Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00798/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00798-96/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LOOP AI LABS INC,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANNA GATTI, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00798-HSG 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 643

In conjunction with Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to dismiss, Plaintiff has renewed 

its administrative motion to file exhibits under seal, Dkt. No. 643. 

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Courts apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal documents 

like the ones at issue here. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010). 

“This standard derives from the common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and 

documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Id. “[A] ‘strong presumption in favor of 

access’ is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th 

Cir. 2006). To overcome this strong presumption, the moving party must “articulate compelling 

reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the 

public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial 

process.” Id. at 1178-79 (citations, internal quotation marks, and alterations omitted). The Court 

must “balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain 

judicial records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal certain 

judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for 

its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. at 1179 (internal quotation marks 

omitted).

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 695 Filed 05/20/16 Page 1 of 5
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Records attached to motions that are only “tangentially related to the merits of a case” are 

not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 

F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, parties moving to seal such records must meet the 

lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 8-9. 

The “good cause” standard requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm 

will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 

307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” 

will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).

Civil Local Rule 79-5 further supplements the compelling reasons standard. The party 

seeking to file a document or portions of it under seal must “establish[ ] that the document, or 

portions thereof, are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection 

under the law. . . .The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” 

Civil L.R. 79-5(b). 

II. DISCUSSION

Because the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is more than tangentially related to 

the merits of the underlying action, the Court applies the “compelling reasons” standard in 

evaluating the motion to seal.

A. Documents sought to be filed under seal where Plaintiff is the designating 

party 

Of the documents Plaintiff seeks to file under seal, Loop is the designating party for the 

following two: Dkt. Nos. 643-24 and 643-27. 

Dkt. No. 643-24 is an email exchange between officers of Almaviva S.p.A. and Almawave 

S.r.l. reporting on Anna Gatti’s discussion of Loop AI’s valuation. Plaintiff contends that the 

document should be filed under seal because it contains highly confidential financial information 

that is not publicly available. Dkt. No. 643, Ex. A. The email is in Italian and Plaintiff has 

provided translation for only a portion of the entire document. Having reviewed the translated 

portion, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not established a compelling reason that disclosure of the 

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 695 Filed 05/20/16 Page 2 of 5
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

company’s valuation or the company’s law firm constitutes confidential, sealable information. 

Accordingly, the motion to file Dkt. No. 643-24 under seal is DENIED. Should Plaintiff want to 

rely on this email, it should file an unredacted copy on the public docket within 4 days of the date 

of this order. 

Dkt. No. 643-27 is an internal presentation that Loop prepared in preparation for a meeting 

with a California company; Plaintiff contends that the document includes “highly confidential and 

competitively sensitive information of Loop AI, discusses aspects of Loop AI’s technology and 

business ideas that could be presented to the target company in question” and that “[d]isclosure of 

this document in the public domain would be harmful to Loop AI’s business.” Dkt. No. 643, Ex. 

A. Having reviewed the presentation, the Court agrees that the document contains sealable 

confidential information on Loop’s technology and business ideas, and that disclosure of the 

information could harm Loop’s business. Because there is a compelling reason to file the 

document under seal, the motion is GRANTED as to Dkt. No. 643-27.

B. Documents sought to be filed under seal where designating party is Almawave 

or General Electric

On May 9, 2016, Almawave filed a response to Loop’s administrative motion to file under 

seal, Dkt. No. 662, and non-party GE Capital Corporation filed a notice joining Almawave’s 

response, Dkt. No. 663. Almawave contends that only three documents are sealable, Dkt. Nos. 

643-20, 643-21, 643-22, as they contain “confidential and sensitive information about 

Almawave’s business, including marketing plans, business strategies, and private financial 

information.” Dkt. No. 662. Having reviewed the attached declaration, and the specific exhibits, 

the Court agrees that the documents contain confidential, sealable information. The Court grants

Plaintiff’s motion to file Dkt. No. 643-21 under seal. In the interest of following the narrowly 

tailored requirements of the local rules, the Court agrees that the redacted copies of Dkt. Nos. 643-

22 and 643-20 (found as attachments to Dkt. No. 662) should be filed on the public record, and 

that the unredacted copies should be filed under seal. 

With respect to the remaining documents where Almawave is the designating party, the 

Court DENIES the motion to file the exhibits under seal. Almawave, as the designating party, 

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 695 Filed 05/20/16 Page 3 of 5
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

does not contend that these documents contain sealable information; moreover, the Court has not

been presented with a “compelling reason” to warrant sealing. Accordingly, should Plaintiff want 

to rely on Dkt. Nos. 643-3, 643-4, 643-8, 643-9, 643-10, 643-11, 643-14, 643-15, 643-19, 643-25, 

643-28, 643-29, 643-30, and 643-31, it should file unredacted copies on the public docket no 

sooner than four days and no later than ten days from the date of this order. 

For the following documents, although Almawave is the designating party, Loop 

separately contends that the documents contain sealable information. The Court DENIES 

Plaintiff’s request to file Dkt. Nos. 643-12 and 643-13 under seal; there is nothing in the email 

correspondence, including the exchange of contact information, suggesting a compelling reason to 

file the communications under seal. Should Plaintiff want to rely on these documents, it should 

file an unredacted version on the public record no sooner than four days and no later than ten days 

from the date of this order.

The Court also DENIES Plaintiff’s request to file Dkt. No. 643-26 under seal. The 

document is in Italian, and the Court cannot evaluate whether it contains confidential sealable 

information. 

C. Documents sought to be filed under seal where Carr & Ferrell is the 

designating party 

Plaintiff seeks to file three documents under seal where Carr & Ferrell LLP is the 

designating party: Dkt. Nos. 643-5, 643-6, 643-7. Pursuant to Local Rule 79-5(e), on May 4, 2016 

Plaintiff served Carr & Ferrell the declaration, identifying the document or portions that contained 

designated confidential material. See Dkt. No. 644. The local rules require that the designating 

party, here Carr & Ferrell, file a responsive declaration within four days of receiving the 

declaration establishing that all of the designated material is sealable. L-R 79-5(e)(1). Carr & 

Ferrell has failed to file a responsive declaration. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s 

motion to file these documents under seal; pursuant to Rule 79-5(e)(2), Plaintiff may file the 

documents in the public record no earlier than four days and no later than 10 days from the date of

this order. 

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 695 Filed 05/20/16 Page 4 of 5
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

D. Documents sought to be filed under seal where SentiMetrix is the designating 

party 

Plaintiff seeks to file under seal three documents that SentiMetrix designated as 

confidential: Dkt. Nos. 643-16, 643-17, 643-18. On May 9, 2016, Vadim Kagan filed a 

declaration in support of filing the three exhibits under seal, except for the first page of Dkt. No. 

643-17, a signature page. Dkt. No. 661. Having reviewed the three documents, the Court agrees 

that all three exhibits contains confidential information, such as SentiMetrix’s financial 

information (including statements of income, liabilities and equities), pricing data, and technical 

business information of the company’s product. The Court, however, does not find a compelling 

reason to seal the signature page in Dkt. No. 643-17. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the 

motion to file the three documents under seal, except for the first page of Dkt. No. 643-17; the 

latter should be filed on the public docket if Plaintiff wants to rely on it. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons described, Plaintiff’s motion to file under seal is GRANTED IN PART and 

DENIED IN PART. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

5/20/2016

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 695 Filed 05/20/16 Page 5 of 5