PCT International Incorporated v. Holland Electronics LLC

Filing 221

ORDER granting/denying in part 216 PCT's Renewed Motion to Under Seal Certain Documents FURTHER ORDERED See Order for Complete List of Documents Allowed to be Filed Under Seal. FURTHER ORDERED granting /denying in part 214 Holland's R evised Motion to File Under Seal. FURTHER ORDERED that Holland may file under seal as needed the following documents that Holland has lodged under seal as exhibits to the Shaw Declaration (Doc. 214-1): (1) Exhibit 1; (2) Exhibit 2; (3) Exhibit 3; (4 ) Exhibit 5; (5) Exhibit 6; (6) Exhibit 9; and (7) Exhibit 10. FURTHER ORDERED that the parties may, on or before 12/1/14, file the following motions: (1) PCT's motion to exclude the expert opinion of David A. Haas; (2) PCT's motion to exclude the expert opinion of Daniel J. Whittle; and (3) Holland's motion for summary judgment (alternatively, for partial summary judgment and to preclude any theory of indirect infringement for lack of disclosure). Any responses are due 12/8/14. Any replies are due 12/15/14. SEE ORDER FOR COMPLETE DETAILS. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 11/18/14.(MAP)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

PCT International Incorporated,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-12-01797-PHX-JAT

Holland Electronics LLC,

13

Defendant.

14

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff PCT International Inc. (“PCT”)’s Renewed

15

Motion to File Under Seal Certain Documents (Doc. 216) and Defendant Holland

16

Electronics, LLC (“Holland”)’s Revised Motion to File Under Seal (Doc. 214). The

17

Court now rules on the motions.

18

I.

Background

19

Both parties in this case filed a number of motions to file under seal dispositive

20

motions (including responses and replies) and various documents attached to dispositive

21

motions. The Court denied without prejudice the motions to file under seal, finding that

22

the parties had not met the standard for sealing documents attached to a dispositive

23

motion under Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case law. (Doc. 213). The Court ordered the

24

parties to each file a single motion to file under seal addressing all documents sought to

25

be sealed and for each document, specifying with particularity the compelling reasons

26

why that document should be sealed. (Id. at 8).

27
28

Each party has filed a motion to file under seal as well as a response to the other
party’s motion. (Docs. 214, 216, 217, 218). The Court now rules on the motions.

1

II.

Legal Standard

2

It has long been recognized that the public has a general right of access “to inspect

3

and copy . . . judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435

4

U.S. 589, 597 (1978). This right extends to all judicial records except those that have

5

“traditionally been kept secret for important policy reasons,” namely grand jury

6

transcripts and certain warrant materials. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447

7

F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). “Unless a particular court record is one ‘traditionally

8

kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (citing

9

Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “[T]he

10

strong presumption of access to judicial records applies fully to dispositive pleadings,

11

including motions for summary judgment and related attachments,” because “the

12

resolution of a dispute on the merits, whether by trial or summary judgment, is at the

13

heart of the interest in ensuring the ‘public’s understanding of the judicial process and of

14

significant public events.’” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Valley Broadcasting

15

Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Dist. of Nev., 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986)).

16

“A party seeking to seal a judicial record then bears the burden of overcoming this

17

strong presumption by meeting the ‘compelling reasons’ standard.” Id. at 1178 (citing

18

Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135). The party must “articulate compelling reasons supported by

19

specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public

20

policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial

21

process.” Id. at 1178-79 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). A court

22

deciding to seal judicial records must “base its decision on a compelling reason and

23

articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id.

24

at 1179 (quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)).

25

The presumption of public access is not rebutted merely because “documents

26

subject to a protective order are filed under seal as attachments to a dispositive motion.”

27

Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136. A party seeking to seal a judicial record must still meet its heavy

28

burden of demonstrating compelling reasons exist for sealing. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at

-2-

1

1179.

2

“In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in

3

disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have

4

become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private

5

spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id.

