Finisar Corporation v. Nistica, Inc.

Filing 702

OMNIBUS ORDER REGARDING 689 , 695 , 698 SEALING MOTIONS. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 8/17/2016. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/17/2016)

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.

OMNIBUS ORDER REGARDING
SEALING MOTIONS

9
10

NISTICA, INC.,

[Re: ECF 689, 695, 698]

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Before the Court are the parties’ administrative motions to file under seal portions of their

13

briefing and exhibits in connection with their post-trial briefing. ECF 689, 695, and 698. For the

14

reasons stated below, the motions are GRANTED.

15
16

I.

LEGAL STANDARD
“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records

17

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of

18

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435

19

U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are

20

“more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of

21

“compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092,

22

1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed

23

upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097.

24

In addition, sealing motions filed in this district must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing

25

only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). A party moving to seal a document in whole or in

26

part must file a declaration establishing that the identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-

27

5(d)(1)(A). “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain

28

documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are

1
2
3

sealable.” Id.
II.

DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed the parties’ sealing motions and respective declarations in support

4

thereof. The Court finds the parties have articulated compelling reasons to seal the submitted

5

documents. The proposed redactions are also narrowly tailored. The Court’s rulings on the

6

sealing request are set forth in the tables below:

7

A.
ECF 689
Identification of Documents
to be Sealed
Finisar’s Renewed Motion for
JMOL Pursuant to 50(b) and
Motion for New Trial Pursuant
to 59(a)
Exhibit A

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

Exhibits B and C

15
16
17
18

Exhibits D and E

19
20

Exhibit G

21
22

Description of Documents

Court’s Order

Quotes to and references
below exhibits

GRANTED

Contains confidential and
proprietary technical details
regarding Nistica’s products,
including citations, quotations,
discussion, and figures taken
from Nistica documents
Confidential and proprietary
technical details regarding
Nistica’s and Finisar’s
products that could cause
significant competitive harm to
Finisar and Nistica if disclosed
to the public
Simulated image Nistica
claims was generated through
use of confidential and
proprietary technical models
representing Nistica’s products
This exhibit cites to, describes,
and attaches as exhibits
screenshots generated through
use of confidential and
proprietary technical models

GRANTED

GRANTED

GRANTED

GRANTED

23
24
25
26
27
28

B.
ECF 695
Identification of Documents
to be Sealed
Opposition to Finisar’s
Renewed Motion for JMOL
Pursuant to 50(b) and Motion
for New Trial Pursuant to
59(a)

Description of Documents
Contain confidential
information about Nistica's
confidential, trade secret, and
proprietary product
information relating to its
2

Court’s Order
GRANTED

1
2

Exhibits 1-4

3
4
5
6

10

C.
ECF 698
Identification of Documents
to be Sealed
Reply to Finisar’s Renewed
Motion for JMOL Pursuant to
50(b) and Motion for New
Trial Pursuant to 59(a)

11

Exhibit K

7
8

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

III.

accused products, development
projects, and engineering
practices.
Contains confidential
GRANTED
information about Nistica's
confidential, trade secret, and
proprietary product
information relating to its
accused products, development
projects, and engineering
practices.
Description of Documents

Court’s Order

Quotes from, and cites sealed
GRANTED
trial testimony concerning
Nistica’s confidential and
proprietary technical
information
Describes, quotes from, and
GRANTED
cites Nistica’s technical
documents. Disclosure of this
information could expose
Nistica’s confidential and
proprietary technical
information and other
competitively sensitive
information to the public,
potentially resulting in
significant competitive harm to
Nistica

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motions at ECF 689, 695, and 698 are GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 17, 2016
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
3