Finisar Corporation v. Nistica, Inc.

Filing 765

ORDER GRANTING 762 UNOPPOSED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL PORTIONS OF THE ORDER DENYING NISTICA INC.'S MOTION FOR FEES UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 285. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 6/16/2017. (patentlcsjS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/16/2017)

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 UNOPPOSED
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
SEAL PORTIONS OF THE ORDER
DENYING MOTION FOR FEES
[Re: ECF 762]

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

13
14

to file under seal portions of the Order Denying Nistica, Inc.’s Motion for Fees Under 35 U.S.C.

15

§ 285 (ECF 760) (“Order”). ECF 762. For the reasons set forth below, Nistica’s motion is

16

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
4

II.

DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed Nistica’s sealing motion and the declaration submitted in support

5

thereof. According to Nistica, certain portions of the Court’s Order contain Nistica’s confidential,

6

trade secret and proprietary technical product information relating to its accused products,

7

development projects, and engineering practices. Declaration of Robert Kramer ¶ 3, ECF 762-1.

8

Nistica also states that certain portions of the Order contain proprietary information belonging to

9

Cisco, a customer of Nistica, to which Nistica owes confidentiality obligations. Id. ¶ 4.
Accordingly, Nistica proposes sealing portions of pages 5-7, as indicated in a proposed redacted

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

version of the Order that Nistica has submitted at ECF 762-3.

12

The Court finds that Nistica has articulated good cause to seal certain portions of the

13

Order. The proposed redactions are also narrowly tailored. Accordingly, Nistica’s motion is

14

GRANTED.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17
18
19

Dated: June 16, 2017
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2