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.

Optronic Technologies, Inc. v. Ningbo Sunny Electronic Co., Ltd.

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

September 10, 2019

OPTRONIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC, Plaintiff,
v.
NINGBO SUNNY ELECTRONIC CO., LTD., et al., Defendants.

          ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL RE: DKT. NO. 251, 253, 255, 257, 259, 269, 271, 275, 283, 289

          EDWARD J. DAVILA United States District Judge

         The parties have filed ten administrative motions to file under seal the briefing and supporting documentation for their motions for summary judgment and motions to strike expert testimony. Dkt. Nos. 251, 253, 255, 257, 259, 269, 271, 275, 283, 289. This omnibus order addresses in turn each motion to file under seal

         U.S. courts recognize that the public has “a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Whitewater W. Indus., Ltd. v. Pac. Surf Designs, Inc., 2019 WL 1590470, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2019) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). “When considering a sealing request, ‘a strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.'” Space Data Corp. v. Alphabet Inc., 2019 WL 2305278, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 30, 2019) (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). This right is not absolute though. Whitewater W. Indus., 2019 WL 1590470, at *1 (quoting Nixon, 434 U.S. at 598). In order to seal judicial records that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action, ” the moving party must show “compelling reasons” that outweigh the presumption in favor of disclosure. Space Data, 2019 WL 2305278, at *1 (citing Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016)). To make this showing, the moving party must provide “specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Opperman v. Path, Inc., 2017 WL 1036652, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2017). Courts applying the compelling reasons standard have upheld the sealing of trade secrets, marketing strategies, product development plans, detailed product-specific financial information, customer information, internal reports and other such materials that could harm a party's competitive standing. See, e.g., In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 Fed.Appx. 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008); Opperman, 2017 WL 1036652; Lucas v. Breg, Inc., 2016 WL 5464549, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2016); Rodman v. Safeway Inc., 2015 WL 13673842 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2015).

         However, courts should exercise caution not allow these exceptions swallow the strong presumption in favor of disclosure. “There fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant's embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Lucas, 2016 WL 5464549, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2016) (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not carry the compelling standards burden. Space Data, 2019 WL 2305278, at *1 (quoting Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992)). Mere designation of a document as confidential under a protective order is not sufficient to establish that said document, or portions thereof, are sealable. Civil L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A).

         Motions to strike expert testimony that are connected to summary judgment motions may be more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action so that the party seeking sealing of such materials must demonstrate a compelling reason for doing so. In re Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Practices Litig., 686 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2012). The court will apply the compelling reasons standard to the pending motions to seal, whether they seek the sealing of summary judgment materials or Daubert materials. The court now considers each motion to file under seal.

         I. Docket Entry 251 - Defendants' Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portions of Its Motion to Strike Certain Testimony of Orion's Economic Expert Dr. Zona

         The court has reviewed Defendants' motion, the supporting papers, and Plaintiff's declaration in support of the motion. Dkt. No. 265. Finding that Plaintiff has met the compelling reasons standard, the court grants the motion as to portions of Exhibit A that correspond to the highlighted sections of Docket Entry 255-4. The motion is otherwise denied.

         II. Docket Entry 253 - Defendants' Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portions of Its Motion to Strike Certain Testimony of Orion's Telescope Technology Expert Dr. Sasian

         The court has reviewed Defendants' motion, the supporting papers. Plaintiff, the designating party, did not file a declaration in support of this administrative motion. See Civil L.R. 79-5(e). Accordingly, this motion to seal is denied.

         III. Docket Entry 255 - Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

         The Court has reviewed the motion, the supporting papers, and Defendants' errata declaration of Junwen “James” Chiu, filed in support of this motion. Dkt. No. 267. The court grants in part and denies in part the motion as to the exhibits attached to the declaration of Ronald Fisher as follows:

Exhibit 1: Granted for limited sealing in ¶ 70 as indicated in Docket Entry 255-4; otherwise denied.
Exhibits 2-4: Denied; neither party has shown a compelling reason for sealing this material.
Exhibit 5: Granted as to deposition excerpt of James Chiu at pages 92:20-95:6; otherwise denied.
Exhibit 6: Granted as to deposition excerpt of Victor Aniceto at pages ...

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.