6

(quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). “The mere fact that the production of records may lead

7

to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not,

8

without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id.

9

Accordingly, a party’s allegations that material is “confidential” or “business

10

information” are insufficient to justify sealing court records containing such material

11

unless the party proves the existence of compelling reasons for sealing. Krause v. Nev.

12

Mut. Ins. Co., 2013 WL 3776146, at *5 (D. Nev. July 16, 2013) (citing Kamakana, 447

13

F.3d at 1179). Moreover, because “confidentiality alone does not transform business

14

information into a trade secret,” a party alleging trade secret protection as a basis for

15

sealing court records must show that the business information is in fact a trade secret. St.

16

Clair v. Nellcor Puritan Bennett LLC, 2011 WL 5335559, at *2 (D. Ariz. Nov. 7, 2011).

17

Thus, only in extremely limited circumstances will confidential information actually

18

merit the sealing of court records. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1182 (finding that

19

conclusory statements about the content of documents did not provide “compelling

20

reasons sufficiently specific to bar the public access to the documents”).

21

III.

Analysis

22

A.

23

PCT asks to file under seal six documents that it asserts contain “highly

24

confidential commercially sensitive information.” (Doc. 216 at 2). The Court will address

25

each document in turn.

26

PCT’s Motion to File Under Seal

1.

PCT’s License Agreements

27

PCT seeks to file under seal the excerpted expert report of David A. Haas

28

previously attached as Exhibit 5 to the Declaration of Jamie R. Kurtz. (Id. at 5). This

-3-

1

report contains, among other information, a discussion of royalty rates that PCT pays to

2

license other patents for its use. PCT submits the declaration of PCT’s vice president

3

Brandon Wilson, who testifies that PCT maintains the secrecy of its license agreements

4

and these agreements are important to PCT’s competitive standing during patent

5

licensing negotiations. (Doc. 216-2 at 2).

6

Royalty rates contained in a license agreement can be trade secrets. See In re

7

Electronic Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008). “A ‘trade secret may consist

8

of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is used in one’s

9

business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors

10

who do not know or use it.’” Id. (quoting Restatement (First) of Torts § 757 cmt. b). In

11

MMI, Inc. v. Baja, Inc., 743 F. Supp. 2d 1101 (D. Ariz. 2010), the Court concluded that a

12

license agreement including the royalty rate charged to licensees was a trade secret

13

because the information was not generally known by others, the information was not

14

readily ascertainable by proper means, and the license terms were business decisions that

15

affected profitability. 743 F. Supp. 2d at 1106.

16

The release of trade secrets is a compelling reason sufficient to outweigh the

17

public’s interest in disclosure. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. The Court concludes

18

that PCT has demonstrated compelling reasons for sealing this document, and will permit

19

PCT to file this document under seal.
2.

20

PCT’s Bag Label Drawings

21

PCT seeks to file under seal bag and connector label drawings originally submitted

22

as Exhibits 13, 37, and 38 to the Harting Declaration. (Doc. 216 at 7). These drawings

23

contain specifications for the packaging in which PCT products are sent to customers,1

24

and show design elements such as PCT’s logo, the product name (for example,

25

“compression connectors”), the typeface used for various pieces of text, and so forth. The

26

drawings also show the identity of PCT’s manufacturer.

27
28

1

The connector label drawings contain specifications for a vinyl label that is
presumably affixed to PCT’s connectors.
-4-

1

PCT asserts that the identity of its manufacturer is a protectable trade secret and

2

that it has not publicly disclosed this identity. (Id. at 9). But PCT has disclosed its

3

manufacturer several times, most significantly in its complaint in a collateral action in the

4

District of Nevada. See Complaint at 5-7, Andes Industries, Inc., et al. v. Cheng Sun Lan,

5

et al., No. 2:14-cv-00400-APG-GWF (D. Nev. Mar. 18, 2014). The Court takes judicial

6

notice of the allegations in that complaint not for the truth of those allegations but merely

7

for the fact that PCT filed them into the public record. Fed. R. Evid. 201(c)(1); Peel v.

