Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

FINISAR CORPORATION v. NISTICA, INC., 13-cv-03345-BLF. (2015)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20151222a77 Visitors: 10
Filed: Dec. 18, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 18, 2015
Summary: ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS TO SEAL BETH LABSON FREEMAN , District Judge . On December 11, 2015, the Court denied without prejudice part of the parties' administrative motions to file documents under seal in connection with their respective briefing on summary judgment. ECF 364. On December 17, both parties submitted supplemental declarations that provided additional reasons for sealing these documents. ECF 370, 371. Courts recognize a "general right to inspect and copy public records and docu
More

ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS TO SEAL

On December 11, 2015, the Court denied without prejudice part of the parties' administrative motions to file documents under seal in connection with their respective briefing on summary judgment. ECF 364. On December 17, both parties submitted supplemental declarations that provided additional reasons for sealing these documents. ECF 370, 371.

Courts recognize a "general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents." Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Two standards govern motions to seal documents, a "compelling reasons" standard, which applies to most judicial records, and a "good cause" standard, which applies to "private materials unearthed during discovery." Cf. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002). A party that seeks to seal portions of supporting documents to a motion for summary judgment must meet the "compelling reasons" standard articulated in Phillips. In this District, parties seeking to seal judicial records must furthermore follow Civil Local Rule 79-5, which requires, inter alia, that a sealing request be "narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material." Civil L.R. 79-5(b) (emphasis added). Where the submitting party seeks to file under seal a document designated confidential by another party, the burden of articulating compelling reasons for sealing is placed on the designating party. Id. 79-5(e).

The Court has reviewed the supplemental declarations in support of the sealing motion. The Court finds that the parties have articulated compelling reasons to seal most of the submitted documents and where compelling reasons have been provided, the proposed redactions are also narrowly tailored. The Court's rulings on the sealing requests are set forth in the tables below:

Motion to Seal at ECF 356 Identification of Documents Description of Documents Court's Order to be Sealed Portions of the Declaration of Discussing a stipulation between DENIED because the Jennifer D. Bennett the parties. supplemental declarations did not provide any additional reasons to seal. Exhibits 13, 16-20, 23, 25 to Contains confidential, trade secret GRANTED the Bennett Declaration and proprietary product information relating to the accused products and confidential information regarding business/marketing strategies and plans Exhibits 22 and 24 to the Press and News releases. DENIED because the Bennett Declaration supplemental declarations did not provide any additional reasons to seal. Motion to Seal at ECF 360 Identification of Documents Description of Documents Court's Order to be Sealed Exhibits R3, R7, R9, R13, Contains confidential, trade secret GRANTED R15, R16, R27, R28, R29, and proprietary product R31-R37, R38, R39-R48, R49, information including sensitive R50-R58, R60, R65, R66, R68, financial, manufacturing, and R71, R73, R74, R80, R83-R86 shipping information and third-party confidential information regarding specifications and schematics. Plaintiff's Opposition to Quotes from or cites to the above GRANTED Defendant's Motion for exhibits Summary Judgment; Portions of Plaintiff's Responsive Separate Statement to Defendant's Amended Statement of Undisputed Facts; Declaration of Dr. Katherine Hall in support thereof

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the sealing motion at ECF 356 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART and the sealing motion at ECF 360 is GRANTED. Under Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(2), for any request that has been denied because the party designating a document as confidential or subject to a protective order has not provided sufficient reasons to seal, the submitting party must file the unredacted (or lesser redacted) documents into the public record no earlier than 4 days and no later than 10 days form the filing of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer