1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RIPPLE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 23-cv-06215-LJC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 9 v. PREJUDICE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 10 BETUR INC., PORTIONS OF COMPLAINT 11 Defendant. Re: ECF No. 2

12 13 Plaintiff Ripple Services, Inc. (Ripple) brings this action against Defendant Betur Inc. (dba 14 Coins.ph) (Coins) for breach of contract in connection with a written settlement agreement the 15 parties entered into in May 2023 (the Settlement Agreement). See ECF No. 1 (Compl.) ¶ 1. The 16 Settlement Agreement was the result of a dispute regarding fees that Coins was charging under 17 another contract, the Exchange Integration Agreement, entered by the parties in 2018. Id. ¶¶ 9–10. 18 Ripple now brings this Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portions of its Complaint 19 (Motion to Seal) pursuant to Local Rule 79-5. ECF No. 2. Ripple wants to seal information about 20 the terms of the Settlement Agreement, including the schedule for payment installments and 21 payment amounts that Coins agreed to make to Ripple. Ripple argues that the Settlement 22 Agreement is confidential, and that public disclosure of information about the Settlement 23 Agreement “would harm Ripple’s competitive standing and its ability to negotiate future 24 agreements.” Id. at 3. Coins has not yet appeared in this matter, and there is no opposition to the 25 Motion to Seal. 26 Two standards govern motions to seal portions of court documents: a “compelling reasons” 27 standard, which applies to dispositive pleadings, and a “good cause” standard, which applies to 1 Cir. 2006). Court documents that are technically non-dispositive may still require the party to 2 meet the “compelling reasons” standard when they are more than tangentially related to the merits 3 of the case. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC,

(9th Cir. 2016). 4 “Because the complaint is more than tangentially related to the merits of the case, the 5 compelling reasons standard governs the sealing request.” Sjostrom v. Kraatz, No. 16-CV-01381- 6 DMR,

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 21, 2016); In re NVIDIA Corp. Derivative Litig., 7 No. 06–cv–06110–SBA,

, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2008) (“While a complaint 8 is not, per se, the actual pleading by which a suit may be disposed of, it is the root, the foundation, 9 the basis by which a suit arises and must be disposed of.”) Compelling reasons generally exist 10 “when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of 11 records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release 12 trade secrets,” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc.,

589, 598 (1978)), or where court files may serve “as sources of business information that might 14 harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S at 598–99. 15 As an initial matter, Ripple claims that the Settlement Agreement is confidential, but does 16 not indicate whether it contains a provision on confidentiality, nor does Ripple provide a copy of 17 the Settlement Agreement for the Court to assess whether the parties’ intent was for it to be 18 confidential. But courts in the Ninth Circuit have generally accepted private confidentiality 19 agreements as “good cause” justification for sealing non-dispositive pleadings and ancillary 20 documents. See, e.g., Skokomish Indian Tribe v. Goldmark, No. C13-5071JLR,

6086075, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 19, 2013). “[T]he mere fact that the parties’ settlement 22 agreement may contain a confidentiality provision, without more, does not constitute a compelling 23 reason to seal the information.” Helix Env’t Plan., Inc. v. Helix Env’t & Strategic Sols., No. 24 318CV02000AJBAHG,

, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2021); see also Select 25 Portfolio Servicing v. Valentino, No. C 12–0334 SI,

, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 26 2013) (“That [the parties] agreed among themselves to keep the settlement details private, without 27 more, is no reason to shield the information from…the public at large.”). 1 information contained within certain contracts and agreements between business entities. ECF 2 No. 2 at 2. But those cases are inapposite. Some of them were sealing trade secret information. 3 See, e.g., In re Google Inc. Gmail Litig., No. 13-MD-02430-LHK,

, at *5 4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2014); Skillz Platform Inc. v. AviaGames Inc., No. 21-CV-02436-BLF, 2023

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2023). The information that Ripple seeks to keep under 6 seal here does not appear to be trade secret information. Nor does the information relate to the 7 production of a good, provision of a service, or any other aspect of Ripple’s business operations. 8 See Aya Healthcare Servs., Inc. v. AMN Healthcare, Inc., No. 17CV205-MMA (MDD),

1911502, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2020) (finding compelling reasons to seal information which 10 reflected “terms upon which AMN is willing to do business with its associate vendors and other 11 competitively sensitive business information, such as pricing and fill requirements”) (internal 12 quotation marks and citation omitted); In re Elec. Arts, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2008) 13 (sealing “terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum payment terms” found in a licensing 14 agreement). 15 A declaration from Ripple’s attorney, David M. Grable, in support of the Motion to Seal 16 (Grable Declaration) expresses concern that public disclosure of information about the Settlement 17 Agreement “would harm Ripple’s competitive standing and its ability to negotiate future 18 agreements by giving competitors access to Ripple’s highly confidential business thinking and 19 asymmetrical information about Ripple’s negotiating strategies to other entities.” ECF No. 2-1 at 20 2. It is possible that a competitor may utilize the information that Ripple seeks to seal to its 21 advantage. However, that information relates to how Ripple resolves contract disputes in the 22 context of settling a lawsuit or potential lawsuit, which is similar to information that is commonly 23 publicly available on federal court dockets across the nation, not information that concerns how 24 Ripple operates its business. 25 As such, the Court DENIES Ripple’s Motion to Seal without prejudice. Ripple may 26 renew its motion, addressing the deficiencies noted above, within fourteen days of the date of this 27 Order. The unredacted version of the Complaint currently on the docket, Exhibit A to the Grable 1 motion is reached. If Ripple declines to renew the motion, then by the deadline specified above, it 2 || must file a public version of the Complaint on the docket. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: February 1, 2024 5 Jo 6 27 ar LISA ¥. CISNEROS 7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 a 12

13

© 15 16

it

4 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28