CES Group, LLC v. Energy Labs, Inc et al

Filing 216

ORDER REGARDING 175 , 185 , 188 , 196 SEALING MOTIONS. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 6/6/2016. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/6/2016)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

NORTEK AIR SOLUTIONS, LLC,

Case No. 14-cv-02919-BLF

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER REGARDING SEALING
MOTIONS

9
10

DMG CORPORATION, et al.,

[Re: ECF 175, 185, 188, 196]

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
Before the Court are four administrative motions to file under seal in connection with the

13
14

parties’ Motions for Summary Judgment. ECF 175, 185, 188, 196. For the reasons stated herein,

15

the motions are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

16

I.

LEGAL STANDARD

17

Unless a particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’” a “strong presumption in

18

favor of access” to judicial records “is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu,

19

447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d

20

1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). A party seeking to seal judicial records relating to a dispositive

21

motion bears the burden of overcoming this presumption by articulating “compelling reasons

22

supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public

23

policies favoring disclosure.” Id. at 1178-79. Motions that are technically nondispositive may

24

still require the party to meet the “compelling reasons” standard when the motion is more than

25

tangentially related to the merits of the case. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809

26

F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). This standard is invoked “even if the dispositive motion, or its

27

attachments, were previously filed under seal or protective order.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179

28

(citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136). Compelling reasons for sealing court files generally exist when

1

such “‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records

2

to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade

3

secrets.” Id. (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). However,

4

“[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment,

5

incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its

6

records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.
In this District, parties seeking to seal judicial records must furthermore follow Civil Local

7
8

Rule 79-5, which requires, inter alia, that a sealing request be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing

9

only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b) (emphasis added). Where the submitting party
seeks to file under seal a document designated confidential by another party, the burden of

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

articulating compelling reasons for sealing is placed on the designating party. Id. 79-5(e).

12
13

II.

DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed the parties’ sealing motions and the declarations of the designating

14

parties submitted in support. The Court finds the parties have articulated compelling reasons to

15

seal certain portions of the submitted documents. The proposed redactions are also narrowly

16

tailored. The Court’s rulings on the sealing requests are set forth in the tables below:

17

A. ECF 175
Identification of Documents
to be Sealed
Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment of
Invalidity and NonInfringement

18
19
20
21
22
23

Exhibit 1: Opening Expert
Report of Albert V. Karvelis

24
25
26
27
28

Defendants’ Confidential
Information (or that of its
customers) redacted at: pgs.
13-18 (customer information),
and 18, 22-24 (technical
information)
Exhibit 2: Excerpts, Expert

Description of Documents

Court’s Order

Document identifies and
discusses details for specific
customers’ facilities, and
includes technical information
about the configuration and
capabilities of specific air
handling units.
Document identifies and
discusses details for specific
customers’ facilities, and
includes technical information
about the configuration and
capabilities of a specific
customer’s air handling unit.

GRANTED

Document contains

GRANTED as to Defendants’

2

GRANTED as to Defendants’
Confidential Information (or
that of its customers) redacted
at: pgs. 13-18 (customer
information), and 18, 22-24
(technical information);
DENIED as to remainder.

1
2
3

Report of Dr. James Rice
Regarding Invalidity of U.S.
Patent Nos. 7,922,442;
8,414,251; 8,398,365;
8,562,283; 8,694,175;
8,727,700; and 8,734,086

confidential excerpts from
technical documents detailing
the design, components, and
technical features of an Energy
Labs air-handling unit and its
customers’ facilities.

Confidential Information (or
that of its customers) redacted
at: pgs. 50-52, 92-93, 96-98,
186-88, 307-08 (customer
information), and 50-52, 92,
96, 186-87, 307 (technical
information); DENIED as to
remainder.