8

BrooksAmerica Mortg. Corp., 788 F. Supp. 2d 1149, 1157-58 (C.D. Cal. 2011). Because

9

PCT has publicly disclosed the identity of its manufacturer, this information cannot

10

qualify as a trade secret. See MMI, 743 F. Supp. 2d at 1105-06; A.R.S. § 44-401(4)(b)

11

(Arizona Uniform Trade Secrets Act). Accordingly, PCT has not shown that these

12

documents should be filed under seal.

13

3.

PCT’s Engineering Drawings

14

PCT also seeks to file under seal various engineering drawings of its connector

15

designs originally submitted as Exhibits 36 and 39 to the Harting Declaration. (Doc. 216

16

at 6). These drawings show the detailed dimensional specifications for PCT’s connectors,

17

including measurements, design tolerances, and materials of manufacture. PCT asserts

18

that it is difficult to reverse engineer PCT’s connectors to determine the precise

19

dimensions of each component and that it would be extremely difficult and expensive to

20

ascertain PCT’s precise design tolerances from finished connectors. (Doc. 216-2 at 2-3).

21

PCT also asserts that these design tolerances have significant economic value, PCT has

22

expended significant resources to define the optimal tolerances, and PCT does not

23

publicly disclose these tolerances. (Id. at 3). PCT makes similar arguments concerning

24

materials of manufacture. (Id. at 4-5).

25

Because the Court finds portions of this information to constitute trade secrets, the

26

Court will permit PCT to file these documents under seal. However, the drawings

27

themselves are not trade secrets because they are merely schematics of connectors that

28

PCT makes available for sale. Thus, PCT’s redacted public version of these documents

-5-

1

must redact only the numbers in the schematics that represent the measurements and

2

design tolerances. The materials of manufacture must not be redacted.

3

B.

4

PCT originally also sought to file under seal documents that Holland had

5

designated as protected under the protective order. Holland argues in its response to

6

PCT’s motion to file under seal that PCT should be permitted to file these documents

7

under seal. (Doc. 218 at 7). Because Holland has an interest in preserving the

8

confidentiality of these documents, the Court will address Holland’s arguments. The

9

Court will address each document in turn.

10

Holland’s Response to PCT’s Motion to File Under Seal

1.

Exhibit 6 to the Yang Declaration

11

Holland has redacted portions of the document originally filed as Exhibit 6 to the

12

Yang Declaration that it considers to contain confidential information that “constitutes

13

Holland’s trade secrets.” (Id. at 7). The Court has examined this document and notes that

14

Holland’s proposed redactions include photos of its connectors and industry-standard

15

tests for tensile strength. Because Holland sells its connectors to the public, there is

16

nothing about conducting tests upon those connectors that falls into the classification of a

17

trade secret. Metrics of how well Holland’s connectors perform in various environments

18

are not trade secrets.

19

This document also contains, however, reproductions of Holland’s engineering

20

drawings that show the dimensions for components of Holland’s connectors as well as

21

design tolerances. For the same reasons as the Court discussed above with respect to

22

PCT’s engineering drawings, these are protectable trade secrets. But because the

23

engineering drawings are included in this document for purposes other than referencing

24

the dimensions and design tolerances, redaction of this irrelevant information is more

25

appropriate than even filing the entire document under seal but redacting only the

26

engineering drawings. Accordingly, the Court will permit this document to be filed under

27

seal but the redacted public document must redact only the dimensions and design

28

tolerances in the engineering drawings.

-6-

2.

