Ji et al v. Naver Corporation 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
RANELA SUNGA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
NAVER CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 21-cv-05143-HSG
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO
SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 299, 302, 311, 316, 317, 328,
330, 338
Pending before the Court are the motions to seal related to the Second Amended
Complaint (“SAC”) and the parties’ briefing for the motions to dismiss. Dkt. Nos. 299, 302, 311,
316, 317, 328, 330, and 338. The Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the
motions.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal
documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana
v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the
common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records
and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of
access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this
strong presumption, the moving party must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific
factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring
disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Id. at 1178–79
(citations, internal quotation marks, and alterations omitted). For example, a court may order
sealing under the “compelling reasons” standard of confidential and proprietary business
Case 4:21-cv-05143-HSG Document 350 Filed 03/18/26 Page 1 of 6

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
information when public disclosure of such information “could result in improper use by business
competitors.” See Hyams v. CVS Health Corp., No. 18-CV-06278-HSG, 2023 WL 2960009, at *2
(N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2023).
Records attached to motions that are only “tangentially related to the underlying cause of
action” must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016);
Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80. The “good cause” standard requires a “particularized showing”
that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates
of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. Proc.
26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning”
will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992)
(quotation omitted).
When a party seeks to seal a document that has been designated as confidential by another
party or non-party, the party filing the sealing motion need not satisfy the showing described
above. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(1). Instead, within seven days of the motion’s filing, the designating
party must file a statement or declaration justifying the reasons for keeping the document or
information under seal. Id. 79-5(f)(3). A failure to file a statement or declaration may result in the
unsealing of the provisionally sealed material without further notice to the designating party. Id.
II. DISCUSSION
Because the parties seek to seal documents related to the operative complaint and motions
to dismiss that are more than “tangentially related to the merits of the case,” the Court applies the
“compelling reasons” standard. See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101.
A. Dkt. Nos. 299, 302, 317, 328, 330
Plaintiffs filed four administrative motions to consider whether another party’s materials
should be sealed. See Dkt. Nos. 299, 302, 328, 330. The first two requests relate to the second
amended complaint (“SAC”). Plaintiffs filed the SAC under seal because it contains references to
Defendants’ 30(b)(6) representatives’ testimony and accompanying exhibits, as well as documents
obtained during jurisdictional discovery, which Defendants had designated confidential or highly
Case 4:21-cv-05143-HSG Document 350 Filed 03/18/26 Page 2 of 6

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
confidential under the parties’ stipulated protective order. See Dkt. No. 299 at 2; Dkt. No. 302 at
2. Plaintiffs’ second two requests concern documents filed in support of their oppositions to
Defendants’ motions to dismiss. See Dkt. No. 328 at 2; Dkt. No. 330 at 2.
Additionally, Defendants NAVER Corporation, NAVER Cloud Corporation, and SNOW
Corporation and SNOW Inc. filed an administrative motion to consider whether another party’s
materials should be sealed. Dkt. No. 317. They ask that the Court consider sealing certain
exhibits to a declaration filed in support of their motion to dismiss, because those exhibits were
designated as confidential or highly confidential by co-Defendant LY Corporation. See Dkt. No.
317 at 2.
As of the date of this Order, no party has filed a statement or declaration establishing why
sealing is warranted in response to any of these motions. See Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3).
Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motions to consider whether another party’s material should
be sealed, finding no sealing warranted on the record presented. Skillz Platform Inc. v. Avia
Games Inc., No. 21-cv-02436-BLF, 2023 WL 6429770, at *2 (N.D. Cal. October 2, 2023)
(declining to seal documents because designating party failed to file a statement or response as
required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3)).
B. Dkt. No. 311
Defendant LY Corporation (“LY Corp.”) asks the Court to seal limited portions of its
motion to dismiss and two declarations filed in support of that motion. Dkt. No 311 at 3.
According to LY Corp., these documents disclose the percentage of net sales it receives as part of
the ongoing revenue sharing agreement with LINE Plus, as well as revenue from the sale of
Stickers, themes, and emojis. Id.
LY Corp. argues that sealing is appropriate because disclosure of this information would
force it to suffer “specific competitive harm.” Id. First, because competitors could use
information about the precise percentage of net sales to interfere with or undermine LY Corp.’s
business relationships, or disclosure would otherwise have a negative impact on those
relationships. Id. at 4. And second, because disclosure of information about the sale of Stickers,
themes, and emojis would allow competitors to benchmark their own performance, develop
Case 4:21-cv-05143-HSG Document 350 Filed 03/18/26 Page 3 of 6

