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
MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 75, 79
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 are two Administrative Motions to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material
Should Be Sealed, one filed by Cress and one filed by Nexo. ECF Nos. 75, 79. For the reasons
stated below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Cress’s Administrative
Motion and DENIES Nexo’s Administrative 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
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 85 Filed 10/30/25 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
U.S. 589, 597, n.7 (1978)). Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when
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. 75) and Nexo’s
Administrative Motion (ECF No. 79) were filed in connection with Cress’s Motion for Leave to
Amend First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 76). When parties seek to seal exhibits offered in
support of motions for leave to amend and oppositions thereto, “the parties need only demonstrate
‘good cause’ in order to support their requests to seal.” Dunbar v. Google, Inc., No. 5:12-cv-
003305-LHK, 2012 WL 6202719, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2012); see also Pintos v. Pac.
Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Nondispositive motions are often unrelated,
or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action, and, as a result, the public’s interest
in accessing dispositive materials does not apply with equal force to non-dispositive materials.”)
(cleaned up). Accordingly, the good cause standard applies to both Administrative Motions.
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
Case 3:23-cv-00882-TSH Document 85 Filed 10/30/25 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
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
unsealing of the provisionally sealed document without notice to the Designating Party. Id.
III. DISCUSSION
A. ECF No. 75
On September 30, 2025, 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 Leave to Amend First Amended Complaint. ECF Nos. 75, 76. Cress requests that
sixteen documents be filed under seal:
• Declaration of James Taylor-Copeland (“Taylor-Copeland Decl.”) (ECF No. 76-1),
Ex. 2 (ECF No. 75-4)
• Taylor-Copeland Decl., Ex. 3 (ECF No. 75-5)
• Taylor-Copeland Decl., Ex. 4 (ECF No. 75-6)
• Taylor-Copeland Decl., Ex. 5 (ECF No. 75-7)
• Taylor-Copeland Decl., Ex. 6 (ECF No. 75-8)
• Taylor-Copeland Decl., Ex. 7 (ECF No. 75-9)
• Taylor-Copeland Decl., Ex. 8 (ECF No. 75-10)
• Taylor-Copeland Decl., Ex. 9 (ECF No. 75-11)
• Taylor-Copeland Decl., Ex. 10 (ECF No. 75-12)
• Taylor-Copeland Decl., Ex. 11 (ECF No. 75-13)
• Taylor-Copeland Decl., Ex. 12 (ECF No. 75-14)
• Taylor-Copeland Decl., Ex. 13 (ECF No. 75-15)
• Taylor-Copeland Decl., Ex. 14 (ECF No. 75-16)
• Taylor-Copeland Decl., Ex. 15 (ECF No. 75-17)
• Taylor-Copeland Decl., Ex. 16 (ECF No. 75-18)
• Taylor-Copeland Decl., Ex. 17 (ECF No. 75-19)
Case 3:23-cv-00882-TSH Document 85 Filed 10/30/25 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
ECF No. 75.
On October 7, 2025, Nexo responded to Cress’s Administrative Motion requesting sealing
of eight documents: Taylor-Copeland Decl., Exs. 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17. ECF No. 78. Nexo
also requests “the redaction of the third-party email addresses of Nexo customers in Exhibits 4 and
15” to the Taylor-Copeland Declaration. Id. In support of its request, Nexo submits a declaration
from Antoni Trenchev setting forth the bases for sealing each document. See Declaration of
Antoni Trenchev (“Trenchev Decl.”) (ECF No. 78-1).
Overall, Nexo argues that the documents at issue “disclose its proprietary and confidential
business and financial information,” and “disclose its commercially sensitive and non-public
correspondence with U.S. regulators.” ECF No. 78 at 2. Exhibit 2 purportedly describes “retail
OTC execution procedures, potential alternative procedures, and historic customer and financial
data and transaction volumes.” Id. at 4 (citing Trenchev Decl. ¶ 5). Exhibit 9 purportedly
describes “a collateral liquidation transaction and provides various calculations, formulas, and
screenshots from internal systems reflecting system architecture.” Id. (citing Trenchev Decl. ¶ 7).
“Exhibit 10 is a spreadsheet summarizing non-public historical financial performance and
revenues from various sources.” Id. at 5 (citing Trenchev Decl. ¶ 8). Exhibit 13 purportedly
describes “the ‘flow’ for customer service outreach regarding certain Nexo services, including
examples, templates, and internal Nexo email addresses.” Id. (citing Trenchev Decl. ¶ 10).
