Finisar Corporation v. Nistica, Inc.

Filing 721

ORDER GRANTING 717 , 718 DEFENDANT NISTICA, INC.'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 1/30/2017. (patentlcsjS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/30/2017)

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.
9
10

NISTICA, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
NISTICA, INC.'S ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS TO SEAL
[Re: ECF 717, 718]

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
Before the Court are two administrative motions to file under seal certain portions of the

13
14

Court’s Order Regarding Post-Judgment Motions and the transcript of the November 16, 2016

15

hearing that was held in connection therewith. ECF 717, 718. For the reasons stated below, the

16

motions are GRANTED.

17
18

I.

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. In addition, sealing motions filed in this

26

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

27

A party moving to seal a document in whole or in part must file a declaration establishing that the

28

identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). “Reference to a stipulation or

1

protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient

2

to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Id.

3

II.

DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed Nistica’s sealing motions and the declarations that it, as the

4
5

designating party, has submitted in support. The Court finds that Nistica has articulated

6

compelling reasons and good cause to seal certain portions of the submitted documents. The

7

proposed redactions are also narrowly tailored. The Court’s rulings on the sealing requests are set

8

forth in the tables below:

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

A. ECF 717
Identification of
Description of Documents
Documents to be
Sealed
November 16, 2016 Highlighted portions on pages 10-20, 23-25, 27-30,
Hearing Transcript
34, 38-43, 49, 50, and 52-54 contain confidential,
trade secret, and proprietary product information
relating to the structure, design, and operation of
Nistica’s accused products and its engineering
practices, which could cause significant harm to
Nistica if disclosed to the public
B. ECF 718
Identification of
Description of Documents
Documents to be
Sealed
Order Regarding
Highlighted portions on pages 8-10, 12-18, and 21Post-Judgment
23 contain confidential, trade secret, and proprietary
Motions
product information relating to the structure, design,
and operation Nistica’s accused products and its
engineering practices, which could cause significant
harm to Nistica if disclosed to the public
III.

Court’s Order

GRANTED

Court’s Order

GRANTED

ORDER

23

For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motions at ECF 717 and 718 are GRANTED.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26
27
28

Dated: January 30, 2017
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
2