Cress v. Nexo Financial LLC 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
JOHN CRESS,
Plaintiff,
v.
NEXO CAPITAL INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 23-cv-00882-TSH
ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
Re: Dkt. No. 134
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff John Cress filed this action against Defendants Nexo Financial LLC, Nexo
Financial Services Ltd., Nexo AG, Nexo Capital, Inc., and Antoni Trenchev, Nexo’s CEO,
alleging the Nexo parties fraudulently induced him to take out loans collateralized by millions of
dollars in digital assets, which were ultimately sold by the Nexo parties. ECF No. 1. Nexo
Capital, Inc. (“Nexo”) is the only remaining defendant in the case. ECF No. 37 at 7. Pending
before the Court is Cress’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material
Should Be Sealed. ECF No. 134. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS IN PART
and DENIES IN PART the Motion.1
II. LEGAL STANDARD
“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records
and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cty. of
Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435
U.S. 589, 597, n.7 (1978)). Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when
1 The parties consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). ECF Nos. 6,
16.
Case 3:23-cv-00882-TSH Document 147 Filed 07/28/26 Page 1 of 5

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
considering motions to seal, recognizing that “a strong presumption in favor of access is the
starting point.” Id. (cleaned up). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that
are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action,” Ctr. for Auto Safety v.
Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016), bear the burden of overcoming the
presumption with “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the
general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure,” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at
1178–79 (cleaned up). By contrast, a “good cause showing” under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(c) “will suffice to keep sealed records attached to non-dispositive motions.”
Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180.
Here, the documents at issue in Cress’s Administrative Motion (ECF No. 134) were filed
in connection with Cress’s Motion for Sanctions in which Cress seeks terminating sanctions (ECF
No. 134-3). Motions for dispositive case sanctions, along with their attached documents, are more
than tangentially related to the merits of a case. See Smahi v. STMicroelectronics, Inc., 789 F.
Supp. 3d 690, 692, 696 (N.D. Cal. 2025) (applying compelling reasons standard to motion seeking
terminating sanctions). Accordingly, the compelling reasons standard applies to Cress’s
Administrative Motion.
Civil Local Rule 79-5 supplements the “compelling reasons” standard. Exeltis USA Inc. v.
First Databank, Inc., No. 17-cv-04810-HSG, 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020).
Where, as here, a filing party (the “Filing Party”) seeks to seal a filed document because that
document has been designated as confidential by another party (the “Designating Party”), the
Filing Party must file an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material
Should Be Sealed. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f). This motion must identify each document or portions
thereof for which sealing is sought. Id. “Within 7 days of the motion's filing, the Designating
Party must file a statement and/or declaration” including “a specific statement of the applicable
legal standard and the reasons for keeping a document under seal.” Id. at 79-5(c)(1), (f). That
statement must include (i) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing; (ii) the
injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is
not sufficient. Id. at 79-5(c)(1). A failure to file a statement or declaration may result in the
Case 3:23-cv-00882-TSH Document 147 Filed 07/28/26 Page 2 of 5

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
unsealing of the provisionally sealed document without notice to the Designating Party. Id.
III. DISCUSSION
On July 6, 2026, Cress filed an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another
Party’s Material Should Be Sealed, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5, in connection with his
Motion for Sanctions. ECF Nos. 134, 134-3. Cress requests that twenty-five documents be filed
under seal:
• Declaration of Max Ambrose (“Ambrose Decl.”) (ECF No. 134-1), Ex. 1 (ECF No.
134-4)
• Ambrose Decl., Ex. 2 (ECF No. 134-5)
• Ambrose Decl., Ex. 3 (ECF No. 134-6)
• Ambrose Decl., Ex. 5 (ECF No. 134-7)
• Ambrose Decl., Ex. 6 (ECF No. 134-8)
• Ambrose Decl., Ex. 7 (ECF No. 134-9)
• Ambrose Decl., Ex. 8 (ECF No. 134-10)
• Ambrose Decl., Ex. 15 (ECF No. 134-11)
• Ambrose Decl., Ex. 16 (ECF No. 134-12)
• Ambrose Decl., Ex. 17 (ECF No. 134-13)
• Ambrose Decl., Ex. 18 (ECF No. 134-14)
• Ambrose Decl., Ex. 19 (ECF No. 134-15)
• Ambrose Decl., Ex. 24 (ECF No. 134-16)
• Ambrose Decl., Ex. 27 (ECF No. 134-17)
• Ambrose Decl., Ex. 28 (ECF No. 134-18)
• Ambrose Decl., Ex. 29 (ECF No. 134-19)
• Ambrose Decl., Ex. 30 (ECF No. 134-20)
• Ambrose Decl., Ex. 31 (ECF No. 134-21)
• Ambrose Decl., Ex. 32 (ECF No. 134-22)
• Ambrose Decl., Ex. 33 (ECF No. 134-23)
• Ambrose Decl., Ex. 34 (ECF No. 134-24)
Case 3:23-cv-00882-TSH Document 147 Filed 07/28/26 Page 3 of 5