Document contains
confidential discussion
regarding the capabilities,
design, and technical features
of Energy Labs airhandling
units

GRANTED

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Defendants’ Confidential
Information (or that of its
customers) redacted at: pgs.
50-52, 92-93, 96-98, 186-88,
307-08 (customer
information), and 50-52, 92,
96, 186-87, 307 (technical
information)
Exhibit 5: Excerpts,
Deposition of Reza Irani
(11/10/2015)

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

Defendants’ Confidential
Information (or that of its
customers) redacted at: 95:1225
Exhibit 7: ELI_GHT00012131

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Exhibit 8: Excerpts,
Supplemental Expert Report of
Dr. Rice Regarding Invalidity
of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,922,442;
8,414,251; 8,398,365;
8,562,283;8,694,175;
8,727,700; and 8,734,086

Exhibit 7 is a set of internal
GRANTED
Nortek (Temtrol brand)
documents reflecting internal
project specifications, purchase
orders, sales documents, and
technical information relating
to Nortek products on a
particular installation. Such
information is publically
unavailable and could harm
Nortek if publically filed.
These excerpts are from the
GRANTED
invalidity report of
Defendants’ expert, Dr. James
Rice. These excerpts contain,
use, and analyze Nortek’s
highly-confidential technical
information about certain
Nortek projects (sales of
products) and could harm
Nortek if publicly filed. These
excerpts, for instance, contain
analysis of detailed graphics
from Nortek’s old project files,
none of which is public.
3

1
2

Exhibit 9: Excerpts,
Deposition of John Habel
(2016-03- 10)

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Exhibit 10: Excerpts,
Supplemental Expert Report of
Albert V. Karvelis

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16

Exhibit 11: Excerpts,
Deposition of A. Karvelis
(3/16/2016)

These excerpts of testimony
from Mr. John Habel, a Nortek
witness who testified both in
his personal capacity and as
Nortek’s 30(b)(6) witness
relating to the technical
features of Nortek’s projects.
His testimony includes specific
discussion about the apparatus
and functionality of Nortek’s
products, which could harm
Nortek if publicly filed.
These excerpts are from the
supplemental invalidity report
by Nortek’s technical expert,
Dr. Albert V. Karvelis. These
excerpts contain, use, and
analyze Nortek’s highlyconfidential technical
information, for instance
excerpts from non-public
project submittal documents,
and could harm Nortek if
publicly filed and made
available to competitors
Document contains
confidential customer
information.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Defendants’ Confidential
Information (or that of its
customers) redacted at: pg. 332
(customer information);
243, 376, 378, 383, 384, 385
(technical information)
Exhibit 12: Excerpts,
Document contains
Deposition of Albert Karvelis
confidential customer
(3/17/2016)
information.

27

Defendants’ Confidential
Information (or that of its
customers) redacted at: 227231 (technical information)
Exhibit 13: Exhibit 61 to
Opening Expert Report of
Albert V. Karvelis

28

Defendants’ Confidential

24
25
26

Document contains
confidential excerpts from
technical documents detailing
the design, components, and
technical features of an Energy
4

GRANTED

GRANTED

GRANTED as to Defendants’
Confidential Information (or
that of its customers) redacted
at: pg. 332 (customer
information);
243, 376, 378, 383, 384, 385
(technical information);
DENIED as to remainder.
GRANTED as to Defendants’
Confidential Information (or
that of its customers) redacted
at: 227-231 (technical
information); DENIED as to
remainder.
GRANTED as to Defendants’
Confidential Information (or
that of its customers) redacted
at: pgs. 1-56 (customer
information), and 2, 4, 5, 6, 8,

1
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
28

Information (or that of its
customers) redacted at: pgs. 156 (customer information), and
2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15-17,
1925, 30-37, 39, 42-52, and 55
(technical information)
Exhibit 14: Excerpts,
Deposition of Lawrence
Hopkins (6/15/2015)

Labs air-handling unit and the 10, 12, 14, 15-17, 1925, 30-37,
specific capabilities customers’ 39, 42-52, and 55 (technical
air handling unit.
information); DENIED as to
remainder.

These excerpts are testimony
from Mr. Lawrence Hopkins,
the inventor of the patents-insuit, and relate in part to the
technical features embodied by
Nortek’s products.

DENIED as to pages 226-230,
GRANTED as to remaining
excerpts.

