1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 SVB FINANCIAL GROUP, Case No. 5:24-cv-01321-BLF

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING

9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO

CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER

10 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE PARTY’S MATERIAL SHOULD BE

CORPORATION, AS RECEIVER FOR SEALED

11 SILICON VALLEY BANK, et al., [Re: ECF No. 65] 12 Defendants.

13 14 Before the Court is Plaintiff SVB Financial Group’s (“SVBFG”) administrative motion to 15 consider whether another party’s material should be sealed. ECF No. 65. For the reasons stated 16 below, the Court GRANTS the motion. 17 I. LEGAL STANDARD 18 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 19 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of 20 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 21 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are 22 “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of 23 “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 24 1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed 25 upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. 26 In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local 27 Rule 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a 1 warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive 2 alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Further, Civil Local Rule 79-5 3 requires the moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” 4 Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(2). And the proposed order must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable 5 material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). 6 Further, when a party seeks to seal a document because it has been designated as 7 confidential by another party, the filing party must file an Administrative Motion to Consider 8 Whether Another Party’s Material Should be Sealed. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f). In that case, the filing 9 party need not satisfy the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(1). Instead, the 10 party who designated the material as confidential must, within seven days of the motion’s filing, 11 file a statement and/or declaration that meets the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civ. L.R. 79- 12 5(f)(3). A designating party’s failure to file a statement or declaration may result in the unsealing 13 of the provisionally sealed document without further notice to the designating party. Id. Any 14 party can file a response to that declaration within four days. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(4). 15 II. DISCUSSION 16 Because the sealing motion concerns briefing on a dispositive motion, the Court will apply 17 the “compelling reasons” standard. See Doe v. Apple Inc. Health & Welfare Benefit Plan, No. 22- 18 CV-02566-EJD, 2023 WL 2530854, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2023) (applying the “compelling 19 reasons” standard when considering whether to seal an opposition to a motion to dismiss). 20 SVBFG filed an administrative motion to consider whether another party’s material should 21 be sealed in connection with its Opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. ECF No. 65. 22 SVBFG has identified portions of its opposition as containing information designated by non- 23 party FDIC-C as “highly confidential” pursuant to a protective order in SVBFG’s Chapter 11 24 proceedings. Id. at 1. FDIC-C filed a statement in support of sealing requesting that the figures 25 on page two of SVBFG’s opposition brief remain sealed because they are the alleged amount of 26 the advance dividend authorized on March 10, 2023 for depositors of Silicon Valley Bank. ECF 27 No. 67. FDIC-C requests that this information remain under seal because it is an internal agency 1 Valley Bank and this information is protected by the bank examination privilege and federal 2 || regulations. /d. at 2. No party has filed an opposition to FDIC-C’s statement. 3 The Court agrees that there are compelling reasons to seal the internal agency 4 || recommendation because it is deliberative material and thus covered by the bank examination 5 || privilege. See Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Lent, No. C-04-4088 CW (EMC), 2006 WL 8434734, at 6 *7 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2006); see also F.D.LC. v. Jones, No. 2:13-CV-00168-GMN, 2015 WL 7 4275961, at *1 (D. Nev. July 14, 2015) (finding compelling reasons to seal a document protected 8 || by the bank examination privilege). The Court also finds that FDIC-C’s request to seal this 9 || information is “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). 10 The Court rules as follows:

= 2 65-3 SVBFG’s Opposition Highlighted GRANTED, as protected by the 13 to Dismiss on page 2) 14 |) mm. ORDER 3 15 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff SVB Financial a 16 || Group’s (““SVBFG”) administrative motion to consider whether another party’s material should be 3 17 || sealed (ECF No. 65) is GRANTED. 18 19 Dated: August 26, 2024

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28