Finisar Corporation v. Nistica, Inc.

Filing 228

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting 219 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 222 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 224 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/8/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

FINISAR CORPORATION,

Case No. 13-cv-03345-BLF (JSC)

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL

9
10

NISTICA, INC.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 219, 222, 224

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Now pending before the Court are Finisar’s three administrative motions to file under seal

14

briefing and documents regarding three discovery disputes. (Dkt. Nos. 219, 222, 224.) Having

15

considered Finisar’s submissions, the Court GRANTS the motions to seal.

16

There is a presumption of public access to judicial records and documents. Nixon v.

17

Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “It is well-established that the fruits of pre-

18

trial discovery are, in the absence of a court order to the contrary, presumptively public. [Federal

19

Rule of Civil Procedure] 26(c) authorizes a district court to override this presumption where ‘good

20

cause’ is shown.” San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir.

21

1999). Sealing is appropriate only where the requesting party “establishes that the document, or

22

portions thereof is privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection

23

under the law.” N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 79-5(a). A party must “narrowly tailor” its request to sealable

24

material only. Id.

25

Finisar’s first administrative motion (Dkt. No. 219) seeks to seal Exhibits 6 and 8

26

submitted in connection with the parties’ joint Letter Brief in Support of Finisar’s Motion to

27

Compel Nistica to Install Software Tools for Viewing and Searching Produced Source Code. As

28

these documents contain confidential, technical information about Nistica’s software—

1

information that the Court has already deemed properly sealable—the motion to seal is

2

GRANTED.

3

Finisar’s second administrative motion (Dkt. No. 222) seeks to seal Exhibits J, K, 6, 7, and

4

8 submitted in connection with the parties’ joint Letter Brief in Support of Finisar’s Motion for an

5

Order to Compel 30(b)(6) Testimony from Nistica and Certain Related Documents. The five

6

exhibits contain confidential information and/or testimony about Nistica’s financial records and its

7

WSS and line cards used in its Accused Devices. The Court has repeatedly found good cause to

8

seal such material. Accordingly, the motion to seal these exhibits is GRANTED.

9

Finisar’s third administrative motion (Dkt. No. 224) seeks to seal portions of Finisar’s
individual Letter Brief for an Order to Compel Nistica to Supplement Interrogatory Responses and

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Produce Documents and Exhibits A, H J, K, and L submitted in support thereof. These exhibits all

12

contain confidential information and/or testimony about the technical details of Nistica’s WSS and

13

line card products, including amended infringement contentions and discovery responses that the

14

Court has already found properly sealable. The proposed redactions in the letter brief are narrowly

15

tailored to seal only information that discloses this confidential information. Accordingly, the

16

motion to seal is GRANTED.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 8, 2015

19
________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2