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
`
`
`
`
` Master File Case No. 3:24-cv-01451-CRB
`PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER
`ANOTHER PARTY’S MATERIAL SHOULD BE FILED UNDER SEAL
`[Counsel on signature page]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
`
`In Re Mosaic LLM Litigation
` Master File Case No. 3:24-cv-01451-CRB
`Consolidated with Case No. 3:24-cv-02653-CRB
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION
`TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER
`PARTY’S MATERIAL SHOULD BE FILED
`UNDER SEAL RE: PORTIONS OF
`PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT LETTER BRIEF AND
`EXHIBITS
`
`Judge: Hon. Lisa J. Cisneros
`
`
`Case 3:24-cv-01451-CRB Document 182 Filed 11/07/25 Page 1 of 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
`
`
`
`
` 1 Master File Case No. 3:24-cv-01451-CRB
`PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER
`ANOTHER PARTY’S MATERIAL SHOULD BE FILED UNDER SEAL
`Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5(f) and the Court’s Standing Order regarding Civil
`Cases, Plaintiffs respectfully submit this Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s
`Material Should Be Sealed, filed in connection with the Parties’ Joint Letter Brief regarding Plaintiffs’
`request for leave to take fifteen total depositions of Defendants’ current and former employees.
`Defendants have designated certain materials cited, quoted, or discussed in the Joint Letter Brief
`as “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” as defined in the parties Stipulated
`Protective Order. See Protective Order (ECF No. 62 at 4-6). Plaintiffs move to file under seal the portions
`of the Joint Letter Brief citing, quoting, or discussing those materials, as well as Exhibits A-J to the Joint
`Letter Brief.
`Plaintiffs do not believe the statements Defendants are requiring them to file under seal meets
`these standards. Nonetheless, Civil Local Rule 79-5 requires a party to “file a motion to seal a document
`at the same time that the party submits the document.”
`In addition, Civil Local Rule 79-5(f) requires that when the “Filing Party seeks to seal because
`that document has been designated as confidential by another party,” the Filing Party must file an
`“Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed.” In the motion
`the Filing Party “must identify each document or portions thereof for which sealing is sought, but the
`Filing Party need not satisfy the showing required in subsection [79-5(f)] (c)(1).” Id.
`In compliance with Civil Local Rule 79-5(f), Plaintiffs submit this Administrative Motion because
`the Joint Letter Brief cites, quotes, attaches, or discusses materials or information designated as
`Confidential by Defendant Databricks. With this Administrative Motion, Plaintiffs also file publicly with
`the Court a proposed order granting this motion,
`1 a redacted version of the Joint Letter Brief, and
`redacted exhibits. Plaintiffs further electronically submit to the Court under seal an unredacted version of
`the Joint Letter Brief along with unredacted exhibits.
`Plaintiffs have served this Motion and the exhibits hereto in support of this Motion, the proposed
`order, and the redacted and unredacted versions of the documents sought to be sealed, upon Defendants
`
`1 To the extent the material at issue has been designated Confidential by another party and may not be
`covered by the stipulation of the parties and order of this Court to be designated Confidential pursuant to
`the Protective Order, it is the burden of that party to establish that the designated information is sealable.
`Civil L.R. 79-5(e)(1); see Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 2006).
`Case 3:24-cv-01451-CRB Document 182 Filed 11/07/25 Page 2 of 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
`
`
`
`
` 2 Master File Case No. 3:24-cv-01451-CRB
`PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER
`ANOTHER PARTY’S MATERIAL SHOULD BE FILED UNDER SEAL
`via email, so that Defendants may have an opportunity to file a declaration in support of this Motion to
`Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed.