Nortek does not object to
transcript pages pp. 226
through 230 being filed
publicly.
The remaining pages of the
excerpt include specific
discussion about confidential
information belonging to third
party BasX Solutions
(“BasX”), Mr. Hopkins’ new
company. There, Mr. Hopkins
discusses the apparatus and
functionality of BasX
products, which could harm
BasX if publicly filed. This
Exhibit 15: Exhibit 65 from the Nortek does not object to
Deposition of A. Karvelis
Exhibit 15 being filed
publicly.
Exhibit 17: Excerpts, Rebuttal These excerpts from the
Expert Report of Albert V.
rebuttal infringement report of
Karvelis
Nortek’s technical expert Dr.
Karvelis contain, use, and
analyze testimony from both
Defendants’ and Nortek’s
expert and fact witnesses that
contains discussion of
confidential or highlyconfidential technical
information, which could harm
both Defendants and/or Nortek
if publicly filed.
These excerpts are testimony
Exhibit 20: Excerpts,
from the inventor of the
Deposition of Lawrence
patents-in-suit, Mr. Lawrence
Hopkins (10/1/2008)
Hopkins, and relate to the
5

DENIED

GRANTED

GRANTED

1
2
3
4
5
6

Exhibit 21: Excerpts,
Deposition of Joe Naccarello
(1/13/2013)

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
28

Exhibit 22: Excerpts,
Deposition of Joe Pipitone
(11/13/2016)
Defendants’ Confidential
Information (or that of its
customers) redacted at: 86, 87,
88
Exhibit 23: Excerpts,
Deposition of James Hilliard
(11/12/2016)
Defendants’ Confidential
Information (or that of its
customers) redacted at: 181,
297
Exhibit 24: Excerpts,
Deposition of Lawrence
Hopkins (10/2/2008)

technical features embodied by
certain Nortek products (i.e.
the Intel Ireland project). They
include specific discussion
about the apparatus and
functionality of Nortek’s
products, which could harm
Nortek if publicly filed.
These excerpts of testimony
from Mr. Joe Naccarello, a
Nortek witness who testified
both in his personal capacity
and as Nortek’s 30(b)(6)
witness for certain sales related
topics, includes specific
discussion about Nortek’s
pricing structure, discount
model, competitive analysis,
and internal highlyconfidential business
information, which could harm
Nortek—especially if obtained
by its competitors—if publicly
filed.
Document contains
confidential excerpts from and
opinion regarding technical
documents detailing the
design, components, and
technical features of an Energy
Labs airhandling unit and its
customers’ facilities.
Document contains
confidential excerpts from and
opinion regarding technical
documents detailing the
design, components, and
technical features of an Energy
Labs airhandling unit and its
customers’ facilities.
These excerpts are testimony
from the inventor of the
patents-in-suit and relate to the
technical features embodied by
Nortek’s products. Given Mr.
Hopkins’ relationship and
experience with Nortek, these
excerpts include specific
discussion about the apparatus
6

GRANTED

GRANTED

GRANTED

GRANTED

1
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
28

and functionality of Nortek’s
products, which could harm
Nortek if publicly filed.
Exhibit 25: Exhibit 66 from the This exhibit contains internal
Deposition of A. Karvelis
Nortek (Temtrol brand)
documentation, for example,
internal project specifications,
purchase orders, sales
documents, and technical
information relating to a
particular Nortek installation,
none of which is publically
available.
Exhibit 26: Exhibit 67 to the
Document contains
Deposition of A. Karvelis
confidential excerpts from
technical documents detailing
Defendants’ Confidential
the design, components, and
Information (or that of its
technical features of an Energy
customers) redactions at: pgs.
Labs air-handling unit and its
1-3 (customer information),
customers’ facilities.
and 2-6 (technical information)
Exhibit 27: Excerpts, Rebuttal
Expert Report of Dr. James
Rice Regarding NonInfringement
Defendants’ Confidential
Information (or that of its
customers) redacted at: 41-43,
77, 78, 79, 84-86, 93-96, 162163, 398-401, 407-410, 494496, 499, 566-567, 594
Exhibit 29: Rebuttal Expert
Report of Dr. James Rice,
Exhibit D

GRANTED

GRANTED as to
Defendants’ Confidential
Information (or that of its
customers) redactions at: pgs.
1-3 (customer information),
and 2-6 (technical
information); DENIED as to
remainder.

Document contains
confidential excerpts from and
opinion regarding technical
documents detailing the
design, components, and
technical features of an Energy
Labs airhandling unit and its
customers’ facilities.

GRANTED

Document contains
confidential customer
information.

