SVB Financial Group v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 SVB FINANCIAL GROUP, Case No. 23-cv-06543-BLF

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE 9 v. MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER PARTY'S MATERIAL 10 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE SHOULD BE SEALED CORPORATION, 11 [Re: ECF No. 101] Defendant. 12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiff SVB Financial Group’s (“SVBFG”) Administrative Motion to 14 Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should be Sealed. ECF 101. For the reasons stated 15 below, the Court DENIES the motion. 16 I. LEGAL STANDARD 17 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and 18 documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 19 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 20 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are “more than 21 tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of “compelling 22 reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101–02 (9th Cir. 23 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing 24 of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. 25 In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local Rule 26 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a document 27 under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant 1 to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Further, Civil Local Rule 79-5 requires the 2 moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” Civ. L.R. 79- 3 5(c)(2). And the proposed order must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material.” Civ. 4 L.R. 79-5(c)(3). 5 Further, when a party seeks to seal a document because it has been designated as confidential 6 by another party, the filing party must file an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another 7 Party’s Material Should be Sealed. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f). In that case, the filing party need not satisfy 8 the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(1). Instead, the party who designated the 9 material as confidential must, within seven days of the motion’s filing, file a statement and/or 10 declaration that meets the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3). A designating 11 party’s failure to file a statement or declaration may result in the unsealing of the provisionally 12 sealed document without further notice to the designating party. Id. Any party can file a response 13 to that declaration within four days. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(4). 14 II. DISCUSSION 15 On October 10, 2024, SVBFG filed an administrative motion to consider whether another 16 party’s materials should be sealed (“Motion”) in connection with its Opposition to Defendant 17 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, in Its Corporate Capacity’s Motion to Dismiss Amended 18 Complaint (“Opposition”). See ECF No. 101. SVBFG identified portions of its Opposition as 19 containing information designated by non-party the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as 20 Receiver for Silicon Valley Bank, as “highly confidential” pursuant to a protective order in 21 SVBFG’s Chapter 11 proceedings. ECF 101 at 1. The 10-day deadline to file a statement or 22 declaration under Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3) ran on October 20, 2024. As of the date of the entry 23 of this order, no party has filed a statement or declaration under Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3) 24 regarding the materials SVBFG provisionally filed under seal in connection with its Opposition. 25 Accordingly, the Court DENIES SVBFG’s Motion. 26 // 27 // 1 The Court rules as follows: 4 ECF Document Portion(s) Requested ee to Seal 3 ECF 100 Opposition to Defendant Highlighted portions | DENIED because no Federal Deposit Insurance | at 4:20-27, 5:1 statement or 4 Corporation, in Its declaration under Civil Corporate Capacity’s Local Rule □□□□□□□□□□ 5 Motion to Dismiss has been filed. Amended Complaint 6 7 Il. ORDER For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that SVBFG’s administrative motion 9 to consider whether another party’s materials should be sealed (ECF 101) is DENIED. SVBFG 10 SHALL file an unsealed version of its Opposition to Defendant Federal Deposit Insurance 11 Corporation, in Its Corporate Capacity’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint on the public 12 docket within 7 days of the date of this Order.

© IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: January 15, 2025 = 17 _fditnfaecnen Z 18 BETH LABSON FREEMAN 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28