Opinion
23-cv-00599-RS
08-24-2023
COINMINT, LLC, Plaintiff, v. DX CORR DESIGN, INC., et al., Defendants.
ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS TO SEAL
RICHARD SEEBORG CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
In the latest chapter of what has been a tortured saga over motions to seal in this otherwise stayed action, Coinmint and Katena presented a revised, joint submission regarding proposed redactions to the exhibits attached to Plaintiff's Complaint and Opposition to the Motion to Stay. The submission identified three categories of documents: those for which Katena and Coinmint managed to reach agreement regarding redactions; those for which Katena proposed redactions that Coinmint did not agree to; and those for which Katena proposed to be sealed in their entirety, which Coinmint also did not agree to.
As proposed in their submission, the Parties may redact all telephone numbers.
With respect to the first set of documents-which encompass Exhibits 5 and 12-14 to the Complaint, as well as Exhibits 3, 5-6, 9, and 18 to the Opposition-the Parties' joint proposals are accepted.
With respect to the second set of documents-which encompass Exhibits 1-2, 4, 6-7, and 11 to the Complaint, as well as Exhibits 15, 17, 21, and 24 to the Opposition to the Motion to Stay, all proposed redactions (including those highlighted in red) are approved, with the exception of the following:
• Complaint Exhibit 2: all redactions outlined in red on KATENA006587 shall be removed, except for the first half of the second to last sentence (beginning with “as we plan for” until the comma). The redactions in blue may remain.
• Complaint Exhibit 6: all redactions on KATENA006207-208 (which relate to potential PR with Coinmint and therefore evidently concern Plaintiff in this suit) and the redactions on KATENA006218 shall be removed.
• Opposition to Stay Exhibit 17: all redactions in red on KATENA006645 shall be removed, except for the financial institution (i.e., the first two words of that first message).
Finally, the request to seal Exhibits 2, 4, and 11 to the Opposition in their entirety is denied. For Exhibit 2, the deposition testimony is plainly relevant to the claims in the case, and nothing is confidential business information that would harm Katena if it became public. However, out of an abundance of caution, Defendants will be permitted to redact the names of the third-party partnerships on pages 63-65. For Exhibit 4, paragraphs 8-10 may be redacted. For Exhibit 11, Defendants may redact only the name of the financial institution mentioned in the first 6 lines, consistent with the redactions in the other exhibits.
As the above resolves the Parties' remaining disputes with respect to sealing, the Parties are directed to file final versions of the redacted Exhibits, consistent with this order, within 21 days of the date of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.