1

Exhibit 8 to the Yang Declaration

2

The document originally submitted as Exhibit 8 to the Yang Declaration is similar

3

to Exhibit 6 to the Yang Declaration in that Holland proposes to redact an engineering

4

drawing as well as a description of a test performed upon Holland’s connectors. Because

5

the test procedure was performed in accordance with industry standards and Holland’s

6

connectors are publicly available, Holland has not shown that selecting and performing

7

tests upon its connectors constitute trade secrets. For the same reasons as discussed with

8

respect to Exhibit 6 to the Yang Declaration, the Court will permit Exhibit 8 to the Yang

9

Declaration to be filed under seal but the redacted public document must redact only the

10

dimensions and design tolerances in the engineering drawings.
3.

11

Exhibit 5 to the Kurtz Declaration

12

Holland argues that the document originally submitted as Exhibit 5 to the Kurtz

13

Declaration contains Holland’s trade secrets justifying sealing. (Doc. 218 at 7). Because

14

the Court has already concluded that PCT may file this document under seal, the Court

15

need not address Holland’s contentions. It appears to the Court that the protective order

16

between PCT and Holland will require PCT to incorporate Holland’s suggested

17

redactions.

18

4.

Exhibit 7 to the Kurtz Declaration

19

Holland has marked portions of the document originally submitted as Exhibit 7 to

20

the Kurtz Declaration that it considers to be its trade secrets. These portions of the

21

document include engineering drawings of Holland’s connectors and a report of a tensile

22

test performed on Holland’s connectors. For the reasons discussed with respect to Exhibit

23

6 to the Yang Declaration, the Court will permit PCT to file this document under seal but

24

the redacted public version must redact only the dimensions and design tolerances in

25

engineering drawings.

26

The Court further notes that Exhibit 7 to the Kurtz Declaration describes, in non-

27

redacted text, that industry standard tests for “sealing performance and minimum axial

28

pull forces” exist, including ANSI/SCTE 60 2004 and ANSI/SCTE 123 2006. The exhibit

-7-

1

also states that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the moisture

2

penetration and axial pull tests are contained in the specific industry standards provided

3

above and are the primary mechanical performance tests that deal with the termination of

4

the cable to a connector by axial crimping.” Following this admission, it is somewhat

5

incredible that Holland attempts to redact the results of these industry standard tests when

6

any person of ordinary skill in the art would be familiar with these tests and can obtain

7

Holland’s connectors to perform such tests. Thus, Holland’s proposed redactions are

8

inappropriate.
5.

9

Exhibit 1 to the Harting Declaration

10

Holland asks that the Court permit PCT to file under seal the document originally

11

submitted as Exhibit 1 to the Harting Declaration. (Doc. 218 at 7). The Court has

12

reviewed Holland’s proposed redactions and finds inconsistencies that negate any

13

protective effect. For example, although Holland redacts a column in a table that contains

14

Holland part numbers for “outer barrel” component parts, Holland does not redact a

15

sentence that lists those Holland products in which part number SLCU-6QA-CC is used.

16

Regardless, Holland has not shown that its part numbers are themselves trade secrets.

17

Holland also redacts references to a deposition of Michael Holland, but the references to

18

a lawsuit filed by John Mezzalingua Associations, Inc. d/b/a PPC cannot be trade secrets

19

because all lawsuits are public record. Similarly, Michael Holland’s testimony about

20

redesigning Holland components is not a trade secret. The mere fact that this testimony

21

could be embarrassing to Holland does not convert it into such. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d

22

at 1179.

23

The Court also fails to see how drawings of Holland outer barrel components

24

showing no dimensions or design tolerances qualify as a trade secret when the level of

25

detail in the drawings is no greater than that contained in PCT’s patent and anyone could

26

disassemble a Holland connector and make such drawings. These drawings do not merit

27

sealing.

28

Nevertheless, because this document also contains Holland’s engineering

-8-

1

drawings, the Court will permit PCT to file this document under seal, but the only

2

redactions in the unsealed version shall be the dimensions, design tolerances, and

3

manufacturer identities contained within the reproductions of the engineering drawings.
6.