GRANTED

Defendants’ Confidential
Information (or that of its
customers) redacted at: 2-4
B. ECF 185
Identification of Documents
to be Sealed
Defendants’ Opposition to
Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment that
Claims 16 and 25 of U.S.
Patent No. 7,922,442 are Not

Description of Documents
The proposed redactions cite,
quote from, or reference
detailed proprietary technical
information about products
belonging to CleanPak
7

Court’s Order
GRANTED

1
2
3

Invalid Based on the CleanPak
MRPF Technical Bulletin
Redacted at: pgs. 4:13-16, 6:812

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Exhibit 2: Excerpts, Expert
Report of Dr. James Rice
Regarding Invalidity of U.S.
Patent Nos. 7,922,442;
8,414,251; 8,398,365;
8,562,283; 8,694,175;
8,727,700;
and 8,734,086
Exhibit 3: Excerpts, Rebuttal
Expert Report of Albert V.
Karvelis
Exhibit 7: Email, Spradling to
Benson et al (Dec. 10, 2004)
Exhibit 8: Facsimile, Spradling
to Jalai

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

C. ECF 188
Identification of Documents
to be Sealed
Portions of Plaintiff’s
Opposition to Defendants’
Motion for Summary
Judgment of Invalidity and
Non- Infringement

International (“Cleanpak”), a
former third-party company
which Nortek acquired in
2006. Such information is
publically unavailable and
could harm the CleanPak
brand and, by extension,
Nortek if publically filed.
Nortek does not object to
Exhibit 2 being filed publicly.

Nortek does not object to
Exhibit 3 being filed publicly.

DENIED

DENIED

Nortek does not object to
DENIED
Exhibit 7 being filed publicly.
Exhibit 8 is an internal
GRANTED
facsimile communication from
Huntair, a Nortek brand.
Nortek seeks to seal Exhibit 8
in its entirety, because the
document is a confidential
internal Nortek communication
that contains proprietary
technical information about
Cleanpak and divulges
internal, competitive-analysis
communications that would
harm Nortek’s business if
publically filed.
Description of Documents
Excerpts contain opinions that
divulge detailed technical
information about Nortek’s
products, one installation in
particular (the Temtrol
System). The disclosure of this
information would be
particularly harmful to
Nortek’s business. It also
contains trade secret
information about the Temtrol
8

Court’s Order
GRANTED

1
2
3
4
5

Nortek’s Responsive Separate
Statement in Opposition to
Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment of NonInfringement and Invalidity

6
7
8
9

Declaration of Dr. Albert
Karvelis in Support of
Nortek’s Opposition to
Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment

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
28

Declaration of Mr. John Habel
in Support of Nortek’s
Opposition to Defendants’
Motion for Summary
Judgment

System, the public release of
which would be harmful to
Nortek.
The document contains
proprietary technical
information, including details
about one installation in
particular (the Temtrol
System), the disclosure of this
information would be harmful
to Nortek’s business.
The proposed redactions
contain technical information
about Nortek’s products, one
installation in particular (“the
Temtrol System”). The
disclosure of this information
would be particularly harmful
to Nortek’s business.
The proposed redactions also
contain confidential excerpts
from technical documents
detailing the design,
components, and technical
features of specific Energy
Labs air-handling unit and its
customers’ facilities, and
private third party customer
information, including the
layout and structure of
customers’ facilities and
various other sensitive details
regarding the customer’s
internal ventilation systems.
The information proposed for
redaction reflects a significant
investment of financial and
technical resources by both
Defendants and third party
customers.
The proposed redactions
contain technical information
about Nortek’s products, one
installation in particular (the
Temtrol System). The
disclosure of this information
would be particularly harmful
9

GRANTED

GRANTED

GRANTED

1
2

Ex. D: Excerpts, 11/10/15
Deposition of Mr. Ray Irani

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Ex. E: Excerpts, 11/13/15
Deposition of Mr. James O.
Domholt

United States District Court
Northern District of California

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

Ex. G: Excerpts, 03/15/16
Deposition of Dr. James Rice
deposition
Exhibit H: Excerpts, 03/14/16
Deposition of Dr. James Rice

