Ovonic Battery Company, Inc. v. Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd

Filing 25

ORDER by Judge James Donato granting 17 ORDER GRANTING PETITION TO APPROVE ARBITRATION AWARD AND GRANTING RENEWED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/24/2014) Modified on 7/24/2014 (lrcS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

OVONIC BATTERY COMPANY, INC.,

Case No. 14-cv-01637-JD

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

SANYO ELECTRIC CO., LTD,
Defendant.

11

ORDER GRANTING PETITION TO
APPROVE ARBITRATION AWARD
AND GRANTING RENEWED
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Re: Dkt. No. 17
12
INTRODUCTION

13
14

On April 9, 2014, Petitioner Ovonic Battery Company, Inc. (“OBC”) filed a Petition to

15

Confirm Arbitration Award and Enter Judgment Against Respondent Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd. Dkt

16

No. 1. On April 11, 2014, OBC filed an Amended Petition and an Administrative Motion to File

17

Under Seal the Amended Petition and its exhibits. Dkt. No. 8. On June 16, 2014, the Court

18

granted in part and denied in part the Administrative Motion to Seal. Dkt. No. 16. On June 23,

19

2014, OBC filed a Renewed Administrative Motion to Seal. Dkt. No. 17. On July 9, 2014,

20

SANYO filed a response to OBC’s Amended Petition. Dkt. No. 21. The Court grants OBC’s

21

petition.

22
23

BACKGROUND
OBC owns patents on commercial nickel-metal hydride (“NiMH”) battery technologies,

24

which have a number of applications ranging from portable batteries (e.g., AA, AAA, etc.) to

25

hybrid electric vehicles (“HEVs”). Dkt. No. 17, Ex. 3. OBC has licensed its patents to many

26

producers of NiMH batteries, including SANYO. Id. OBC claims that SANYO manufactures and

27

sells HEV batteries under a royalty bearing license from OBC (the “OBC-SANYO Agreement”),

28

and that on May 16, 2012, SANYO repudiated its obligations to pay royalties under the OBC-

1

SANYO Agreement. Id. After the parties were unable to resolve the dispute informally, they

2

agreed to arbitration under the OBC-SANYO Agreement. Id. After five days of hearings and pre-

3

and post-hearing briefing, the arbitration panel (“Panel”) issued interim and final awards in favor

4

of OBC. Id.
OBC petitions the Court, pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 9, to

5
6

confirm the arbitration awards, enter judgment on the final award, and award attorneys’ fees

7

associated with this filing. Id. The Panel’s interim award, (Exhibit C), states that:

8

[SANYO] is obligated to pay [OBC] the royalties set forth in
Articles 4 and 5 of the HEVB License Agreement from November
30, 2011, for the life of that Agreement. [SANYO] is specifically
ordered to provide an accounting to [OBC] of the royalties due from
November 30, 2011, to the present, plus the interest of 10% on each
payment from the due date of each to the date that the payment is
made, and is ordered to make those payments.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Dkt No. 17, Ex. 3 at 58. The Panel’s final award, (Exhibit B), incorporates the provisions of the

13

interim award and also requires SANYO to pay sums of $1,598,049.03 for fees, costs, expenses

14

and $162,307.48 for compensation and expenses of the arbitrators. Id. at 39.
OBC also requests that certain portions of its OBC-SANYO Agreement, portions of the

15
16

final award and portions of the interim award be filed under seal. Id. at 8. On April 11, 2014,

17

OBC filed an initial administrative motion to seal. Dkt. No. 8. The Court granted in part and

18

denied in part the motion to seal on the grounds that the proposed redactions were not narrowly

19

tailored to only include sealable material under Civil Local Rule 79-5. Dkt. No. 16. On June 23,

20

2014, OBC submitted a renewed administrative motion to file under seal with revised redactions.

21

Dkt. No. 17.
DISCUSSION

22
23
24

I.

Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award
The Court has jurisdiction to confirm the petition under 9 U.S.C. § 9. A court’s review of

25

an arbitration award under the FAA is “‘both limited and highly deferential.’” Coutee v.

