Ultratech, Inc. v. Ensure Nanotech (Beijing) et al

Filing 66

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS MOTION TOFILE UNDER SEAL by Hon. William Alsup re 62 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/5/2015)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9

No. C 14-05361 WHA
Plaintiff,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

ULTRATECH, INC. D/B/A
ULTRATECH/CAMBRIDGE
NANOTECH,

12

v.

14
15

ORDER GRANTING IN PART
AND DENYING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
FILE UNDER SEAL

ENSURE NANOTECH (BEIJING), INC.,
ENSURE NANOTECH LLC D/B/A
ENSURE SCIENTIFIC GROUP LLC, and
DONGJUN WANG,
Defendants.

13

16
17
18
19

/
There is a strong presumption in favor of access to court records. Kamakana v. City &
County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006).
On June 1, the Court ordered the parties to submit information clarifying the details of

20

the acquisition of Cambridge NanoTech, Inc., by Ultratech, Inc. On June 2, Ultratech responded

21

and attached the purchase and sale agreement related to that transaction as exhibit B, which

22

Ultratech had produced to defendants and designated “Highly Confidential - Attorneys’ Eyes

23

Only,” pursuant to the protective order operative in this case. Ultratech now moves to file

24

exhibit B under seal in its entirety. Ultratech argues that disclosure of exhibit B could cause it

25

harm because it discusses information that could reveal details of Ultratech’s operations and

26

investments relating to its atomic-layer deposition systems business, however, portions of exhibit

27

B are highly relevant to Dongjun Wang’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

28

Without prejudice as to whether any portion of this document may be filed under seal
if submitted in support of a future motion and recognizing the ad hoc nature of Ultratech’s

1

submission, this order finds Ultratech may file exhibit B under seal subject to the following

2

limitations:

3

•

On the page Bates stamped ULTRATECH0001119, the title, the three paragraphs

4

of the preamble, and the section with the heading “1. Sale and Purchase” shall

5

remain unredacted.

6

•

On the page Bates stamped ULTRATECH0001146, the title, the three paragraphs

7

of the preamble, and the three lines before the numbered sections begin shall

8

remain unredacted.

9

•

On the page Bates stamped ULTRATECH0001152, the title, the date, the two
paragraphs of the preamble, and the line before the numbered paragraphs begin

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

shall remain unredacted.

12

•

13

The pages Bates stamped ULTRATECH0001133, 43, 45, 51 and 56 shall remain
unredacted in their entirety.

14

•

15

On the page Bates stamped ULTRATECH0001144, only the American Banking
Association number and the account number referenced may be redacted.

16

•

On the pages Bates stamped ULTRATECH0001136 and 59, the heading row of

17

the spreadsheet and the entire row relating to U.S. Patent No. 8,202,575 shall

18

remain unredacted.

19

•

On the pages Bates stamped ULTRATECH0001141 and 64, the heading row of

20

the spreadsheet and the rows relating to the Cambridge NanoTech Incorporated

21

and Cambridge NanoTech trademarks shall remain unredacted.
Good cause shown, Ultratech’s sealing motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN

22
23

PART.

24
IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26
27

Dated:

June 5, 2015.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
2