23
24
25
26
27
28

Ex. J: Rebuttal Expert Report
of Dr. James Rice, Ex. E (CFD

to Nortek’s business.
The language proposed for
redaction contains confidential
excerpts from technical
documents detailing the
design, components, and
technical features of specific
Energy Labs air-handling unit
and its customers’ facilities,
and private third party
customer information,
including the characteristics of
customers’ facilities and
various other sensitive details
regarding the customer’s
internal ventilation systems.
The language proposed for
redaction contains confidential
excerpts from technical
documents detailing the
design, components, and
technical features of specific
Energy Labs air-handling unit
and its customers’ facilities,
and private third party
customer information,
including the characteristics of
customers’ facilities and
various other sensitive details
regarding the customer’s
internal ventilation systems.
The information proposed for
redaction reflects a significant
investment of financial and
technical resources by both
Defendants and third party
customers.
Defendants do not object to it
being filed publicly.
The proposed redactions
contain technical information
about Nortek’s products, one
installation in particular (“the
Temtrol System”). The
disclosure of this information
would be particularly harmful
to Nortek’s business. The
proposed redactions also
contain confidential customer
information.
Defendants do not object to
Exhibit J being filed publicly.
10

GRANTED as to 6:7 and 21;
209:2-3, 14-15, 18-21, and 24
(customer information); 201:910 and 12- 25; 204:11-12, 14,
20, and 23; 205:16-19; 211:8,
14-15, and 21-25; 212:6-9
(technical information); and
293:1-12 and 293:20- 294:11
(business plans); DENIED as
to remainder.

GRANTED as to 4:17 and 1920; 273:22; 275:8-9 (customer
information); 271:12-14 and
17; 272:4, 8, and 22-24
(technical information);
DENIED as to remainder.

DENIED

GRANTED

DENIED

1
2

Model)
Ex. K: Excerpts, 11/13/15
Deposition of Mr. Joe Pipitone

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Ex. L: Excerpts, 11/03/15
Deposition of Mr. Ron Sweet

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Ex. M: Excerpts, 11/02/15
Deposition of Mr. Victor
Murphy

The language proposed for
redaction contains confidential
excerpts from technical
documents detailing the
design, components, and
technical features of specific
Energy Labs air-handling unit
and its customers’ facilities,
and private third party
customer information,
including the characteristics of
customers’ facilities and
various other sensitive details
regarding the customer’s
internal ventilation systems.
The information proposed for
redaction reflects a significant
investment of financial and
technical resources by both
Defendants and third party
customers.
The language proposed for
redaction contains confidential
excerpts from technical
documents detailing the
design, components, and
technical features of specific
Energy Labs air-handling unit
and its customers’ facilities,
and private third party
customer information,
including the characteristics of
customers’ facilities and
various other sensitive details
regarding the customer’s
internal ventilation systems.
The language proposed for
redaction contains confidential
excerpts from technical
documents detailing the
design, components, and
technical features of specific
Energy Labs air-handling unit
and its customers’ facilities,
and private third party
customer information,
including the characteristics of
customers’ facilities and
various other sensitive details
regarding the customer’s
internal ventilation systems.
The information proposed for
redaction reflects a significant
investment of financial and
technical resources by both
11

GRANTED as to 123:21;
124:4 and 6; 138:20-21;
139:23; 184:11 and 19; 186:7
(customer information); and
173:20; 174:11; 175:1-2, 4, 710, and 17-19; 180:17 and 20;
181:23; 182:2-3, 6, 17-18, and
22-24; 183:4; 184:3; 187:25;
188:4, 9, 12-13, and 15; and
271: 6- 8 (technical
information); DENIED as to
remainder.

GRANTED as to 251:9
(customer information); 246:9,
20-21; 247:5, 10, 17-19, and
22-23; 248:8, 15-16; and 250:9
(technical information);
DENIED as to remainder.

GRANTED as to 181:18-19;
255:24-25 (customer
information); and 285:14-15,
20, and 22-23; 286:7-10 and
17; 290:4, 8, 11, and 19
(technical information);
DENIED as to remainder.

1
2
3

Exhibit O: Excerpts, 03/16/16
Deposition of Dr. Albert
Karvelis

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
28

Ex. P: Excerpts, 11/12/15
Deposition of Mr. James
Hilliard
Ex. R: Energy Labs Air
Handler Unit Field Start-Up
Report (DMGC00007778)

