Opinion

1

2

3

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

ORACLE CORPORATION, et al.,

7 Case No. 24-cv-08438-JCS

Plaintiffs,

8

v. ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE

9 MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

CRYPTO ORACLE, LLC, et al.,

10 Re: Dkt. No. 44

Defendants.

11

12

13 The Court DENIES Oracle’s motion to seal its billing rates and billing invoices. See dkt.

14 no. 44 (asking the Court to seal the invoices filed in support of its fee request and the billing rates

15 of Oracle’s counsel.”). Judges in this district have found that “attorney rates and hours are

16 generally not considered privileged information that is sealable.” Grouse River Outfitters Ltd. v.

17 Oracle Corp., No. 16-CV-02954-LB, 2019 WL 8752333, at *1–2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2019)

18 (citing Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 13-cv-04700-EMC, 2016 WL 1252778, at *2

19 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30 2016) (“the number of hours spent litigating a case and billing rates are not

20 considered proprietary information”); Linex Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. C-13-159,

21 2014 WL 6901744, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2014) (denying motion to seal hours and billing rates

22 as to non-dispositive motion for attorney's fees); Ferrington v. McAfee, Inc., Nos. 10-cv-1455-

23 LHK, 11-cv-721-LHK, 2013 WL 3814474, at *2 (July 22, 2013) (same)). Oracle has pointed to

24 no evidence suggesting that a different conclusion is warranted here.

25 Furthermore, Oracle’s request to “indiscriminately seal all of its invoices does not comport

26 with” Civil Local Rule 79-5(b), which requires that sealing requests “must be narrowly tailored to

27 seek sealing only of sealable material.” Muench Photography, Inc. v. Pearson Educ., Inc., No. 12-

] Accordingly, the motion is DENIED. Oracle is ordered to file in the public record an

2 || unredacted version of the Smith Declaration no later than September 14, 2026. By the same date,

3 Oracle may file a renewed sealing motion as to its billing invoices consistent with the

4 || requirements of Civil Local Rule 79-5, which counsels that parties should redact only “truly

5 sensitive information.”

6 IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

8 || Dated: September 8, 2026

JOSEPH" SPERO

10 UnitedStates Magistrate Judge

1]

a 12

13

15

16

17

Z 18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28