In a filing to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, non-party DreamHost, LLC asked to keep under seal documents produced in response to a third-party subpoena in the WP Engine v. Automattic litigation, citing confidential business negotiations, pricing-related information, and employee personal data.
Court filings and subpoena timeline
On May 7, 2026, WP Engine filed an administrative motion asking the court to determine whether materials designated as confidential by another party should remain under seal.
In its statement, non-party DreamHost, LLC said it was participating in the matter as the “Designating Party” and was seeking continued sealing of materials it previously marked as confidential.
According to the filing, WP Engine, Inc. served a third-party subpoena on DreamHost, LLC on April 22, 2025, in connection with the ongoing litigation.
After what the filing describes as several meet-and-confer attempts, WP Engine filed a motion to compel against DreamHost in the Central District of California on November 11, 2025.
On December 16, 2025, the court ordered DreamHost and WP Engine to continue discussions over search terms, custodians, and date ranges as part of the subpoena process, with DreamHost expected to produce responsive documents.
The filing also notes that DreamHost raised concerns about being subject to a protective order it did not help draft. According to the statement, the court proceeded on the assumption that the protective order would adequately address those concerns.
DreamHost said it ultimately produced documents to WP Engine on or about April 6, 2026, designating them as:
“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEY EYES ONLY.”
It also stated that WP Engine has continued requesting additional documents and that DreamHost is “working through these requests” as part of the ongoing subpoena matter.
DreamHost argues “good cause“ standard applies
DreamHost argued that while court records are generally presumed to be public, a lower standard applies to materials “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits of a case.”
The filing states that parties seeking to seal such materials must still satisfy the “good cause” standard by showing that disclosure would result in “specific prejudice or harm.”
DreamHost added that “broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning,” are generally insufficient.
The company also cited prior rulings where courts found sealing appropriate for confidential business information, pricing terms, contract negotiations, trade secrets, and materials that could harm competitive standing. The filing also referenced cases recognizing that privacy interests tied to personal information may outweigh public access to court filings.
Applying those arguments to the present dispute, DreamHost said the joint discovery letter concerns:
“A discovery dispute, not the merits of WPE’s claims.”
The company also highlighted that its sealing request was “narrowly tailored” to portions of WP Engine’s filings and exhibits that disclose DreamHost’s confidential commercial information, negotiation history, pricing-related terms, and employee personally identifiable information (PII).
Commercial and privacy concerns cited for sealing
The filing outlined the materials DreamHost wants kept sealed, including portions of a joint discovery letter, highlighted material from a supporting declaration by Gregory A. Fuoco, and multiple attached exhibits.
According to the filing, these materials disclose:
- Business relationship and potential business relationship details
- Confidential business negotiations
- Contemplated pricing terms
- Internal commercial information
- Non-public employee information, including names, phone numbers, and email addresses
DreamHost argued that “good cause exists” to seal portions of the joint discovery letter and Fuoco declaration because they contain:
“Confidential, non-public information concerning DreamHost’s actual and potential business relationships, negotiation history, and contemplated pricing terms.”
The company further argued that public disclosure would allow competitors, “including WPE,” to assess DreamHost-specific commercial terms, negotiation posture, and business strategy.
According to the filing, this:
“Would give competitors an unfair advantage in negotiations, pricing, positioning, and partner strategy.”
DreamHost also argued that “no less restrictive alternative is sufficient” because disclosure of the redacted passages or sealed exhibits “would reveal the very information for which sealing is sought.”
Broader context
DreamHost is not a party in the underlying WP Engine v. Automattic lawsuit, but has become involved through the broader discovery and subpoena process tied to the ongoing litigation.