In Re: B of I Holding, Inc. Shareholder Litigation
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
Plaintiffs moved for leave to file portions of their memorandum in opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss under seal. The court granted the motion, finding that the sealed portions contained confidential, proprietary information subject to a confidentiality agreement and a prior sealing order.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Portions of the Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint is granted.“Accordingly, the Court grants the motion and orders that: (1) under Civil Local Rule 79.2(c), the Memorandum be filed under seal; and (2) the Clerk of the Court shall accept and file under seal the unredacted copy of the Memorandum.” | agree with court The court applied the 'compelling reason' standard from Ninth Circuit precedent (Kamakana and Philips) to determine that sealing was appropriate. The order recites specific factual predicates: the information is non-public/confidential, subject to a confidentiality agreement, and previously sealed by the court. This satisfies the requirements for sealing under the cited authorities. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable legal standard from binding Ninth Circuit precedent and applies it to the specific facts recited in the order (confidentiality agreement, proprietary nature, prior sealing order). The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural sealing order.
Opinion
10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 IN RE: BOFI HOLDING, INC. ) Case No. 15cv2722 GPC (KSC) 13 SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION ) 14 _______________________________ ) Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for ) Leave to File Under Seal Portions of 15 This document relates to: ) the Memorandum in Opposition to ) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the 16 ALL ACTIONS. ) Third Amended Complaint 17 ) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 Before the Court is plaintiffs motion for leave to file under seal certain 2 portions of his memorandum (the “Memorandum” in opposition to defendants’ 3 |}motion to dismiss his Third Amended Consolidated Shareholder Derivative 4 ||Complaint (the “Complaint”’). Having considered the motion, and good cause 5 appearing, the Court concludes that a compelling reason exists to permit portions of 6 || plaintiffs Memorandum to be filed under seal and in redacted form, because 7 || (a) these portions contain information that nominal defendant Bofl Holding, Inc. 8 ||(Bofl”) believes to be non-public, confidential, proprietary, or commercially 9 ||/sensitive; (b) such information is subject to a confidentiality agreement between 10 || plaintiff and Bofl; and (c) these portions contain the same information that is subject 11 |/to the Court’s January 5, 2024 order (Dkt. No. 177) sealing portions of the 12 ||Complaint. See Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 9th Cir. 13 || 2006); Philips v. GMC, 307 F.3d 1206, 1211 Oth Cir. 2002). 14 Accordingly, the Court grants the motion and orders that: 15 (1) under Civil Local Rule 79.2(c), the Memorandum be filed under seal; 16 and 17 (2) the Clerk of the Court shall accept and file under seal the unredacted 18 copy of the Memorandum. 19 |)Dated: May 13, 2025 7 sale As ( 2° Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28