ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL POWER INTEGRATIONS' MOTION TO COMPEL A KNOWLEDGEABLE 30(B)(6) WITNESS AND LEGIBLE SCHEMATICS

Re: Dkt. No. 213

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Power Integrations, Inc. ("PI") filed an administrative motion to seal portions of its motion to compel further Rule 30(b)(6) deposition testimony and legible schematics, and to seal certain exhibits accompanying the motion.1 Dkt. No. 213. Defendants support the request to seal. Dkt. No. 216.

There is a strong presumption in favor of access by the public to judicial records and documents accompanying dispositive motions that can be overcome only by a showing of "compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings." Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). However, the presumption does not apply equally to a motion addressing matters that are only "tangentially related to the merits of a case." Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied sub nom. FCA U.S. LLC v. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 137 S.Ct. 38 (2016). A litigant seeking to seal documents or information in connection with such a motion must meet the lower "good cause" standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 1098-99; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80.

PI's motion to seal concerns materials submitted in connection with a discovery dispute. PI asks the Court to seal portions of its motion to compel, excerpts from the transcript of defendants' Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, and excerpts from PI's second amended infringement contentions. The underlying discovery dispute do not address the merits of the parties' claims or defenses, but rather whether defendants should be required to produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness for further deposition and to produce additional schematics. The material to be sealed is only tangentially related to the merits of the case. The Court therefore applies the "good cause" standard of Rule 26(c).

Most of the material proposed to be filed under seal concerns technical information concerning the accused products at issue in this action. Defendants represent that much of this material is confidential or highly confidential information that, if disclosed to the public, would cause competitive harm to defendants. Dkt. No. 216. On this basis, the Court concludes that PI has shown good cause to seal the materials identified in its administrative motion.

Accordingly, the Court grants PI's administrative motion and finds that the following materials may be filed under seal:

IT IS SO ORDERED.