1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 P. BART STEPHENS, Case No. 23-cv-04183-JD

7 Plaintiff, SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER RE 8 v. SEALING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 JANE DOE,

Defendant. 10

11 12 Plaintiff Stephens has, for the most part, not handled a number of sealing requests in a 13 manner consistent with governing standards. This has resulted in orders denying his requests, and 14 an Order to Show Cause. The Court issued the OSC because Stephens did not comply with an 15 order directing him to file unredacted public versions of provisionally sealed documents. Dkt. 16 No. 36. In response to the OSC, Stephens, who replaced prior counsel with a new attorney, 17 suggests that the OSC should be withdrawn because he voluntarily dismissed his lawsuit. See Dkt. 18 No. 37. This point is not well-taken. Stephens’ decision to terminate his case does not displace 19 the public’s right of access to court filings preceding the termination. 20 Stephens also takes another run at sealing the names of his email, cloud storage, cell 21 phone, and cryptocurrency exchange providers. Prior requests along these lines were denied 22 because he did not “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that 23 outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Dkt. No. 33 24 (quoting In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litig.,

, 1107 (N.D. Cal. 2021)). 25 In particular, Stephens did not establish that public disclosure of the names of corporate entities -- 26 without Stephens’ unique, alphanumeric identifiers -- could cause him harm. See

27 The renewed request presents the declaration of a cybersecurity professional who has 1 type of “SIM swap” fraud that Stephens is said to have suffered. Dkt. No. 37-1 2,5. The 2 || declaration provides substantially more information in support of sealing which was not presented 3 || in prior applications. This information demonstrates a non-trivial risk of injury to Stephens 4 || without sealing. 5 Consequently, the Order to Show Cause, Dkt. No. 36, is terminated. For Dkt. No. 33, 6 Stephens need not disclose the names of his service providers, but he must file unredacted public 7 copies by January 11, 2024, that otherwise comply with the order. See Dkt. No. 33 at 2:8-10. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: January 4, 2024 10 11 JAMES MONATO 12 United tates District Judge

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28