Ma v. Stripe Inc

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE ROLAND MA, CASE NO. C25-0864-KKE Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO v. SHORTEN TIME STRIPE INC, Defendant.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to shorten time regarding his pending motion to seal (Dkt. No. 75). Dkt. No. 76.

On July 25, 2025, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s second amended complaint. Dkt. No. 71. Plaintiff’s deadline to respond to this motion is August 15, 2025. See Local Rules W.D. Wash LCR 7(d)(4). On July 30, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to seal “the Complete Records released by MasterCard” that “includes evidence essential to rebutting Defendant’s claims[.]” Dkt. No. 75 at 1, 2. Plaintiff incorrectly noted that motion for the same day and the Clerk re-noted the motion for August 20, 2025. LCR 7(d)(3). Plaintiff now moves to shorten the noting date for his motion to seal to “the same day the motion was filed (July 26, 2025), or as soon as practicable[.]” Dkt. No. 76 at 1.

Plaintiff’s motion to shorten time is DENIED (Dkt. No. 76) because this district has abolished such motions. LCR 6(b) (“Motions to shorten time have been abolished.”).

1 The Court understands Plaintiff’s concern regarding his intent to rely on the documents from MasterCard in his response to the motion to dismiss.1 Because Plaintiff has filed a motion to seal “before or at the same time the party files the sealed document[,]” Plaintiff may file the documents referenced in that motion under seal while the motion is pending. LCR 5(g)(2)(B).

5 Thus, when the Clerk’s office receives the MasterCard documents from Plaintiff, it will file them on the docket under seal. The Clerk’s office will ensure case participants can access the filing.

7 These documents will remain under seal “until the court determines whether it should remain sealed.” LCR 5(g)(2)(B).

10 Dated this 31st day of July, 2025.

A Kymberly K. Evanson 13 United States District Judge

23 1 Plaintiff is reminded that on a motion to dismiss, the Court only considers the operative complaint and documents incorporated-by-reference or subject to judicial notice under Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b). See United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003). As such, while the Court will not prohibit Plaintiff from filing a response of his choosing, it is unlikely that the referenced documents will be relevant to the adjudication of the pending motion.