`Dated: November 7, 2025 Respectfully submitted,
`
` By: /s/ Joseph Saveri
`Joseph R. Saveri
`
` Joseph R. Saveri (SBN 130064)
`Christopher K.L. Young (SBN 318371)
`Evan Creutz (SBN 349728)
`Elissa A. Buchanan (SBN 249996)
`William Castillo Guardado (SBN 294159)
`Holden Benon (SBN 325847)
`JOSEPH SA VERI LAW FIRM, LLP
`601 California Street, Suite 1505
`San Francisco, CA 94108
`Telephone: (415) 500-6800
`Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
`jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
`cyoung@saverilawfirm.com
`ecreutz@saverilawfirm.com
`eabuchanan@saverilawfirm.com
`wcastillo@saverilawfirm.com
`hbenon@saverilawfirm.com
`
` Matthew Butterick (SBN 250953)
`1920 Hillhurst Avenue, #406
`Los Angeles, CA 90027
`Telephone: (323) 968-2632
`Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
`mb@buttericklaw.com
`
` Bryan L. Clobes (admitted pro hac vice)
`Alexander J. Sweatman (admitted pro hac vice)
`Mohammed A. Rathur (admitted pro hac vice)
`CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER
`& SPRENGEL LLP
`135 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3210
`Chicago, IL 60603
`Telephone: (312) 782-4880
`bclobes@caffertyclobes.com
`asweatman@caffertyclobes.com
`mrathur@caffertyclobes.com
`
`Case 3:24-cv-01451-CRB Document 182 Filed 11/07/25 Page 3 of 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
`
`
`
`
` 3 Master File Case No. 3:24-cv-01451-CRB
`PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER
`ANOTHER PARTY’S MATERIAL SHOULD BE FILED UNDER SEAL
` Justin A. Nelson (admitted pro hac vice)
`Alejandra C. Salinas (admitted pro hac vice)
`SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P
`1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100
`Houston, TX 77002-5096
`Telephone: (713) 651-9366
`jnelson@susmangodfrey.com
`asalinas@susmangodfrey.com
`
` Rohit D. Nath (SBN 316062)
`SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P
`1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
`Los Angeles, CA 90067-2906
`Telephone: (310) 789-3100
`RNath@susmangodfrey.com
`
` Elisha Barron (admitted pro hac vice)
`Craig Smyser (admitted pro hac vice)
`SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P
`One Manhattan West, 51st Floor
`New York, NY 10019
`Telephone: (212) 336-8330
`ebarron@susmangodfrey.com
`csmyser@susmangodfrey.com
`
` Jordan W. Connors (admitted pro hac vice)
`Trevor D. Nystrom (admitted pro hac vice)
`SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P
`401 Union Street, Suite 3000
`Seattle, WA 98101
`Telephone: (206) 516-3880
`jconnors@susmangodfrey.com
`tnystrom@susmangodfrey.com
`
` Rachel J. Geman (admitted pro hac vice)
`Danna Z. Elmasry (admitted pro hac vice)
`LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
`250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
`New York, NY 10013
`Telephone: (212) 355-9500
`rgeman@lchb.com
`delmasry@lchb.com
`
` Anne B. Shaver
`LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
`275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: (415) 956-1000
`ashaver@lchb.com
`
`Case 3:24-cv-01451-CRB Document 182 Filed 11/07/25 Page 4 of 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
`
`
`
`
` 4 Master File Case No. 3:24-cv-01451-CRB
`PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER
`ANOTHER PARTY’S MATERIAL SHOULD BE FILED UNDER SEAL
` Betsy A. Sugar (admitted pro hac vice)
`LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
`222 2nd Avenue S. Suite 1640
`Nashville, TN 37201
`Telephone: (615) 313-9000
`bsugar@lchb.com
`
` Rachel J. Geman (admitted pro hac vice)
`Danna Z. Elmasry (admitted pro hac vice)
`LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
`250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
`New York, NY 10013
`Telephone: (212) 355-9500
`rgeman@lchb.com
`delmasry@lchb.com
`
` Counsel for Individual and Representative Plaintiffs and
`the Proposed Class
`
`Case 3:24-cv-01451-CRB Document 182 Filed 11/07/25 Page 5 of 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
` Master File Case No. 3:24-cv-01451-CRB
`PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER
`ANOTHER PARTY’S MATERIAL SHOULD BE FILED UNDER SEAL
`[Counsel on signature page]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
`
`In Re Mosaic LLM Litigation
` Master File Case No. 3:24-cv-01451-CRB
`Consolidated with Case No. 3:24-cv-02653-CRB
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION
`TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER
`PARTY’S MATERIAL SHOULD BE FILED
`UNDER SEAL RE: PORTIONS OF
`PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT LETTER BRIEF AND
`EXHIBITS
`
`Judge: Hon. Lisa J. Cisneros
`
`
`Case 3:24-cv-01451-CRB Document 182 Filed 11/07/25 Page 1 of 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
`
`
`
`
` 1 Master File Case No. 3:24-cv-01451-CRB
`PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER
`ANOTHER PARTY’S MATERIAL SHOULD BE FILED UNDER SEAL
`Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5(f) and the Court’s Standing Order regarding Civil
`Cases, Plaintiffs respectfully submit this Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s
`Material Should Be Sealed, filed in connection with the Parties’ Joint Letter Brief regarding Plaintiffs’
`request for leave to take fifteen total depositions of Defendants’ current and former employees.
`Defendants have designated certain materials cited, quoted, or discussed in the Joint Letter Brief
`as “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” as defined in the parties Stipulated
`Protective Order. See Protective Order (ECF No. 62 at 4-6). Plaintiffs move to file under seal the portions
`of the Joint Letter Brief citing, quoting, or discussing those materials, as well as Exhibits A-J to the Joint
`Letter Brief.
`Plaintiffs do not believe the statements Defendants are requiring them to file under seal meets
`these standards. Nonetheless, Civil Local Rule 79-5 requires a party to “file a motion to seal a document
`at the same time that the party submits the document.”
`In addition, Civil Local Rule 79-5(f) requires that when the “Filing Party seeks to seal because
`that document has been designated as confidential by another party,” the Filing Party must file an
`“Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed.” In the motion
`the Filing Party “must identify each document or portions thereof for which sealing is sought, but the
`Filing Party need not satisfy the showing required in subsection [79-5(f)] (c)(1).” Id.
`In compliance with Civil Local Rule 79-5(f), Plaintiffs submit this Administrative Motion because
`the Joint Letter Brief cites, quotes, attaches, or discusses materials or information designated as
`Confidential by Defendant Databricks. With this Administrative Motion, Plaintiffs also file publicly with
`the Court a proposed order granting this motion,
`1 a redacted version of the Joint Letter Brief, and
`redacted exhibits. Plaintiffs further electronically submit to the Court under seal an unredacted version of
`the Joint Letter Brief along with unredacted exhibits.
`Plaintiffs have served this Motion and the exhibits hereto in support of this Motion, the proposed
`order, and the redacted and unredacted versions of the documents sought to be sealed, upon Defendants
`
`1 To the extent the material at issue has been designated Confidential by another party and may not be
`covered by the stipulation of the parties and order of this Court to be designated Confidential pursuant to
`the Protective Order, it is the burden of that party to establish that the designated information is sealable.
`Civil L.R. 79-5(e)(1); see Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 2006).
`Case 3:24-cv-01451-CRB Document 182 Filed 11/07/25 Page 2 of 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
`
`
`
`
` 2 Master File Case No. 3:24-cv-01451-CRB
`PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER
`ANOTHER PARTY’S MATERIAL SHOULD BE FILED UNDER SEAL
`via email, so that Defendants may have an opportunity to file a declaration in support of this Motion to
`Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed.