4

Exhibit 6 to the Harting Declaration

5

Holland requests that PCT be permitted to file under seal the document originally

6

submitted as Exhibit 6 to the Harting Declaration. (Doc. 218 at 7). The information

7

proposed to be redacted in this document is Holland’s test data gathered in the

8

performance of industry-standard tests on Holland’s connectors. For the reasons already

9

stated, the parties have not demonstrated that this data is a trade secret. Nor does the

10

description of Holland’s connector after crimping constitute a trade secret. The Court will

11

not permit this document to be filed under seal.
7.

12

Exhibit 22 to the Harting Declaration

13

The document originally submitted as Exhibit 22 to the Harting Declaration is a

14

transcript of a deposition of Reed Gibson, a Holland employee, who testified regarding

15

tensile strength tests that Holland conducted on its connectors. For the reasons already

16

stated, the Court will not permit this document to be filed under seal.
8.

17

Exhibit 27 to the Harting Declaration

18

The document originally submitted as Exhibit 27 to the Harting Declaration

19

consists of an e-mail exchange between Holland and ezConn concerning a proposed

20

change to one of Holland’s connectors. Although the contents of this e-mail may be

21

embarrassing to Holland, there has been no showing that it contains trade secret

22

information. However, the engineering drawing attached to the e-mail, which may not

23

represent a final released product, may be a trade secret. Therefore, PCT may file this

24

document under seal but the redacted public version must redact only the engineering

25

drawing.

26

9.

Exhibit 28 to the Harting Declaration

27

The document originally submitted as Exhibit 28 to the Harting Declaration is

28

similar to Exhibit 27 in that it consists of an e-mail between Holland and ezConn along

-9-

1

with engineering drawing attachments. For the same reasons, PCT may file this document

2

under seal but the redacted public version must redact only the engineering drawings.

3

10.

Exhibit 9 to the Kurtz Declaration

4

The document originally submitted as Exhibit 9 to the Kurtz Declaration contains

5

a report concerning a royalty agreement between Holland and a third party. Because

6

royalty rates contained in a license agreement can be trade secrets, and Holland alleges

7

that Holland has maintained this license agreement as a confidential trade secret, (Doc.

8

220 at 5), the Court will permit PCT to file this document under seal.

9

11.

Exhibit 11 to the Kurtz Declaration

10

The document originally submitted as Exhibit 11 to the Kurtz Declaration is a

11

transcript of a deposition in which the deponent testifies as to the reasonable royalty rate

12

in this case. The Court will permit this document to be filed under seal with the single-

13

line redaction in the public version proposed by Holland.

14

12.

Exhibit 29 to the Harting Declaration

15

The document originally submitted as Exhibit 29 to the Harting Declaration is an

16

excerpt from an expert report that discusses damages in terms of a reasonable royalty rate

17

between PCT and Holland. As with Exhibit 11 to the Kurtz Declaration, the Court will

18

permit this document to be filed under seal.

19

13.

Exhibit 30 to the Harting Declaration

20

The document originally submitted as Exhibit 30 to the Harting Declaration

21

contains a single-page spreadsheet listing Holland’s sales data for certain connectors,

22

including the average sales price. Because this information constitutes a trade secret, the

23

Court will permit it to be filed under seal.

24

14.

Exhibit 21 to the Harting Declaration

25

The document originally submitted as Exhibit 21 to the Harting Declaration is a

26

deposition transcript in which the deponent testified as to the historical relationship

27

between Holland and its parent company Amphenol with respect to sales. Because this

28

testimony was strictly historical and not prospective, the Court cannot conclude that it is

- 10 -

1

a trade secret. The Court will not permit PCT to file this document under seal.
15.

