 35, 36, and 47 to Oracle’s Motion for Adverse Inference due to Spoliation (“Spoliation 17 Motion”). ECF No. 306. 18 Also before the Court is Oracle’s Administrative Motion to Consider Sealing Defendants 19 Procore Technologies, Inc. and Procore Payment Services, Inc.’s (“Procore”) Material in Oracle’s 20 Spoliation Motion, the supporting Declaration of Kevin X. Wang, and Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 21 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 22 43, 45, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52. ECF No. 305. 23 Oracle’s Spoliation Motion is not a dispositive motion and is governed by the good cause 24 standard. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016). 25 The motions are resolved as set forth below. 26 I. ECF NO. 306 27 After considering the papers submitted by counsel, the applicable law, the relevant 1 Seal Exhibits 4, 5, 6, 16, 17, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 36, and 47, for the reasons stated in 2 Oracle’s motion. 3 Although Oracle seeks to redact Exhibits 4 and 5, they were filed under seal in their 4 entirety to allow Procore the opportunity to justify further sealing. ECF No. 306-2 at 1–2. 5 Procore does not seek further sealing. ECF No. 315-2 at 2. Oracle is therefore ordered to file 6 public versions of Exhibits 4 and 5, containing only the redactions sought in its motion, ECF No. 7 306. 8 To justify sealing under the good cause standard, Plaintiffs “must make a ‘particularized 9 showing,’ of the ‘specific prejudice or harm’ that will result if the information is made public.” 10 United States ex rel. Ruhe v. Masimo Corp., No. CV1008169CJCVBKX, 2013 WL 12131176, at 11 *2 (C.D. Cal. July 31, 2013) (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 12 (9th Cir. 2006) and Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 13 (9th Cir. 2002)). This “particularized showing” should establish why specific information 14 contained in each specific document should be sealed. 15 As to Exhibits 13, 14, 19, and 20, Oracle does not satisfy this standard. For instance, 16 Oracle has not explained why the standard HR procedures described in Exhibits 13 and 14 are 17 confidential. And Oracle seeks to seal Exhibits 19 and 20 because they contain confidential trade 18 secret information, but the Court perceives very little trade secret information contained therein. 19 The motion is denied as to those exhibits. Oracle may file a new motion to seal justifying the 20 request more fulsomely or tailoring it more narrowly. If Oracle does not file a renewed motion to 21 seal these exhibits, then it must file them publicly on the docket. As to Exhibits 13, 14, and 19, 22 they should be filed publicly in full. As to Exhibit 20, Oracle should file a public version 23 containing the redactions proposed by Procore at ECF No. 315, which the Court approves below. 24 II. ECF NO. 305 25 In their responsive statement to Oracle’s Motion to Consider Sealing Procore’s Material, 26 Procore only seeks to redact portions of Exhibits 1, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 34, 37, 27 41, 42, and 45. ECF No. 315. Those redactions requests are granted. The remainder of the ] documents listed in the motion to consider sealing have already been sealed in whole or in part 2 because they contain Oracle’s confidential material, including Exhibits 25, 26, 32, 34, 35, 36, and 3 47. The Court’s ruling on ECF No. 305 does not unseal documents ordered sealed pursuant to 4 || ECF No. 306. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: June 3, 2026 7 JON S. TIGAR g nited States District Judge 9 10 1] a 12 13 14 15 16 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11379702. Public record. Not legal advice.