Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00797/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00797-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Account Receivable

---

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

VIRTUE GLOBAL HOLDINGS LIMITED,

Plaintiff,

v.

REARDEN LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00797-JST (SK)

ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO 

SEAL ORDER DATED APRIL 5, 2016

This Court entered an order (Dkt. 103) on April 5, 2016 (the “Order”) under seal pending 

further order from this Court, and, in that Order, this Court: (1) directed the parties to advise this 

Court jointly of which facts, if any, should be redacted from the Order; and (2) directed any party 

seeking information to be sealed to provide a proposed redacted version of the Order to file 

publicly and legal authority for its position.

Defendants submitted a letter brief stating that the entire Order should be placed under seal 

because the privileged and confidential information contained in the Order is completely entwined 

with public information in the Order. This Court does not find that argument persuasive. For 

example, the Order cites documents and information which are in the public record, such as 

information from the California Secretary of State public website, and other documents that have 

been filed in this matter and which Defendants have not sought to protect from disclosure. This 

Court also attempted to cite in the Order, where possible, the redacted, public version of 

documents that had previously been filed under seal in full format.

Defendants should be mindful of the fact that there is a presumption of public access to 

court records. Nixon v. Warner Comm., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) (“It is clear that the courts 

of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, 

Case 4:15-cv-00797-JST Document 108 Filed 04/15/16 Page 1 of 2
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

including judicial records and documents”). The party seeking to protect information from 

disclosure has the burden to show “good cause” for preventing the public from obtaining access to

information in judicial records for cases involving private parties. Pintos v. Pacific Creditors 

Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010); Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. General Motors Corp., 

307 F.3d 1206, 1212 (9th Cir. 2002). “For good cause to exist, the party seeking protection bears 

the burden of showing specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted.” 

Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1210-1211. 

Defendants have failed to meet their burden to show that sealing of the entire Order – or 

any portion of it – is warranted under the standards enumerated above. Defendants shall be 

provided with an additional opportunity meet this standard by providing a three page letter brief, 

to be filed publicly, listing the page numbers and line numbers of the Order which Defendants 

believe should be sealed, with a short explanation of “good cause” to seal under the standard 

enumerated by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals listed above. The deadline for filing such a 

brief is April 19, 2016. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 15, 2016

______________________________________

SALLIE KIM

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:15-cv-00797-JST Document 108 Filed 04/15/16 Page 2 of 2