2

Exhibit 31 to the Harting Declaration

3

The document originally submitted as Exhibit 31 to the Harting Declaration is a

4

deposition transcript in which the deponent testified as to the accounting reports that

5

Holland generates and regularly transmits to its parent company Amphenol. The text that

6

Holland proposes to redact concerns the fact that Holland uses accounting software each

7

month to report the number of employees, the income statement, balance sheet,

8

intercompany sales, and the like. There are no specific numbers concerning any of these

9

reports. There also is no evidence that the fact Holland reports regularly to its parent

10

company is a trade secret. Indeed, anyone with business experience would expect a

11

subsidiary to provide regular accounting reports to its parent company. The Court will not

12

permit PCT to file this document under seal.
16.

13

Exhibit 13 to the Kurtz Declaration

14

The document originally submitted as Exhibit 13 to the Kurtz Declaration is a

15

deposition transcript in which the deponent discusses a licensing agreement between

16

Holland and a third party. For the reasons discussed with respect to Exhibit 9 to the Kurtz

17

Declaration, the Court will permit PCT to file this document under seal.

18

C.

Holland’s Motion to File Under Seal

19

Holland asks in its motion to file under seal to seal ten documents that it alleges

20

contain confidential information and trade secrets. (Doc. 214 at 6-7). The Court will

21

address each document in turn.

22

1.

Exhibit 1

23

The document lodged under seal as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Greer Shaw in

24

Support of Defendant Holland Electronics, LLC’s Revised Motion to File Under Seal

25

(the “Shaw Declaration”) (Doc. 214-1) is the expert report of Carl G. Degen and contains

26

a discussion of proposed royalty rates, an existing license agreement between Holland

27

and a third party, and Holland’s sales data. Because these are trade secrets, the Court will

28

permit this document to be filed under seal.

- 11 -

2.

1

Exhibit 2

2

Holland asserts that Exhibit 2 to the Shaw Declaration contains confidential trade

3

secrets justifying sealing. (Doc. 214 at 12). This document contains excerpts from a

4

deposition transcript in which certain internal Holland tests are described as well as

5

royalty rates from a particular licensing agreement. Because Holland’s royalties and

6

licensing agreements are trade secrets, the Court will permit this document to be filed

7

under seal. Holland must not redact any portions of the transcript pertaining to Holland’s

8

testing of its connectors. For the reasons discussed with respect to Exhibit 7 to the Kurtz

9

Declaration, the results of testing Holland’s products according to industry-standard

10

criteria, even with certain modifications to those products, cannot be a trade secret

11

because this information is easily obtainable through proper means.
3.

12

Exhibit 3

13

Exhibit 3 to the Shaw Declaration is the expert report of David A. Haas and

14

contains discussions of royalties and a licensing agreement between Holland and a third

15

party. Because this information constitutes Holland’s trade secrets, the Court will permit

16

this document to be filed under seal. However, as with Exhibit 2, Holland must not redact

17

any portions of the transcript pertaining to Holland’s testing of its connectors.
4.

18

Exhibit 4

19

Exhibit 4 to the Shaw Declaration is a series of photographs of Holland

20

connectors. These photos show connectors that have been subjected to Holland’s testing

21

protocol. Holland’s label of this information as confidential does not automatically

22

elevate it to the status of trade secret. Because these connectors are publicly available,

23

and Holland has not demonstrated that the act of performing a standard test upon publicly

24

available connectors is a trade secret, the Court will not permit these photos to be filed

25

under seal.

26

5.

Exhibit 5

27

Exhibit 5 to the Shaw Declaration is an infringement rebuttal report of Daniel

28

Whittle. This document contains, among other things, reproductions of Holland’s

- 12 -

1

engineering drawings showing the dimensions and design tolerances of its connectors,

2

photos showing Holland connectors after crimping, and discussion of photos of Holland

3

connectors. For the reasons previously discussed with respect to other proposed sealed

4

documents, although the dimensions and design tolerances of Holland’s connectors are

5

trade secrets, Holland’s tests upon those connectors are not. The Court will permit

6

Holland to file this document under seal but the redactions in the public version must be

7

only the dimensions and design tolerances listed within the reproductions of Holland’s

8

engineering drawings.

