Beugelmans v. OKX 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
MAURICIO S. BEUGELMANS,
Plaintiff,
v.
OKX INC., et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 26-cv-07864-EMC
ORDER DISMISSING CASE AND
GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING
IN PART MOTIONS TO SEAL
Docket Nos. 3, 23, 29, 31
The Court has received the parties’ status reports, including Plaintiff’s notice of voluntary
dismissal. Dkt. Nos. 45, 46. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff’s Motion for
Provisional Relief and for Expedited Discovery, Dkt. No. 23, is terminated as moot. Defendants’
Motion to Compel Arbitration, Dkt. No. 31, is also terminated as moot, with no action taken on
either motion. Any dispute as to costs and fees should be resolved in arbitration, where the case is
already proceeding.
Plaintiff sought to seal portions of the Complaint, exhibits to the Complaint, and the
Motion for Provisional Relief. Dkt. Nos. 3, 29. The Motions to Seal are DENIED in part, but the
request to seal Exhibit A to the Verified Complaint (the Confidential Separation Agreement),
except for the non-disparagement provision and the arbitration provision, is GRANTED. While
mere agreement between the parties to keep a contract confidential is generally “insufficient to
meet either the good cause or compelling interest standards for sealing,” UCP Int’l Co. Ltd. v.
Balsam Brands Inc., 252 F. Supp. 3d 828, 835 (N.D. Cal. 2017), the Court recognizes “the
benefits of keeping settlement discussions and settlements confidential when feasible.” Knauf v.
Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc, 2026 WL 483899, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2026). Thus,
documents that “reflect[] confidential settlement terms that are not relevant to the motion” at hand
Case 3:26-cv-07864-EMC Document 47 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 2

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
may be properly sealed. Number 14 B.V. v. Analog Devices, Inc., 2024 WL 7125952, at *1 (N.D.
Cal. Dec. 23, 2024).
However, the other materials requested to be sealed are not properly sealed. Neither party
affirmatively seeks their sealing; Plaintiff lodged these materials under seal out of an “abundance
of caution,” which is “not sufficient to overcome the presumption in favor of public access to
court documents.” Alvarez v. C & S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., 2013 WL 5970479, at *2 (E.D. Cal.
Nov. 4, 2013). In addition, the Plea Agreement is publicly available on the DOJ website. The
parties have not identified any privilege or other reason to seal the redacted portions of the cease-
and-desist letter. Thus, the request to seal these materials is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 13, 2026
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-07864-EMC Document 47 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 2