Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Finisar Corporation v. Nistica, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division

April 25, 2017

FINISAR CORPORATION, Plaintiff,
v.
NISTICA, INC., Defendant.

          ORDER GRANTING NISTICA, INC.'S AMENDED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF ITS REPLY TO MOTION FOR FEES AND SELECT EXHIBITS

          BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge

         Before the Court is Defendant Nistica, Inc.'s (“Nistica”) amended administrative motion to file under seal portions of its Reply to its Motion for Fees Under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and select exhibits to the Declaration of Jennifer D. Bennett in Support thereof. ECF 754. This amended motion modifies Nistica's original sealing motion, which was filed on April 13, 2017. ECF 747. For the reasons stated below, the amended motion at ECF 754 is GRANTED and the original motion at ECF 747 is TERMINATED AS MOOT.

         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 Nistica's amended sealing motion (ECF 754), its declaration in support thereof (ECF 754-1), and its declaration in support of its original sealing motion (ECF 747-1). The Court finds that Nistica has 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 No.

Document to be Sealed

Result

Reasoning

747-4

Nistica's Reply to its Motion for Fees Under 35 U.S.C. § 285

GRANTED as to highlighted portions.

Contains confidential, trade secret and proprietary product information relating to its accused products and development projects. Kramer Decl. ¶ 2, ECF 747-1.

747-5

Ex. 2 to Bennett Decl. ISO Nistica's Reply to its Motion for Fees Under 35 U.S.C. § 285, ECF 744-1 (“Bennett Decl.”)

GRANTED.

Contains Nistica's confidential, trade secret and proprietary product information relating to its accused products and development projects. Kramer Decl. ¶ 3.

747-6

Ex. 3 to Bennett Decl.

GRANTED.

Contains Nistica's confidential, trade secret and proprietary product information relating to its accused products and development projects. Kramer Decl. ¶ 3.

747-7

Ex. 5 to Bennett Decl.

GRANTED.

Contains Nistica's confidential, trade secret and proprietary product information relating to its accused products and development projects. Kramer Decl. ¶ 3.

747-8

Ex. 6 to Bennett Decl.

GRANTED.

Contains Nistica's confidential, trade secret and proprietary product information relating to its accused products and development projects. Kramer Decl. ¶ 3.

747-9

Ex. 7 to Bennett Decl.

GRANTED.

Contains Nistica's confidential, trade secret and proprietary product information relating to its accused products and development projects. Kramer Decl. ¶ 3.

747-10

Ex. 8 to Bennett Decl.

GRANTED.

Contains Nistica's confidential, trade secret and proprietary product information relating to its accused products and development projects. Kramer Decl. ¶ 3.

747-11

Ex. 9 to Bennett Decl.

GRANTED.

Contains Nistica's confidential, trade secret and proprietary product information relating to its accused products and development projects. Kramer Decl. ¶ 3.

747-12

Ex. 10 to Bennett Decl.

GRANTED.

Contains Nistica's confidential, trade secret and proprietary product information relating to its accused products and development projects. Kramer Decl. ¶ 3.

747-13

Ex. 11 to Bennett Decl.

GRANTED.

Contains Nistica's confidential, trade secret and proprietary product information relating to its accused products and development projects. Kramer Decl. ¶ 3.

         III. ORDER

         For the foregoing reasons, Nistica's amended sealing motion at ECF 754 is GRANTED. Nistica's original sealing ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.