26

Barington Capital Group, L.P., 336 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Sheet Metal Workers’

27

Int’l Ass’n v. Madison Indus., Inc., 84 F.3d 1186, 1190 (9th Cir.1996)). A court must confirm an

28

arbitration panel’s award unless one of the following four exceptions applies:
2

1

(1) where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue
means;
(2) where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators,
or either of them;
(3) where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to
postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to
hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any
other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been
prejudiced; or
(4) where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly
executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the
subject matter submitted was not made.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

9 U.S.C. § 10(a).
Neither party suggests that any of the above exceptions apply. Moreover, SANYO does
not oppose the Court’s entry of an order confirming the panel’s final award and judgment against

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

it in conformity with that award. See Dkt. No. 21. In light of SANYO’s non-opposition to the

12

petition, and because none of the exceptions to enforcing the arbitration panel’s award applies, the

13

Court grants OBC’s Amended Petition to Confirm the Arbitration Award.

14

OBC also requests that the Court “award [] its attorneys’ fees and costs in seeking this

15

relief as well as for any post-judgment enforcement proceedings.” Dkt. No. 17, Ex. 3 at 8.

16

Generally, “absent contractual or statutory authorization, a prevailing litigant ordinarily may not

17

collect attorneys’ fees.” Int’l Union of Petroleum & Indus. Workers v. W. Indus. Maint., Inc., 707

18

F.2d 425, 428 (9th Cir. 1983) (citing Miller-Wohl Co., Inc. v. Comm’r of Labor and Indus., 694

19

F.2d 203, 204 (9th Cir. 1982)). A court may assess attorneys’ fees, however, “when the losing

20

party has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.” Id. (citing Alyeska

21

Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc’y, 421 U.S. 240, 258-59, 95 S.Ct. 1612, 44 L.Ed.2d 141

22

(1975)).

23

OBC has not provided any authority to support its request for an award of attorneys’ fees

24

or alleged that SANYO acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.

25

Because the Court has not been provided any ground to justify an award of attorneys’ fees, the

26

Court denies OBC’s request.

27
28
3

1
2

II.

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal
In our circuit, in evaluating a motion to seal, two different standards apply depending on

3

whether the request is being made in connection with a dispositive motion or a non-dispositive

4

motion.

5

For dispositive motions, the historic “strong presumption of access to judicial records”

6

fully applies, and a party seeking sealing must establish “compelling reasons” to overcome that

7

presumption. Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 2006)

8

(quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003)). This

9

standard presents a “high threshold,” and “a ‘good cause’ showing will not, without more, satisfy”
it. Id. at 1180 (citations omitted). When ordering sealing in this context, the district court must

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

also “articulate the rationale underlying its decision to seal.” Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d

12

1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011).

13

The non-dispositive motion context is different. There, “the usual presumption of the

14

public’s right of access is rebutted,” the “public has less of a need for access to court records

15

attached only to non-dispositive motions,” and the “public policies that support the right of access

16

to dispositive motions, and related materials, do not apply with equal force to non-dispositive

17

materials.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80 (citations omitted). In that context, materials may be

18

sealed where the party seeking sealing makes a “particularized showing” under the “good cause”

19

standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Id. at 1180 (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1138).

20

In our district, in addition to meeting the applicable standard under Kamakana, all parties

21

requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5, including that rule’s requirement that

22

the request must “establish[] that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged, protectable as a

23

trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law” (i.e., is “sealable”). Civ. L.R. 79-

24

5(b). The sealing request must also “be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable

25

material.” Id.

26

The Court’s previous order concluded that a petition to confirm an arbitration award is

27

dispositive. See Dkt. No. 16. In its Renewed Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, OBC re-

28

submitted exhibits to its Amended Petition that are redacted. OBC contends that compelling
4

1

reasons exist to seal the narrowly tailored redactions in those documents, which seal only

2

confidential terms of license agreements and payment terms under those license agreements. Dkt.

3

No. 17 at 1-2. The Court finds that OBC has demonstrated that compelling reasons exist to grant

4

the narrowly tailored redactions in Exhibits A, B, and C to the Amended Petition, which only

5

redact sealable information under Civil Local Rule 79-5. Accordingly, the Court grants

6

Petitioner’s Administrative Motion to File under Seal:

7
8
9
10

Document
Exhibit A (OBC-SANYO Agreement)
Exhibit B (final award)
Exhibit C (interim award)

CONCLUSION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Portion(s) To Be Filed Under Seal
Portions of Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 15
Portions of pages 4 and 6
Portions of pages 3, 5, and 6

The Court confirms the Panel’s final award, which incorporates the interim award, and

13

enters judgment against SANYO in conformity with the final award. SANYO is ordered to

14

comply with the final award.

15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 24, 2014
______________________________________
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5