“Exhibit 11 and 12 are Nexo’s responses to regulatory inquiries sent by Nexo’s external legal
counsel.” Id. at 6 (citing Trenchev Decl. ¶¶ 9, 12). “Exhibits 16 and 17 are additional responses
to regulatory inquiries.” Id. (citing Trenchev Decl. ¶ 12). Finally, Exhibits 4 and 15 disclose
email addresses of Nexo customers who are not parties to this litigation. Id. at 4 (citing Trenchev
Decl. ¶¶ 6, 11).
The Court has reviewed the requested documents to be sealed and finds that good cause
exists to seal the documents as they relate to Nexo’s confidential business information and non-
public correspondence with regulators. See Regis Metro Associates, Inc. v. NBR Co., LLC, No.
20-cv-02309-DMR, 2022 WL 267443, at *14 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2022) (granting motion to seal
because “[a]ll of the documents contain sensitive business information or may be subject to
Case 3:23-cv-00882-TSH Document 85 Filed 10/30/25 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
confidentiality agreements”); LaBarge v. Elutia, Inc., No. 24-cv-1857-MMA-DEB, 2025 WL
1296700, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 5, 2025) (finding good cause exits to seal exhibits containing
“material resulting from government inspection, both conclusions and responses”). The Court
also finds that good cause exists to redact email addresses of Nexo customers from Exhibits 4 and
15 to the Taylor-Copeland 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 seal Taylor-Copeland
Decl., Ex. 2 (ECF No. 75-4), Taylor-Copeland Decl., Ex. 9 (ECF No. 75-11), Taylor-Copeland
Decl., Ex. 10 (ECF No. 75-12), Taylor-Copeland Decl., Ex. 11 (ECF No. 75-13), Taylor-Copeland
Decl., Ex. 12 (ECF No. 75-14), Taylor-Copeland Decl., Ex. 13 (ECF No. 75-15), Taylor-Copeland
Decl., Ex. 16 (ECF No. 75-18), and Taylor-Copeland Decl., Ex. 17 (ECF No. 75-19). Nexo is
hereby DIRECTED to file Taylor-Copeland Decl., Ex. 4 (ECF No. 75-6), and Taylor-Copeland
Decl., Ex. 15 (ECF No. 75-17) in the public record with the email addresses of Nexo customers
redacted within four days from the date of this order.
Nexo states that it does not request sealing of Exhibits 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 14 to the Taylor-
Copeland Declaration. ECF No. 78. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Cress’s Administrative
Motion to seal Taylor-Copeland Decl., Ex. 3 (ECF No. 75-5), Taylor-Copeland Decl., Ex. 5 (ECF
No. 75-7), Taylor-Copeland Decl., Ex. 6 (ECF No. 75-8), Taylor-Copeland Decl., Ex. 7 (ECF No.
75-9), Taylor-Copeland Decl., Ex. 8 (ECF No. 75-10), and Taylor-Copeland Decl., Ex. 14 (ECF
No. 75-16), and Cress is hereby DIRECTED to file these items in the public record within four
days from the date of this order.
B. ECF No. 79
On October 14, 2025, Nexo filed an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another
Party’s Material Should Be Sealed, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5, in connection with its
Opposition to Cress’s Motion for Leave to Amend. ECF Nos. 79, 80. Nexo requests that four
documents be filed under seal:
• Declaration of Ian S. Shelton (“Shelton Decl.”) (ECF No. 79-1), Ex. 8 (ECF No.
Case 3:23-cv-00882-TSH Document 85 Filed 10/30/25 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
79-4)
• Shelton Decl., Ex. 9 (ECF No. 79-5)
• Shelton Decl., Ex. 10 (ECF No. 79-6)
• Shelton Decl., Ex. 11 (ECF No. 79-7)
ECF No. 79. 2
Under Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3), Cress had seven days to file a statement or declaration
justifying the sealing. Cress did not do so. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Nexo’s
Administrative Motion to seal Shelton Decl., Ex. 8 (ECF No. 79-4), Shelton Decl., Ex. 9 (ECF No.
79-5), Shelton Decl., Ex. 10 (ECF No. 79-6), and Shelton Decl., Ex. 11 (ECF No. 79-7), and Nexo
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 and DENIES Nexo’s Administrative Motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 30, 2025
THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge
2 Nexo filed redacted versions of these exhibits to the Shelton Declaration on the public docket.
See ECF Nos. 80-9 (Ex. 8), 80-10 (Ex. 9), 80-11 (Ex. 10), 80-12 (Ex. 11).
Case 3:23-cv-00882-TSH Document 85 Filed 10/30/25 Page 6 of 6