`Dated: November 7, 2025 Respectfully submitted,
`
` By: /s/ Joseph Saveri
`Joseph R. Saveri
`
` Joseph R. Saveri (SBN 130064)
`Christopher K.L. Young (SBN 318371)
`Evan Creutz (SBN 349728)
`Elissa A. Buchanan (SBN 249996)
`William Castillo Guardado (SBN 294159)
`Holden Benon (SBN 325847)
`JOSEPH SA VERI LAW FIRM, LLP
`601 California Street, Suite 1505
`San Francisco, CA 94108
`Telephone: (415) 500-6800
`Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
`jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
`cyoung@saverilawfirm.com
`ecreutz@saverilawfirm.com
`eabuchanan@saverilawfirm.com
`wcastillo@saverilawfirm.com
`hbenon@saverilawfirm.com
`
` Matthew Butterick (SBN 250953)
`1920 Hillhurst Avenue, #406
`Los Angeles, CA 90027
`Telephone: (323) 968-2632
`Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
`mb@buttericklaw.com
`
` Bryan L. Clobes (admitted pro hac vice)
`Alexander J. Sweatman (admitted pro hac vice)
`Mohammed A. Rathur (admitted pro hac vice)
`CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER
`& SPRENGEL LLP
`135 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3210
`Chicago, IL 60603
`Telephone: (312) 782-4880
`bclobes@caffertyclobes.com
`asweatman@caffertyclobes.com
`mrathur@caffertyclobes.com
`
`Case 3:24-cv-01451-CRB Document 182 Filed 11/07/25 Page 3 of 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
`
`
`
`
` 3 Master File Case No. 3:24-cv-01451-CRB
`PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER
`ANOTHER PARTY’S MATERIAL SHOULD BE FILED UNDER SEAL
` Justin A. Nelson (admitted pro hac vice)
`Alejandra C. Salinas (admitted pro hac vice)
`SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P
`1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100
`Houston, TX 77002-5096
`Telephone: (713) 651-9366
`jnelson@susmangodfrey.com
`asalinas@susmangodfrey.com
`
` Rohit D. Nath (SBN 316062)
`SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P
`1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
`Los Angeles, CA 90067-2906
`Telephone: (310) 789-3100
`RNath@susmangodfrey.com
`
` Elisha Barron (admitted pro hac vice)
`Craig Smyser (admitted pro hac vice)
`SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P
`One Manhattan West, 51st Floor
`New York, NY 10019
`Telephone: (212) 336-8330
`ebarron@susmangodfrey.com
`csmyser@susmangodfrey.com
`
` Jordan W. Connors (admitted pro hac vice)
`Trevor D. Nystrom (admitted pro hac vice)
`SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P
`401 Union Street, Suite 3000
`Seattle, WA 98101
`Telephone: (206) 516-3880
`jconnors@susmangodfrey.com
`tnystrom@susmangodfrey.com
`
` Rachel J. Geman (admitted pro hac vice)
`Danna Z. Elmasry (admitted pro hac vice)
`LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
`250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
`New York, NY 10013
`Telephone: (212) 355-9500
`rgeman@lchb.com
`delmasry@lchb.com
`
` Anne B. Shaver
`LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
`275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: (415) 956-1000
`ashaver@lchb.com
`
`Case 3:24-cv-01451-CRB Document 182 Filed 11/07/25 Page 4 of 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
`
`
`
`
` 4 Master File Case No. 3:24-cv-01451-CRB
`PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER
`ANOTHER PARTY’S MATERIAL SHOULD BE FILED UNDER SEAL
` Betsy A. Sugar (admitted pro hac vice)
`LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
`222 2nd Avenue S. Suite 1640
`Nashville, TN 37201
`Telephone: (615) 313-9000
`bsugar@lchb.com
`
` Rachel J. Geman (admitted pro hac vice)
`Danna Z. Elmasry (admitted pro hac vice)
`LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
`250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
`New York, NY 10013
`Telephone: (212) 355-9500
`rgeman@lchb.com
`delmasry@lchb.com
`
` Counsel for Individual and Representative Plaintiffs and
`the Proposed Class
`
`Case 3:24-cv-01451-CRB Document 182 Filed 11/07/25 Page 5 of 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
