ALI vs OX SECURITIES PTY LTD, et al.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION****

Plaintiff Mohamedsaleem Mubarak Ali’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for order to file documents under seal is DENIED, without prejudice.

On May 21, 2026, Plaintiff filed “Plaintiff’s Supplemental Argument Regarding Newly Produced Records” which is a 37-page filing and includes a notice, a declaration, a “supplemental argument,” and various exhibits.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV016435: ALI vs OX SECURITIES PTY LTD, et al. 06/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Seal Supplemental Evidence in Department 8C

On May 28, 2026, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to file documents under seal. The motion explains that Plaintiff inadvertently publicly filed his Supplemental Evidence and Supplemental Argument filed on May 21, 2026, together with the associated confidential exhibits and supporting materials. Plaintiff asserts that “the documents at issue contain confidential financial records, account-related information, transaction records, and communications produced by non-party Visa Global Services Inc./Currencycloud pursuant to a confidentiality stipulation entered in connection with discovery proceedings relating to Plaintiff’s pending Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena.” (Plaintiff’s Memorandum, 3:5-9.)

The hearing on this motion was advanced to June 10, 2026.

Plaintiff now seeks an order sealing the referenced materials.

The requirements for sealing under California Rules of Court, rule 2.550 et seq. are clear and specific. “A record must not be filed under seal without a court order.” (CRC, Rule 2.551, subd. (a).) “The party requesting that a record be filed under seal must lodge it with the court under (d) [procedure for lodging of records] when the motion or application is made, unless good cause exists for not lodging it or the record has previously been lodged under (3)(A)(i). Pending the determination of the motion or application, the lodged record will be conditionally under seal.” (CRC, Rule 2.551, subd.(b)(4) [emphasis added].) “If necessary to prevent disclosure, any motion or application, any opposition, and any supporting documents must be filed in a public redacted version and lodged in a complete, unredacted version conditionally under seal.” (CRC.

Rule 2.551, subd. (b)(5) [emphasis added].)

Here, Plaintiff only filed the unredacted version of the documents in his May 21, 2026 filing, and failed to lodge any redacted versions conditionally under seal with this motion.

Moreover, Plaintiff seems to seek to seal/redact the entire content of the 37-page May 21, 2026 filing.

California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550(d) provides that a Court may order records sealed if, “(4) the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) no less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.”

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV016435: ALI vs OX SECURITIES PTY LTD, et al. 06/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Seal Supplemental Evidence in Department 8C

Here, Plaintiff’s request is not narrowly tailored because he has not redacted only the confidential material from the 37-page filing, and a less restrictive means of sealing the document exists in that Plaintiff could have sought to seal only those portions of the filing that are purported to contain confidential materials.

Plaintiff’s motion to seal is therefore DENIED, without prejudice.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC, Rule 3.1312.)