Finisar Corporation v. Nistica, Inc.

Filing 759

ORDER GRANTING 754 NISTICA, INC.'S AMENDED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL PORTIONS AND TERMINATING AS MOOT 747 NISTICA, INC.'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 4/25/2017. (patentlcsjS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/25/2017)

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 NISTICA, INC.’S
AMENDED ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
PORTIONS OF ITS REPLY TO
MOTION FOR FEES AND SELECT
EXHIBITS

12
Before the Court is Defendant Nistica, Inc.’s (“Nistica”) amended administrative motion to

13
14

file under seal portions of its Reply to its Motion for Fees Under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and select

15

exhibits to the Declaration of Jennifer D. Bennett in Support thereof. ECF 754. This amended

16

motion modifies Nistica’s original sealing motion, which was filed on April 13, 2017. ECF 747.

17

For the reasons stated below, the amended motion at ECF 754 is GRANTED and the original

18

motion at ECF 747 is TERMINATED AS MOOT.

19
20

I.

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

sealable.” Id.

6
7

II.

DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed Nistica’s amended sealing motion (ECF 754), its declaration in

8

support thereof (ECF 754-1), and its declaration in support of its original sealing motion (ECF

9

747-1). The Court finds that Nistica has articulated compelling reasons and good cause to seal the

10

submitted documents. The Court’s rulings on the sealing request are set forth in the table below:
ECF
Document to
Result
Reasoning
No.
be Sealed
747-4
Nistica’s Reply GRANTED as Contains confidential, trade secret and proprietary
to its Motion for to highlighted product information relating to its accused
Fees Under 35
portions.
products and development projects. Kramer Decl.
U.S.C. § 285
¶ 2, ECF 747-1.
747-5
Ex. 2 to Bennett GRANTED.
Contains Nistica’s confidential, trade secret and
Decl. ISO
proprietary product information relating to its
Nistica’s Reply
accused products and development projects.
to its Motion for
Kramer Decl. ¶ 3.
Fees Under 35
U.S.C. § 285,
ECF 744-1
(“Bennett
Decl.”)
747-6
Ex. 3 to Bennett GRANTED.
Contains Nistica’s confidential, trade secret and
Decl.
proprietary product information relating to its
accused products and development projects.
Kramer Decl. ¶ 3.
747-7
Ex. 5 to Bennett GRANTED.
Contains Nistica’s confidential, trade secret and
Decl.
proprietary product information relating to its
accused products and development projects.
Kramer Decl. ¶ 3.
747-8
Ex. 6 to Bennett GRANTED.
Contains Nistica’s confidential, trade secret and
Decl.
proprietary product information relating to its
accused products and development projects.
Kramer Decl. ¶ 3.
747-9
Ex. 7 to Bennett GRANTED.
Contains Nistica’s confidential, trade secret and
Decl.
proprietary product information relating to its
accused products and development projects.
Kramer Decl. ¶ 3.

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

2

1

747-10

Ex. 8 to Bennett
Decl.

GRANTED.

747-11

Ex. 9 to Bennett
Decl.

GRANTED.

747-12

Ex. 10 to
Bennett Decl.

GRANTED.

747-13

Ex. 11 to
Bennett Decl.

GRANTED.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Contains Nistica’s confidential, trade secret and
proprietary product information relating to its
accused products and development projects.
Kramer Decl. ¶ 3.
Contains Nistica’s confidential, trade secret and
proprietary product information relating to its
accused products and development projects.
Kramer Decl. ¶ 3.
Contains Nistica’s confidential, trade secret and
proprietary product information relating to its
accused products and development projects.
Kramer Decl. ¶ 3.
Contains Nistica’s confidential, trade secret and
proprietary product information relating to its
accused products and development projects.
Kramer Decl. ¶ 3.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

III.

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, Nistica’s amended sealing motion at ECF 754 is GRANTED.

Nistica’s original sealing motion at ECF 747 is TERMINATED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16
17
18

Dated: April 25, 2017
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3