2024.07.01 Motion to Seal — Oto Analytics, LLC v. Benworth Capital Partners LLC

Source document: 2024.07.01 Motion to Seal — Oto Analytics, LLC v. Benworth Capital Partners LLC; document type: Administrative motion (to file under seal).

Full text

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

PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
CASE NO. 3:24-cv-03975

WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP
Alexander L. Cheney (SBN 302157)
acheney@willkie.com
333 Bush Street
San Francisco, CA 94104
(415) 858-7400

Stuart R. Lombardi (pro hac vice forthcoming)
slombardi@willkie.com
787 7th Avenue
New York, NY 10019
(212) 728-8000

Joshua S. Levy (pro hac vice forthcoming)
jlevy@willkie.com
1875 K Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006-1238
(202) 303-1000

Attorneys for Petitioner
Oto Analytics, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

OTO ANALYTICS, LLC,

Petitioner,
v.
BENWORTH CAPITAL PARTNERS
LLC,
Respondent.
Case No. 3:24-cv-03975

PETITIONER’S ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

Case 4:24-cv-03975-AMO     Document 4     Filed 07/01/24     Page 1 of 4

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

PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
CASE NO. 3:24-CV-03975

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5, Petitioner Oto Analytics, LLC (f/k/a Oto
Analytics, Inc., d/b/a Womply) (“Womply”) moves to keep under seal two paragraphs in its Petition
to Confirm Arbitration Award And For Entry of Judgment (“Petition”) and two exhibits to the
accompanying Declaration of Alexander L. Cheney (“Cheney Declaration” or “Cheney Decl.”), all
of which contain or reference inflammatory and false accusations against the non-party arbitrator.
During the arbitration underlying the Petition, Respondent Benworth Capital Partners LLC
(“Benworth”) sought to disqualify the arbitrator for purported bias ten days before the arbitration
hearing.  On March 10, 2023, Benworth filed a letter-motion seeking to disqualify the arbitrator,
and Womply filed its opposition four days later.  (Cheney Decl. Exs. 9–10.)  A member of the
JAMS National Arbitration Committee, which had no role in the arbitration itself, investigated
Benworth’s allegations, recognized that Benworth “raise[d] these issues for the first time[]
approximately ten days before the start of the arbitration hearing,” concluded that “there is no
material proof of bias by the arbitrator,” and denied the motion.  (Id. Ex. 11.)  Womply seeks to
keep under seal these two documents, which are appended as Exhibits 9 and 10 to the Cheney
Declaration, and to redact Paragraphs 32–33 of its Petition, which reference them.

Docket No.
Document
Page/Line Nos.
1
Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award and For
Entry of Judgment
Page 10, Line(s) 3–28
Page 11, Line(s) 1–7
1-10
Exhibit 9 to the Cheney Declaration, Benworth’s
March 10, 2023 Letter to JAMS (“Motion to
Disqualify”)
In its entirety
1-11
Exhibit 10 to the Cheney Declaration, Petitioner’s
March 14, 2023, Opposition to the Motion to
Disqualify (“Opp. to Mot. to Disqualify”)
In its entirety
Courts recognize a limited “presumption in favor of access to court records,” which can be
overcome by any “compelling reason.”  Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1096–
99 (9th Cir. 2016) (cleaned up; collecting cases).  “What constitutes a ‘compelling reason’ is ‘best
left to the sound discretion of the trial court,’” and includes “when a court record might be used to
Case 4:24-cv-03975-AMO     Document 4     Filed 07/01/24     Page 2 of 4

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

PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
CASE NO. 3:24-CV-03975

‘gratify private spite or promote public scandal,’ to circulate ‘libelous’ statements, or ‘as sources
of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.’”  Id. at 1097 (quoting
Nixon v. Warner Commnc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)).  Courts are particularly sensitive to
“privacy interests,” and routinely permit “redacting documents to protect the privacy interests of
innocent third parties.”  United States v. Business of Custer Battlefield Museum & Store, 658 F.3d
1188, 1195 n.5 (9th Cir. 2011) (collecting cases).  Courts also consider the confidential nature of
arbitration proceedings in addressing later motions to seal arbitration information.  See, e.g., Zitan
Techs., LLC v. Liang Yu, 2021 WL 3024284, at *3 n.2 (D. Nev. July 16, 2021).
There are compelling reasons to keep these two documents sealed to protect the privacy and
reputation of the arbitrator, who is not a party of this action.  Benworth made highly inflammatory
and false accusations of bias against the arbitrator for strategic advance in the arbitration.  A neutral
third party investigated these allegations and found them to be meritless.  This Court must
“conscientiously balance the competing interest of the public and the party who seeks to keep
certain judicial records secret,” and there is no public interest in broadcasting false allegations.  Ctr.
for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097 (cleaned up).  To the contrary, such false allegations of bias “have
significant potential to tar the reputation[]” of the arbitrator who is not a party to this action will
therefore “have no formal opportunity to clear [his] name[].”  United States v. Kwok Cheung Chow,
2015 WL 5094744, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug 28, 2015) (citing United States v. Index Newspapers LLC,
766 F.3d 1072, 1084 (9th Cir. 2014)).  Publicly disclosing these allegations raises “the ‘danger that
the court could become a partner in the use of [arbitration] material to gratify private spite or
promote public scandal, with no corresponding assurance of public benefit.’”  Id. (quoting Nixon,
435 U.S. at 598) (cleaned up).  Courts in this Circuit routinely seal and redact documents “to assure
that individuals who are accused but exonerated are not held to public ridicule,” id. (quoting Index
Newspapers, 766 F.3 at 1084), and to protect the “strong interest in maintaining the privacy” of
“third parties who have not chosen to have their personnel records placed into the public record.”
TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. v. Avago Techs. Ltd., 2011 WL 4947343, at *3 (D. Ariz. Oct. 18,
2011) (sealing “two exhibits containing personnel records”).

Case 4:24-cv-03975-AMO     Document 4     Filed 07/01/24     Page 3 of 4

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

PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
CASE NO. 3:24-CV-03975

Date: July 1, 2024

WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP

By:  /s/ Alexander L. Cheney

Alexander L. Cheney
Stuart R. Lombardi (pro hac vice
forthcoming)
         Joshua S. Levy (pro hac vice forthcoming)

Attorneys for Petitioner
Oto Analytics, LLC
Case 4:24-cv-03975-AMO     Document 4     Filed 07/01/24     Page 4 of 4

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cand.431982.4.0.pdf

Size

325,105 bytes

SHA-256

f15b3a7b89008f65c56f0c5e248688863e18c850e5707dcfa668dfcf7d0cc7eb

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cand.431982.4.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)