Simon and Simon, PC v. Align Technology, Inc.

Filing 284

Discovery Order re: 277 Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed. Align's motion to consider whether Plaintiffs' material should be sealed is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs' request t o seal is DENIED. The Court orders Align to file the unredacted joint discovery letter brief, along with Exhibits 1 and 2, in the public record (but the PII must still be redacted in Exhibit 2) no sooner than five days and no later than 10 days from today. Signed by Judge Thomas S. Hixson on 2/28/2023. (tshlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2023)

Case 3:20-cv-03754-VC Document 284 Filed 02/28/23 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SIMON AND SIMON, PC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 20-cv-03754-VC (TSH)
ORDER RE: MOTION TO SEAL

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 277
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
Defendant.

12
13

In ECF No. 277, Align filed a motion to consider whether another party’s material should

14

be sealed in connection with the joint discovery letter brief at ECF No. 278. In ECF No. 281,

15

Plaintiffs filed a declaration in support of sealing. The Court grants Align’s motion (meaning that

16

it will consider whether the material should be sealed) and concludes that the material should not

17

be sealed. Here, that material is (1) an excerpt of deposition testimony by Dr. Sherwin Matian of

18

Plaintiff VIP Dental Spas, attached as Exhibit 1; (2) an email between VIP Dental Spas and a

19

customer whose personally identifying information (“PII”) has been redacted, attached as Exhibit

20

2; and (3) quotations from Exhibits 1 and 2 in the joint discovery letter brief.

21

As to Exhibit 1, in order to rule on the discovery dispute, the Court had to discuss nearly

22

all of the testimony in the deposition excerpt, so that is in the public record anyway. While the

23

undersigned has on occasion issued orders with minor redactions in them, to keep all of this

24

deposition testimony out of the public record would have required redacting nearly the entire

25

order, preventing the public from understanding the basis of the Court’s ruling. The Court takes a

26

dim view of secret court orders, and anyway, there is nothing in the deposition testimony that

27

merits that kind of secrecy.

28

As for Exhibit 2, it’s important to understand that when Plaintiffs produced this email

Case 3:20-cv-03754-VC Document 284 Filed 02/28/23 Page 2 of 2

1

exchange, they redacted the PII in the version they produced. The current sealing request

2

therefore relates to an email exchange with no patient PII in it. It reveals nothing confidential and

3

is not worthy of being sealed.
Accordingly, Align’s motion to consider whether Plaintiff’s material should be sealed is

4
5

GRANTED, and Plaintiffs’ request to seal is DENIED. The Court orders Align to file the

6

unredacted joint discovery letter brief, along with Exhibits 1 and 2, in the public record (but the

7

PII must still be redacted in Exhibit 2) no sooner than five days and no later than 10 days from

8

today.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Dated: February 28, 2023

12
THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2