Defendants and third party
customers.
Excerpts contain opinions that
divulge detailed technical
information about Nortek’s
products, one installation in
particular (the Temtrol
System). The disclosure of this
information would be
particularly harmful to
Nortek’s business. Excerpts
also contain confidential
excerpts from technical
documents detailing the
design, components, and
technical features of specific
Energy Labs air-handling unit
and its customers’ facilities,
and private third party
customer information,
including the layout and
structure of customers’
facilities and various other
sensitive details regarding the
customer’s internal ventilation
systems.
The language proposed for
redaction contains confidential
customer information.
The language proposed for
redaction contains confidential
excerpts from technical
documents that purport to
describe the design,
components, and technical
features of customer
components and facilities. This
includes private third party
customer information, along
with the capabilities and
technical specifications of
customers’ facilities and
various other sensitive details
regarding the customer’s
internal ventilation systems.
The document also includes, at
pages .004, .005, .006, .007,
.008, .009, .011, .012, .013,
and .014, information that
purports to describe
capabilities of a specific
component of a customers’
12

GRANTED

GRANTED as to 32:16 and
18; DENIED as to remainder.
GRANTED as to
DMGC00007778.001, .002,
.004, .005, .006, .007, .008,
.009, .011, .012, .013, and
.014; DENIED as to
remainder.

1
2

Ex. T: Excerpts, Energy Labs
Project documents
(ELI01568363)

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Exhibit V: Excerpts, 03/17/16
Deposition of Dr. Albert
Karvelis

14
15
16
17
18

Ex. W: Excerpts, Energy Labs
Project documents
(ELI00782884)

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Ex. X: Excerpts, Energy Labs
Project documents

ventilation system.
The language proposed for
redaction contains confidential
excerpts from technical
documents detailing the
design, components, and
technical features of specific
Energy Labs air-handling unit
and its customers’ facilities,
and private third party
customer information,
including the layout and
structure of customers’
facilities and various other
sensitive details regarding the
customer’s internal ventilation
systems. The information
proposed for redaction reflects
a significant investment of
financial and technical
resources by both Defendants
and third party customers.
Excerpts contain opinions that
divulge detailed technical
information about Nortek’s
products, one installation in
particular (the Temtrol
System). The disclosure of this
information would be
particularly harmful to
Nortek’s business.
The language proposed for
redaction contains confidential
excerpts from technical
documents detailing the
design, components, and
technical features of specific
Energy Labs air-handling unit
and its customers’ facilities,
and private third party
customer information,
including the layout and
structure of customers’
facilities and various other
sensitive details regarding the
customer’s internal ventilation
systems. The information
proposed for redaction reflects
a significant investment of
financial and technical
resources by both Defendants
and third party customers.
The language proposed for
redaction contains confidential
13

GRANTED as to
ELI01568363.001, .004, .006,
.026, .027, .029, .030, and
.031; DENIED as to
remainder.

GRANTED

GRANTED as to
ELI00782884.001, .035, .036,
.037, .038, .039, .040, .041,
.042, .043, .044, .045, and
.046; DENIED as to
remainder.

GRANTED as to
ELI00782721.001, .002, .046,

1

(ELI00782721)

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Ex. Y: Excerpts, Energy Labs
Operation & Maintenance
Manual (DMGN00002857)

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Ex. Z: Energy Labs Start-Up
Report (DMGC00011181.001)

excerpts from technical
documents detailing the
design, components, and
technical features of specific
Energy Labs air-handling unit
and its customers’ facilities,
and private third party
customer information,
including the layout and
structure of customers’
facilities and various other
sensitive details regarding the
customer’s internal ventilation
systems. The information
proposed for redaction reflects
a significant investment of
financial and technical
resources by both Defendants
and third party customers.
The language proposed for
redaction contains confidential
excerpts from technical
documents detailing the
design, components, and
technical features of specific
Energy Labs air-handling unit
and its customers’ facilities,
and private third party
customer information,
including the layout and
structure of customers’
facilities and various other
sensitive details regarding the
customer’s internal ventilation
systems. The information
proposed for redaction reflects
a significant investment of
financial and technical
resources by both Defendants
and third party customers.
The language proposed for
redaction contains confidential
excerpts from technical
documents detailing the
design, components, and
technical features of specific
Energy Labs air-handling unit
and its customers’ facilities,
and private third party
customer information,
including the capabilities and
technical specifications of
customers’ facilities and
various other sensitive details
regarding the customer’s
internal ventilation systems.
14

.047, .048, .049, .273, and
.354; DENIED as to
remainder.

GRANTED as to
DMGN00002857.001, .002,
.027, .028, .029, .220, and
.527; DENIED as to
remainder.

GRANTED as to
DMGC00011181.001, .002,
.004, .005, .006, .007, .008,
.010, .011, .012; DENIED as
to remainder.

