Finisar Corporation v. Nistica, Inc.

Filing 749

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 743 FINISAR CORPORATION'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 4/18/2017. (patentlcsjS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/18/2017)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

FINISAR CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

NISTICA, INC.,
Defendant.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 13-cv-03345-BLF
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART FINISAR
CORPORATION'S ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
[Re: ECF 743]

12
Before the Court is Plaintiff Finisar Corporation’s (“Finisar”) administrative motion to file

13
14

under seal portions of its Opposition to Defendant Nistica, Inc.’s (“Nistica”) Motion for Fees

15

Under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and select exhibits in support thereof. ECF 743. For the reasons stated

16

below, the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

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 and 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.

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

sealable.” Id.

4

II.

DISCUSSION

5

The Court has reviewed Finisar’s sealing motion (ECF 743) and the parties’ declarations in

6

support thereof (ECF 743-1, 746). The Court finds the parties have articulated compelling reasons

7

and good cause to seal the submitted documents. The Court’s rulings on the sealing request are

8

set forth in the table below:
ECF
Document to
No.
be Sealed
743-4
Finisar’s
Opposition to
Nistica’s
Motion for Fees
Under 35
U.S.C. § 285

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

743-6

GRANTED.

743-10

Ex. 4 to Lahav
Decl.

GRANTED.

743-12

Ex. 5 to Lahav
Decl.

DENIED
without
prejudice.

16
17
18
19
743-8

21
22

GRANTED as
to highlighted
portions.

Ex. 1 to Lahav
Decl. ISO
Finisar’s
Opposition to
Nistica’s
Motion for Fees
Under 35
U.S.C. § 285,
ECF 744-1
(“Lahav Decl.”)
Ex. 2 to Lahav
Decl.

15

20

Result

GRANTED.

23
24
25
26
27
28

Reasoning
Contains confidential information regarding
Nistica’s business strategies, plans and technical
information about Nistica’s products. Bennett
Decl. ¶ 12, ECF 746. Contains the same
confidential, proprietary, and
sensitive information as Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 12,
13, 14, 15, 17, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, and 31.
Chao Decl. ¶ 14, ECF 743-1.
Contains Nistica’s confidential, proprietary and
trade secret information about Nistica’s products
and business/marketing strategies and plans.
Bennett Decl. ¶ 2; Chao Decl. ¶ 2.

Contains confidential and proprietary technical
information regarding Nistica’s products. Bennett
Decl. ¶ 3; Chao Decl. ¶ 3.
Contains confidential and proprietary technical
information regarding Nistica’s products. Bennett
Decl. ¶ 3; Chao Decl. ¶ 3.
Denied because Finisar’s request is not narrowly
tailored. However, because the document
“contains confidential and proprietary technical
information regarding Nistica’s products,” Bennett
Decl. ¶ 4, Chao Decl. ¶ 4, Finisar may revise its
request by re-filing redacted and un-redacted
highlighted versions of this document indicating
the portions that should be sealed.
2

743-14

Ex. 7 to Lahav
Decl.

DENIED
without
prejudice.

743-16

Ex. 12 to Lahav
Decl.

GRANTED.

743-18

Ex. 13 to Lahav
Decl.

GRANTED.

743-20

1

Ex. 14 to Lahav
Decl.

GRANTED.

743-22

Ex. 15 to Lahav
Decl.

GRANTED.

743-24

Ex. 17 to Lahav
Decl.

DENIED
without
prejudice.

743-26

Ex. 20 to Lahav
Decl.

GRANTED.

743-28

Ex. 21 to Lahav
Decl.

GRANTED.

743-30

Ex. 24 to Lahav
Decl.

GRANTED.

743-32

Ex. 25 to Lahav
Decl.

GRANTED.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

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

Denied because Finisar’s request is not narrowly
tailored. However, because the document
“contains confidential and proprietary technical
information regarding Nistica’s products,” Bennett
Decl. ¶ 5, Chao Decl. ¶ 5, Finisar may revise its
request by re-filing redacted and un-redacted
highlighted versions of this document indicating
the portions that should be sealed.
Contains confidential and proprietary technical
information regarding Nistica’s products. Bennett
Decl. ¶ 6; Chao Decl. ¶ 6.
Contains proprietary information belonging to a
customer of Finisar, to which Finisar owes
confidentiality obligations. Chao Decl. ¶ 7. The
sensitive business information contained in these
exhibits could cause significant competitive harm
to Finisar if disclosed to the public. Id.
Contains proprietary information belonging to a
customer of Finisar, to which Finisar owes
confidentiality obligations. Chao Decl. ¶ 7. The
sensitive business information contained in these
exhibits could cause significant competitive harm
to Finisar if disclosed to the public. Id.
Contains confidential information regarding
Finisar’s business/marketing strategies and plans.
Chao Decl. ¶ 8.
Denied because Finisar’s request is not narrowly
tailored. However, because the document
“contains confidential and proprietary technical
information regarding Nistica’s products,” Bennett
Decl. ¶ 7, Chao Decl. ¶ 9, Finisar may revise its
request by re-filing redacted and un-redacted
highlighted versions of this document indicating
the portions that should be sealed.
Contains confidential and proprietary technical
information regarding Nistica’s products. Bennett
Decl. ¶ 8; Chao Decl. ¶ 10.
Contains confidential and proprietary technical
information regarding Nistica’s products. Bennett
Decl. ¶ 8; Chao Decl. ¶ 10.
Contains confidential and proprietary technical
information regarding Nistica’s products. Bennett
Decl. ¶ 9; Chao Decl. ¶ 11.
Contains confidential and proprietary technical
information regarding Nistica’s products. Bennett
Decl. ¶ 8; Chao Decl. ¶ 10.

28
3

1
2

743-34

Ex. 27 to Lahav
Decl.

GRANTED.

743-36

Ex. 28 to Lahav
Decl.

GRANTED.

743-38

Ex. 29 to Lahav
Decl.

GRANTED.

743-40

Ex. 31 to Lahav
Decl.

DENIED
without
prejudice.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Contains confidential information regarding
Nistica’s business/marketing strategies and plans.
Bennett Decl. ¶ 10; Chao Decl. ¶ 12.
Contains confidential and proprietary technical
information regarding Nistica’s products. Bennett
Decl. ¶ 8; Chao Decl. ¶ 10.
Contains confidential and proprietary technical
information regarding Nistica’s products. Bennett
Decl. ¶ 8; Chao Decl. ¶ 10.
Denied because Finisar’s request is not narrowly
tailored. However, because the document
“contains confidential and proprietary technical
information regarding Nistica’s products,” Bennett
Decl. ¶ 11, Chao Decl. ¶ 13, Finisar may revise its
request by re-filing redacted and un-redacted
highlighted versions of this document indicating
the portions that should be sealed.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

III.

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, Finisar’s sealing motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED

14

IN PART. Under Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(2), for any request that has been denied because the

15

party designating a document as confidential or subject to a protective order has not provided

16

sufficient reasons to seal, the submitting party must file the unredacted (or lesser redacted)

17

documents into the public record no earlier than 4 days and no later than 10 days from the filing of

18

this order.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22
23
24

Dated: April 18, 2017
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
4