People Center, Inc. v. Deel, Inc. et al

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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
PEOPLE CENTER, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEEL, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-cv-02576-CRB (LJC)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION
CHALLENGING CONFIDENTIALITY
DESIGNATIONS AND RELATED
SEALING MOTIONS
Re: Dkt. No. 118, 119, 136
Plaintiff People Center, Inc. (Rippling) challenges designations of confidentiality by non-
party Revolut Technologies Inc. regarding documents Revolut produced in response to Rippling’s
subpoena. See generally ECF No. 118. Revolut, a financial technology company, relies in large
part on its customers’ privacy interests to support its designations. See generally ECF No. 135.
All of the customers at issue have significant connections to this case: (1) Defendant Deel, Inc.’s
corporate affiliate Lets Deel Ltd, (2) Alba Basha, who is married to Defendant Daniel Westgarth, a
Deel executive; and (3) Keith O’Brien, a former Rippling employee who allegedly spied on
Rippling for Deel.
The Court previously determined that the customers themselves are better positioned to
defend their privacy interests than Revolut, set a deadline of November 7, 2025 for any opposition
briefs by the customers, and ordered Revolut to notify the customers of that order. ECF No. 147.
That deadline has passed, and no brief has been filed by any customer. The Court therefore
concludes that the customers do not oppose Rippling’s challenge to Revolut’s confidentiality
designations. Nor is any significant privacy interest apparent when it comes to the transactions at
the heart of this case: a payment from Lets Deel Ltd to Basha, followed by a corresponding
payment from Basha to O’Brien. Revolut also cites a potential loss of trust by other customers if
Case 3:25-cv-02576-CRB Document 150 Filed 11/17/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
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
United States
 District Court
Northern District of California
these customers’ records are disclosed, but the Court does not find that consideration sufficient to
maintain confidentiality when the customers at issue have been given an opportunity to oppose
disclosure and did not do so. In the absence of any indication that the customers oppose
disclosure, Rippling has not met its burden of persuasion as the “Designating Party” to maintain
confidentiality with respect to most of the material at issue. See ECF No. 74 (Protective Order) at
8, § 6.3.
Notwithstanding the customers’ non-response, the account and routing numbers included
in the documents at issue appear to be inherently confidential and to present meaningful risk of
harm if disclosed. Rippling indicated in its Motion that it does not oppose redacting those
numbers. ECF No. 119 at 10. Rippling’s challenge is DENIED as to all but the last four digits
those numbers. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a)(4). The remainder of the account and routing numbers
remain designated Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only, and must be redacted from any
public filing or disclosure. The challenge is also DENIED as to the specific street address (but not
city and state) of what appears to be Basha’s home address on her account statement, which
remains subject to the same designation. Rippling’s challenge is GRANTED as to the remaining
portions of the documents identified by Bates numbers RTI-00004 through RTI-00006. See ECF
No. 119-7 (proposed order defining the scope of Rippling’s challenge to confidentiality).1 So long
as the account and routing numbers and Basha’s home address are redacted as discussed above,
the parties need not treat those documents as confidential.
Each party filed an administrative motion regarding sealing documents filed in connection
with the present dispute. ECF Nos. 118, 136. No party has shown good cause to seal the filings at
issue except as discussed above. The sealing motions are therefore GRANTED as to the account
numbers, routing numbers, and specific street address, but otherwise DENIED. Rippling and
1 Rippling indicates that Revolut also produced a copy of Basha’s driver’s license that it
maintained in connection with her account. Based on Rippling’s proposed order, that driver’s
license does not appear to be implicated by its challenge to confidentiality. Compare ECF No.
119-7 (proposed order) with ECF No. 118-5 (RTI-00004 through RTI-0006, which do not include
the driver’s license) (provisionally filed under seal). To the extent there is any dispute regarding
the confidentiality of Basha’s driver’s license, the Court expects Rippling, Revolut, and Basha to
meet and confer in an attempt to reach an agreement as to confidentiality or appropriate
redactions.
Case 3:25-cv-02576-CRB Document 150 Filed 11/17/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
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
United States
 District Court
Northern District of California
Revolut are ORDERED to file public versions of the documents at issue,2 with redactions
consistent with this Order, no later than one week from the date of this Order.
The parties are further ORDERED to file a joint status report by the same deadline directed
to the presiding district judge, indicating whether or to what extent this Order effectively resolves
any other sealing motions that are currently pending before him.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 17, 2025
LISA J. CISNEROS
United States Magistrate Judge
2 ECF Nos. 118-2, 118-5, 118-8 (filed by Rippling), and ECF No. 136-2 (filed by Revolut).
Case 3:25-cv-02576-CRB Document 150 Filed 11/17/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>