1
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
28

The language proposed for
redaction contains confidential
excerpts from technical
documents detailing the
design, components, and
technical features of specific
Energy Labs air-handling unit
and its customers’ facilities,
and private third party
customer information,
including the capabilities and
technical specifications of
customers’ facilities and
various other sensitive details
regarding the customer’s
internal ventilation systems.
Exhibit AC: Excerpts,
Excerpts contain opinions that
03/10/16 Deposition of Mr.
divulge detailed technical
John Habel
information about Nortek’s
products, one installation in
particular (the Temtrol
System). The disclosure of this
information would be
particularly harmful to
Nortek’s business.
Ex. AE: Excerpts, Energy Labs The language proposed for
redaction contains confidential
Project documents
excerpts from technical
(ELI01416191)
documents detailing the
design, components, and
technical features of specific
Energy Labs air-handling unit
and its customers’ facilities,
and private third party
customer information,
including the layout and
structure of customers’
facilities and various other
sensitive details regarding the
customer’s internal ventilation
systems. The information
proposed for redaction reflects
a significant investment of
financial and technical
resources by both Defendants
and third party customers.
Ex. AA: Excerpts, Energy
Labs Project documents
(DMGC00011180)

D. ECF 196
Identification of Documents
to be Sealed
Defendants’ Reply in Support
of Their Motion for Summary
Judgment of Invalidity and

Description of Documents
The language proposed for
redaction contains confidential
excerpts from technical
15

GRANTED as to
DMGC00011180.001, .002,
.004, .005, .006, .007, .008,
.010, .011, .012; DENIED as
to remainder.

GRANTED

GRANTED as to
ELI01416191.001, .012, and
.013; DENIED as to
remainder.

Court’s Order
GRANTED as to 2:21, 3:20;
7:8-9; 8: 2,7; 10:8-9; 10:28; 13:
15,18, 20, 22, 26; 14: 6, 13, 25;
15: 1, 5, 14, 15, 18,

1
2
3
4
5

Non-Infringement
Defendants’ Confidential
Information (or that of its
customers) redacted at: pgs.
2:21 and 7:8-9 (financial
information); 10:8-9 (technical
information); and 10:28
(customer information)

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Exhibit 37: Rebuttal Expert
Report of Albert V. Karvelis,
Ph.D. (Feb. 18. 2016)
Exhibit 38: Opening Expert
Report of Albert V. Karvelis,
Ph.D. (Jan. 15, 2015)
Exhibit 40: Excerpts,
Deposition of James Rice,
Ph.D. (March 14, 2016)

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Exhibit 41: Excerpts,
Deposition of Albert V.
Karvelis, Ph.D. Volume II
(March 16, 2016)
Exhibit 42: Excerpts,
Deposition of Albert V.
Karvelis, Ph.D., Volume III
(March 17, 2016)

19, 27.
documents detailing the
design, components, and
technical features of specific
Energy Labs air-handling unit;
financial information regarding
Energy Labs’ offerings and
product sales; and information
regarding its customers’
facilities. This information
reflects a significant
investment of financial and
technical resources by both
Defendants and third party
customers.
Nortek does not object to Ex.
DENIED
37 being publically filed.

Nortek does not object to Ex.
38 being publically filed.

DENIED

The proposed redactions
comprise portions of Dr.
Rice’s testimony that relate to
documents containing
proprietary technical
information related to Nortek’s
products, including the
Temtrol DHS installation and
CleanPak (now a Nortek
brand) projects, and his
specific opinions detailing this
proprietary information. This
information is publically
unavailable and could harm
Nortek if publically filed.
Nortek does not object to Ex.
41 being publically filed.

GRANTED

The proposed redactions
comprise portions of Dr.
Karvelis’ testimony that relate
to documents containing
proprietary technical
information related to
Nortek’s products, namely the
Temtrol DHS installation, and
his specific opinions detailing

GRANTED

16

DENIED

this proprietary information.
This information is publically
unavailable and could harm
Nortek if publically filed.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

III.

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motions at ECF 175, 185, 188, and 196 are

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Under Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(2), for any
request that has been denied because the party designating a document as confidential or subject to
a protective order has not provided sufficient reasons to seal, the submitting party must file the
unredacted (or lesser redacted) documents into the public record no earlier than 4 days and no later
than 10 days form the filing of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 6, 2016
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17