Filed: Apr. 18, 2017
Latest Update: Apr. 18, 2017
Summary: ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART FINISAR CORPORATION'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL [Re: ECF 743] BETH LABSON FREEMAN , District Judge . Before the Court is Plaintiff Finisar Corporation's ("Finisar") administrative motion to file under seal portions of its Opposition to Defendant Nistica, Inc.'s ("Nistica") Motion for Fees Under 35 U.S.C. 285 and select exhibits in support thereof. ECF 743. For the reasons stated below, the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN P
Summary: ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART FINISAR CORPORATION'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL [Re: ECF 743] BETH LABSON FREEMAN , District Judge . Before the Court is Plaintiff Finisar Corporation's ("Finisar") administrative motion to file under seal portions of its Opposition to Defendant Nistica, Inc.'s ("Nistica") Motion for Fees Under 35 U.S.C. 285 and select exhibits in support thereof. ECF 743. For the reasons stated below, the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PA..
More
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART FINISAR CORPORATION'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
[Re: ECF 743]
BETH LABSON FREEMAN, District Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff Finisar Corporation's ("Finisar") administrative motion to file under seal portions of its Opposition to Defendant Nistica, Inc.'s ("Nistica") Motion for Fees Under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and select exhibits in support thereof. ECF 743. For the reasons stated below, the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
"Historically, courts have recognized a `general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.'" Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are "more than tangentially related to the merits of a case" may be sealed only upon a showing of "compelling reasons" for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of "good cause." Id. at 1097.
In addition, sealing motions filed in this district must be "narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material." Civil L.R. 79-5(b). A party moving to seal a document in whole or in part must file a declaration establishing that the identified material is "sealable." Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). "Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable." Id.
II. DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed Finisar's sealing motion (ECF 743) and the parties' declarations in support thereof (ECF 743-1, 746). The Court finds the parties have articulated compelling reasons and good cause to seal the submitted documents. The Court's rulings on the sealing request are set forth in the table below:
ECF Document to Result Reasoning
No. be Sealed
743-4 Finisar's GRANTED as Contains confidential information regarding
Opposition to to highlighted Nistica's business strategies, plans and technical
Nistica's portions. information about Nistica's products. Bennett
Motion for Fees Decl. ¶ 12, ECF 746. Contains the same
Under 35 confidential, proprietary, and
U.S.C. § 285 sensitive information as Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 12,
13, 14, 15, 17, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, and 31.
Chao Decl. ¶ 14, ECF 743-1.
743-6 Ex. 1 to Lahav GRANTED. Contains Nistica's confidential, proprietary and
Decl. ISO trade secret information about Nistica's products
Finisar's and business/marketing strategies and plans.
Opposition to Bennett Decl. ¶ 2; Chao Decl. ¶ 2.
Nistica's
Motion for Fees
Under 35
U.S.C. § 285,
ECF 744-1
("Lahav Decl.")
743-8 Ex. 2 to Lahav GRANTED. Contains confidential and proprietary technical
Decl. information regarding Nistica's products. Bennett
Decl. ¶ 3; Chao Decl. ¶ 3.
743-10 Ex. 4 to Lahav GRANTED. Contains confidential and proprietary technical
Decl. information regarding Nistica's products. Bennett
Decl. ¶ 3; Chao Decl. ¶ 3.
743-12 Ex. 5 to Lahav DENIED Denied because Finisar's request is not narrowly
Decl. without tailored. However, because the document
prejudice. "contains confidential and proprietary technical
information regarding Nistica's products," Bennett
Decl. ¶ 4, Chao Decl. ¶ 4, Finisar may revise its
request by re-filing redacted and un-redacted
highlighted versions of this document indicating
the portions that should be sealed.
743-14 Ex. 7 to Lahav DENIED Denied because Finisar's request is not narrowly
Decl. without tailored. However, because the document
prejudice. "contains confidential and proprietary technical
information regarding Nistica's products," Bennett
Decl. ¶ 5, Chao Decl. ¶ 5, Finisar may revise its
request by re-filing redacted and un-redacted
highlighted versions of this document indicating
the portions that should be sealed.
743-16 Ex. 12 to Lahav GRANTED. Contains confidential and proprietary technical
Decl. information regarding Nistica's products. Bennett
Decl. ¶ 6; Chao Decl. ¶ 6.
743-18 Ex. 13 to Lahav GRANTED. Contains proprietary information belonging to a
Decl. customer of Finisar, to which Finisar owes
confidentiality obligations. Chao Decl. ¶ 7. The
sensitive business information contained in these
exhibits could cause significant competitive harm
to Finisar if disclosed to the public. Id.
743-20 Ex. 14 to Lahav GRANTED. Contains proprietary information belonging to a
Decl. customer of Finisar, to which Finisar owes
confidentiality obligations. Chao Decl. ¶ 7. The
sensitive business information contained in these
exhibits could cause significant competitive harm
to Finisar if disclosed to the public. Id.
743-22 Ex. 15 to Lahav GRANTED. Contains confidential information regarding
Decl. Finisar's business/marketing strategies and plans.
Chao Decl. ¶ 8.
743-24 Ex. 17 to Lahav DENIED Denied because Finisar's request is not narrowly
Decl. without tailored. However, because the document
prejudice. "contains confidential and proprietary technical
information regarding Nistica's products," Bennett
Decl. ¶ 7, Chao Decl. ¶ 9, Finisar may revise its
request by re-filing redacted and un-redacted
highlighted versions of this document indicating
the portions that should be sealed.
743-26 Ex. 20 to Lahav GRANTED. Contains confidential and proprietary technical
Decl. information regarding Nistica's products. Bennett
Decl. ¶ 8; Chao Decl. ¶ 10.
743-28 Ex. 21 to Lahav GRANTED. Contains confidential and proprietary technical
Decl. information regarding Nistica's products. Bennett
Decl. ¶ 8; Chao Decl. ¶ 10.
743-30 Ex. 24 to Lahav GRANTED. Contains confidential and proprietary technical
Decl. information regarding Nistica's products. Bennett
Decl. ¶ 9; Chao Decl. ¶ 11.
743-32 Ex. 25 to Lahav GRANTED. Contains confidential and proprietary technical
Decl. information regarding Nistica's products. Bennett
Decl. ¶ 8; Chao Decl. ¶ 10.
743-34 Ex. 27 to Lahav GRANTED. Contains confidential information regarding
Decl. Nistica's business/marketing strategies and plans.
Bennett Decl. ¶ 10; Chao Decl. ¶ 12.
743-36 Ex. 28 to Lahav GRANTED. Contains confidential and proprietary technical
Decl. information regarding Nistica's products. Bennett
Decl. ¶ 8; Chao Decl. ¶ 10.
743-38 Ex. 29 to Lahav GRANTED. Contains confidential and proprietary technical
Decl. information regarding Nistica's products. Bennett
Decl. ¶ 8; Chao Decl. ¶ 10.
743-40 Ex. 31 to Lahav DENIED Denied because Finisar's request is not narrowly
Decl. without tailored. However, because the document
prejudice. "contains confidential and proprietary technical
information regarding Nistica's products," Bennett
Decl. ¶ 11, Chao Decl. ¶ 13, Finisar may revise its
request by re-filing redacted and un-redacted
highlighted versions of this document indicating
the portions that should be sealed.
III. ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, Finisar's sealing motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 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 from the filing of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
