Finisar Corporation v. Nistica, Inc.

Filing 372

ORDER REGARDING 356 , 360 , 370 , 371 MOTIONS TO SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 12/18/2015. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/18/2015)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

FINISAR CORPORATION,

Case No. 13-cv-03345-BLF

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS TO
SEAL

9
10

NISTICA, INC.,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

On December 11, 2015, the Court denied without prejudice part of the parties’

14

administrative motions to file documents under seal in connection with their respective briefing on

15

summary judgment. ECF 364. On December 17, both parties submitted supplemental

16

declarations that provided additional reasons for sealing these documents. ECF 370, 371.

17

Courts recognize a “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents,

18

including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d

19

1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Two standards govern motions to seal documents, a “compelling

20

reasons” standard, which applies to most judicial records, and a “good cause” standard, which

21

applies to “private materials unearthed during discovery.” Cf. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v.

22

Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002). A party that seeks to seal portions of

23

supporting documents to a motion for summary judgment must meet the “compelling reasons”

24

standard articulated in Phillips. In this District, parties seeking to seal judicial records must

25

furthermore follow Civil Local Rule 79-5, which requires, inter alia, that a sealing request be

26

“narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b) (emphasis added).

27

Where the submitting party seeks to file under seal a document designated confidential by another

28

party, the burden of articulating compelling reasons for sealing is placed on the designating party.

1
2

Id. 79-5(e).
The Court has reviewed the supplemental declarations in support of the sealing motion.

3

The Court finds that the parties have articulated compelling reasons to seal most of the submitted

4

documents and where compelling reasons have been provided, the proposed redactions are also

5

narrowly tailored. The Court’s rulings on the sealing requests are set forth in the tables below:
Motion to Seal at ECF 356
Identification of Documents
Description of Documents
Court’s Order
to be Sealed
Portions of the Declaration of
Discussing a stipulation between
DENIED because the
Jennifer D. Bennett
the parties.
supplemental declarations
did not provide any
additional reasons to seal.
Exhibits 13, 16-20, 23, 25 to
Contains confidential, trade secret GRANTED
the Bennett Declaration
and proprietary product
information relating to the
accused products and confidential
information regarding
business/marketing strategies and
plans
Exhibits 22 and 24 to the
Press and News releases.
DENIED because the
Bennett Declaration
supplemental declarations
did not provide any
additional reasons to seal.

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Motion to Seal at ECF 360
Identification of Documents
to be Sealed
Exhibits R3, R7, R9, R13,
R15, R16, R27, R28, R29,
R31-R37, R38, R39-R48, R49,
R50-R58, R60, R65, R66, R68,
R71, R73, R74, R80, R83-R86

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff’s Opposition to
Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment; Portions
of Plaintiff’s Responsive
Separate Statement to
Defendant’s Amended
Statement of Undisputed Facts;
Declaration of Dr. Katherine
Hall in support thereof

Description of Documents
Contains confidential, trade secret
and proprietary product
information including sensitive
financial, manufacturing, and
shipping information and thirdparty confidential information
regarding specifications and
schematics.
Quotes from or cites to the above
exhibits

2

Court’s Order
GRANTED

GRANTED

1

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the sealing motion at ECF 356 is GRANTED IN

2

PART and DENIED IN PART and the sealing motion at ECF 360 is GRANTED. Under Civil

3

Local Rule 79-5(e)(2), for any request that has been denied because the party designating a

4

document as confidential or subject to a protective order has not provided sufficient reasons to

5

seal, the submitting party must file the unredacted (or lesser redacted) documents into the public

6

record no earlier than 4 days and no later than 10 days form the filing of this order.

7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 18, 2015
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3