9

6.

Exhibit 6

10

Exhibit 6 to the Shaw Declaration is an expert report containing Holland’s

11

engineering drawings as well as discussion of Holland’s tests performed upon its

12

connectors. For the reasons previously discussed with respect to other documents, the

13

Court will permit this document to be filed under seal. However, Holland’s redacted

14

public version of this document must redact only the dimensions and design tolerances

15

contained within Holland’s engineering drawings.

16

7.

Exhibit 7

17

Exhibit 7 to the Shaw Declaration is a Holland report describing the procedure and

18

outcome of an axial pull force test of Holland’s connectors. Although this information

19

may be confidential, Holland has not shown that it is a trade secret because these results

20

could be easily duplicated by anyone with access to Holland’s connectors and industry-

21

standard test equipment. The Court will not permit this document to be filed under seal.

22

8.

Exhibit 8

23

Exhibit 8 to the Shaw Declaration is a Holland report describing the procedure and

24

outcome of an axial force pull test of Holland’s connectors. For the same reasons as

25

discussed with respect to the preceding document, the Court finds that Holland has not

26

established that this report is a trade secret and the Court will not permit this document to

27

be filed under seal.

28

- 13 -

9.

1

Exhibit 9

2

Exhibit 9 to the Shaw Declaration is excerpts from the deposition of Michael

3

Holland, in which he discusses a license agreement between Holland and a third party,

4

including royalty rates. Because royalty rates and the terms of licensing agreements are

5

trade secrets, the Court will permit this document to be filed under seal.
10.

6

Exhibit 10

7

Exhibit 10 to the Shaw Declaration is excerpts from the deposition of Jason Holt,

8

in which he discusses a license agreement between Holland and a third party. Because the

9

terms of this license agreement are a trade secret, the Court will permit this document to

10

be filed under seal.

11

B.

PCT’s Response to Holland’s Motion to File Under Seal

12

PCT argues in its response to Holland’s motion to file under seal that two

13

documents originally filed by Holland contain PCT’s confidential information and should

14

be filed under seal. (Doc. 217 at 2).
1.

15

Exhibit 3

16

PCT asserts that Exhibit 3 to the Shaw Declaration contains information

17

concerning licensing agreements between PCT and third parties, and as such, contains

18

trade secrets justify sealing. (Id. at 3). For the same reasons as the Court has discussed

19

with respect to Holland’s licensing information, the Court will permit Holland to file this

20

document under seal. Accordingly, Holland must incorporate PCT’s proposed redactions

21

when filing the public version of this document.
2.

22

Exhibit 11

23

Exhibit 11 to the Shaw Declaration consists of bag drawings for PCT products

24

showing the dimensions, color, and text of the packaging in which PCT products are sold.

25

As the Court has already discussed, this information does not constitute a trade secret.

26

The Court will not permit Holland to file this document under seal.

27

IV.

28

Conclusion
The Court previously stated that after ruling on the motions to file under seal, it

- 14 -

1

would set a briefing schedule for the parties’ new versions of their dispositive motions.

2

(Doc. 213 at 9). Because the parties have already written their motions, the Court will set

3

an accelerated briefing schedule.

4

Accordingly,

5

IT IS ORDERED granting in part and denying in part PCT’s Renewed Motion to

6

File Under Seal Certain Documents (Doc. 216).

7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that PCT may file under seal as needed the

8

following documents identified in Doc. 216-1, Exhibit A: (1) “Kurtz Decl. Ex. 5,

9

Excerpts of the Expert Report of David Haas served on April 7, 2014”; (2) “Harting Decl.