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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
comparative income streams, or adjust pricing and profitability models. Having reviewed the
declarat, the Court is persuaded that disclosing this information could reveal Defendants’
proprietary information and put them at a competitive disadvantage. Cf. Guzik Tech. Enters., Inc.
v. W. Digit. Corp., 2013 WL 6576266, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2023) (redacting sales volume
information, sales revenue information, and associated profits). The Court agrees that many of the
proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to seal specific quantitative references to otherwise
internal data. However, the Court finds that the proposed redactions to the motion to dismiss are
overly broad to accomplish this legitimate purpose, and should be limited to the actual percentage
amount of revenue and the geographic location forming the basis for the calculation. See Dkt. No.
312 at 7:22–23; 7:28–8:1.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion with respect to LINE Corp.’s motion to
dismiss. LINE Corp. is ORDERED to submit any renewed motion identifying narrower
redactions in this document within 7 days of this order. The Court finds compelling reasons to
GRANT the remainder of Dkt. No. 311.
C. Dkt. No. 316
Defendants NAVER Cloud Corporation (“NCC”) and SNOW Corporation (“SNOW
Corp.”) filed an administrative motion asking the Court to seal three exhibits in support of their
motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 316 at 2; Dkt. No. 316-1 ¶ 6 (seeking partial redactions in one exhibit
and complete redactions in two more). NCC and SNOW Corp. seek to seal “confidential and
proprietary information concerning NCC’s and SNOW’s databases and servers,” including their
location. Dkt. No. 316 at 2. Disclosure of this information, they argue, “would cause competitive
harm to [them] by potentially giving bad actors a roadmap to locating sensitive information in its
server systems, causing harm to its customers.” Id. at 3.
Courts have granted similar requests where disclosing information about a party’s server
would risk competitive harm. See 3D Sys., Inc. v. Wynne, 2024 WL 1122377, at *2 (S.D. Cal.
Mar. 14, 2024) (sealing documents that displayed the pathway where information was stored on
servers that “could be a vehicle for improper use of confidential information and access to
Plaintiff’s trade secrets.”); see also Dkt. No. 279 at 2. Having reviewed the documents, the Court
Case 4:21-cv-05143-HSG Document 350 Filed 03/18/26 Page 4 of 6

5
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
finds there are compelling reasons to seal them given the risk of competitive harm if NCC’s and
SNOW Corp.’s confidential and proprietary information is divulged. The Court also finds that
narrower redactions that avoid disclosing this information are either not possible or would give
minimal additional access to the public. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion.
D. Dkt. No. 338
Defendant LINE Euro-Americas Corporation (“LINE E-A”) filed an administrative motion
asking the Court to seal limited portions of an exhibit filed with its reply brief in support of its
motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 338 at 3; Dkt. No. 338-2 ¶ 3. LINE E-A seeks partial redactions of
the dollar amounts of individually negotiated discount rates with specific business partners; dollar
amounts of weekly budges and actual spend for certain media campaigns; detailed metrics for
certain media campaigns, including the number of impressions, cost of the campaigns per user,
and average weekly spend; and data reflecting the weekly percentage changes to user metrics like
daily registered users in connection with specific media campaigns. Id.
LINE-EA argues that this information, even if it concerns past media campaigns, “remains
competitively sensitive.” Dkt. No. 338 at 4. Specifically, they assert that disclosure allow
competitors to gain insights into LINE-EA’s performance metrics for specific campaigns, which
competitors could use to “benchmark their own performance, develop competing strategies, or
adjust their pricing models.” Id. The Court agrees that disclosing the information in these
documents “could reveal [LINE-EA’s] proprietary information and put them at a competitive
disadvantage.” Iron Workers Local 580 Joint Funds, v. NVIDIA Corp., No. 18-CV-07669-HSG,
2026 WL 637331, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2026). Further, the Court finds that even though the
information sought to be sealed concerns past media campaigns, the potential competitive harm
posed by its disclosure outweighs any benefit of public access under the circumstances.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion.
III. CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Dkt. No. 311, GRANTS Dkt.
Nos. 316, and 338 and DENIES Dkt. Nos. 299, 302, 317, 328, 330. Documents filed under seal
as to which the administrative motions are granted will remain under seal. See Civ. L.R. 79-
Case 4:21-cv-05143-HSG Document 350 Filed 03/18/26 Page 5 of 6

6
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
5(g)(1).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
3/18/2026
Case 4:21-cv-05143-HSG Document 350 Filed 03/18/26 Page 6 of 6