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
• Ambrose Decl., Ex. 35 (ECF No. 134-25)
• Ambrose Decl., Ex. 36 (ECF No. 134-26)
• Ambrose Decl., Ex. 37 (ECF No. 134-27)
• Ambrose Decl., Ex. 38 (ECF No. 134-28)
ECF No. 134. Cress also requests that his Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 134-3) be filed with
redacted portions quoting or describing designated material. Id.
On July 13, 2026, Nexo responded to Cress’s Administrative Motion requesting “redaction
of third-party customers’ names, email addresses, and financial account numbers” in three
documents: Ambrose Decl., Exs. 24, 35, 36. ECF No. 141. In support of its request, Nexo
submits a declaration from Agustus Greaves and a declaration from Matthew Rawlinson setting
forth the bases for sealing each document. See Declaration of Augustus Greaves (ECF No. 141-
1); Declaration of Matthew Rawlinson (ECF No. 141-2).
The Court has reviewed the requested documents to be sealed and finds that compelling
reasons exist to redact names, email addresses, and financial account numbers of Nexo customers
from Exhibits 24, 35 and 36 to the Ambrose Declaration. See Doe v. City of San Diego, No. 12-
cv-689-MMA-DHB, 2014 WL 1921742, at *4 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2014) (finding compelling
reasons exist to seal documents containing personal information that is irrelevant to the matter).
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Cress’s Administrative Motion to redact portions of the
Ambrose Decl., Ex. 24 (ECF No. 134-16), Ambrose Decl., Ex. 35 (ECF No. 134-25), and
Ambrose Decl., Ex. 36 (ECF No. 134-26) containing names, email addresses, and financial
account numbers of Nexo customers. As Nexo has filed redacted versions of these documents on
the public record, no further action is needed regarding these documents. See ECF Nos. 141-3
(Ex. 24), 141-4 (Ex. 35), 141-5 (Ex. 36).
Nexo states that it does not request sealing of Cress’s Motion for Sanctions or Exhibits 1–
3, 5–8, 15–19, 27–34, and 38 to the Ambrose Declaration. ECF No. 141. Accordingly, the Court
DENIES Cress’s Administrative Motion to seal Cress’s Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 134-3),
Ambrose Decl., Ex. 1 (ECF No. 134-4), Ambrose Decl., Ex. 2 (ECF No. 134-5), Ambrose Decl.,
Ex. 3 (ECF No. 134-6), Ambrose Decl., Ex. 5 (ECF No. 134-7), Ambrose Decl., Ex. 6 (ECF No.
Case 3:23-cv-00882-TSH Document 147 Filed 07/28/26 Page 4 of 5

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
134-8), Ambrose Decl., Ex. 7 (ECF No. 134-9), Ambrose Decl., Ex. 8 (ECF No. 134-10),
Ambrose Decl., Ex. 15 (ECF No. 134-11), Ambrose Decl., Ex. 16 (ECF No. 134-12), Ambrose
Decl., Ex. 17 (ECF No. 134-13), Ambrose Decl., Ex. 18 (ECF No. 134-14), Ambrose Decl., Ex.
19 (ECF No. 134-15), Ambrose Decl., Ex. 27 (ECF No. 134-17), Ambrose Decl., Ex. 28 (ECF No.
134-18), Ambrose Decl., Ex. 29 (ECF No. 134-19), Ambrose Decl., Ex. 30 (ECF No. 134-20),
Ambrose Decl., Ex. 31 (ECF No. 134-21), Ambrose Decl., Ex. 32 (ECF No. 134-22), Ambrose
Decl., Ex. 33 (ECF No. 134-23), Ambrose Decl., Ex. 34 (ECF No. 134-24), and Ambrose Decl.,
Ex. 38 (ECF No. 134-28), and Cress is hereby DIRECTED to file these items in the public record
within four days from the date of this order.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART
Cress’s Administrative Motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 28, 2026
THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:23-cv-00882-TSH Document 147 Filed 07/28/26 Page 5 of 5