10

Ex. 36, PCT top-level engineering drawing for its TRS-6L coaxial cable connector,

11

produced by PCT during fact discovery at Bates number PCTH0006882”; (3) “Harting

12

Decl. Ex. 39, Excerpts of exemplary PCT engineering specifications for the ERS-6 and

13

ERS-59 coaxial cable connectors, produced by PCT during fact discovery as Bates

14

numbers: PCTH0280484, PCTH0280489, PCTHS0013688, pp. 1 and 6 (native)”; (4)

15

“Yang Decl. Ex. 6, Infringement Rebuttal report of Daniel J. Whittle, PHD in Support of

16

Defendant, dated April 7, 2014, including parts 1-4”; (5) “Yang Decl. Ex. 8, Report

17

Regarding Available and Acceptable Non-Infringing Alternatives of Daniel J. Whittle,

18

PHD in Support of Defendant, dated April 7, 2014”; (6) “Kurtz Decl. Ex 7, Report

19

Regarding Available and Acceptable Non-Infringing Alternatives of Daniel J. Whittle,

20

PhD, served on April 7, 2014”; (7) “Harting Decl. Ex. 1, Infringement Report of Dr.

21

James Dickens, Ph.D., including appendices A-N thereto”; (8) “Harting Decl. Ex. 27,

22

Email correspondence between Holland & EZconn, marked as Holland Deposition

23

Exhibit 46, and produced by Holland during fact discovery as Bates number HOLL

24

42324 – HOLL 42325”; (9) “Harting Decl. Ex. 28, Email correspondence between

25

Holland & EZconn, marked as Holland Deposition Exhibit 47, and produced by Holland

26

during fact discovery as Bates number HOLL 44494 – HOLL 44496”; (10) “Kurtz Decl.

27

Ex. 9, Holland Production Documents HOL2002827-HOL2002867”; (11) “Kurtz Decl.

28

Ex. 11, Excerpts of the deposition of David A. Haas taken on April 21, 2014”; (12)

- 15 -

1

“Harting Decl. Ex. 29, Excerpts from the Expert Report of David A. Haas”; (13) “Harting

2

Decl. Ex. 30, Defendant’s Fifth Supplemental Response to Plaintiff’s First Set of

3

Interrogatories”; and (14) “Kurtz Decl. Ex. 13, Excerpts of the deposition of David A.

4

Haas taken on April 21, 2014.”

5
6

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting in part and denying in part Holland’s
Revised Motion to File Under Seal (Doc. 214).

7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Holland may file under seal as needed the

8

following documents that Holland has lodged under seal as exhibits to the Shaw

9

Declaration (Doc. 214-1): (1) Exhibit 1; (2) Exhibit 2; (3) Exhibit 3; (4) Exhibit 5; (5)

10

Exhibit 6; (6) Exhibit 9; and (7) Exhibit 10.

11

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that for each document a party files under seal,

12

that party shall also file a redacted version not under seal. If the Court has specified the

13

scope of redactions in this Order, then the party shall comply with those redactions. If the

14

Court has not specified the scope of redactions in this Order, then the party shall redact

15

according to the proposed redactions previously submitted to the Court. Failure to redact

16

according to this Order will result in the Court striking the nonconforming document in

17

both its sealed and unsealed versions and not considering it on summary judgment.

18
19

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that PCT nor Holland shall not file any documents
under seal other than those explicitly permitted in this Order.

20

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent the Court has declined to permit

21

the filing of a particular document under seal, any information contained in that

22

document is not subject to the Protective Order (Doc. 53) for purposes of summary

23

judgment.

24

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties may, on or before December 1,

25

2014, file the following motions: (1) PCT’s motion to exclude the expert opinion of

26

David A. Haas; (2) PCT’s motion to exclude the expert opinion of Daniel J. Whittle; and

27

(3) Holland’s motion for summary judgment (alternatively, for partial summary judgment

28

and to preclude any theory of indirect infringement for lack of disclosure). Any responses

- 16 -

1
2

are due December 8, 2014. Any replies are due December 15, 2014.
Dated this 18th day of November, 2014.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

- 17 -