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

Filing 362

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 221 , 341 , 343 DEFENDANTS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 8/24/2016.(blflc4S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

9
10

NORTEK AIR SOLUTIONS, LLC,

Case No. 14-cv-02919-BLF

Plaintiff,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

v.
12
13

DMG CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO
FILE UNDER SEAL
[Re: ECF 221, 341, 343]

14
15

Before the Court are Defendants’ administrative motions to file under seal the Court’s

16
order regarding summary judgment motions and their bench trial brief and proposed findings of
17
fact and conclusions of law. ECF 221, 341, 343. The portions of the summary judgment motion
18
sought to be sealed contain confidential excerpts from technical documents detailing the design,
19
components, and technical features of specific Energy Labs air-handling unit; and information
20
21

regarding its customers’ facilities. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to file under seal
portions of the Court’s order on summary judgment. ECF 221. See, e.g., U.S. Ethernet

22
Innovations, LLC v. Acer, Inc., Case No. 10-3724 CW, 2014 WL 6664621, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov.
23
24, 2014) (granting motion to seal documents attached to summary judgment motion with
24
redactions limited to confidential technical, sales, and financial information).
25
As to the motions to seal the identified portions of the Trial Brief and the Proposed
26
Findings of Fact, Court finds that Defendants have articulated compelling reasons to seal certain
27
portions of the submitted documents and the proposed redactions are also narrowly tailored.
28

1

However, in failing to respond to these motions, Plaintiff proffered no reasons to seal the

2

portions designated “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential” by Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court

3

denies the motion to seal with respect to those portions. The Court’s rulings on the sealing

4

requests are set forth in the table below:

5
6
7
8
9
10

Identification of Documents
to be Sealed
Order Granting Plaintiff’s
Motion for Order (1) Granting
Plaintiff’s Motion For
Summary Judgment And (2)
Denying Defendants’ Motion
For Summary Judgment

Plaintiff’s Confidential
Material, redacted at: 19:1523, and 21:10-11, contains
Nortek’s technical and
business information.

Court’s Order
GRANTED as to the specific
portions mentioned in
preceding column.

Defendants’ Confidential
Information, redacted at: 8:219:6, 9:18-19, 13:3, 5-6, and 12;
and 13:9, 10, contains Energy
Labs’s technical information
and customer information.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Description of Documents

12
13
14
15

Defendants’ Bench Trial Brief

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

Exhibit 1 to Defendants’
Bench Trial Brief
Exhibit 2 to Defendants’
Bench Trial Brief
Exhibit 3 to Defendants’
Bench Trial Brief
Exhibit 4 to Defendants’
Bench Trial Brief
Defendants’ Proposed
Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law

Plaintiff’s Confidential
Information redacted at:
2:20-22, 23, 24; 3:7-9, 10-11,
12-13, 13-14, 14-16, 17, 1819; 5:1-4; 6:14-16, 17-19, 1920, 21, 22, 22-24; 7:19-20;
13:2-3, 8-10, 12, 14, 15-16
Excerpts from the Deposition
of Joe Naccarello (January 13,
2016)
Excerpts from the Deposition
of John Albert (March 10,
2016)
Excerpts from the Deposition
of Susan Snyder (January 15,
2016)
Excerpts from the Deposition
of Stephen Prowse, Ph.D.
(February 23, 2016)
Defendants’ Confidential
Information, redacted at
paragraphs: 120-123, contains
Energy Labs’s business and
2

DENIED.

DENIED.

DENIED.

DENIED.

DENIED.

GRANTED as to paragraphs
120-123 and DENIED as to
remainder.

strategy information.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16

Exhibit 3 to Defendants’
Proposed Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law
Exhibit 4 to Defendants’
Proposed Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law
Exhibit 5 to Defendants’
Proposed Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law
Exhibit 6 to Defendants’
Proposed Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law
Exhibit 7 to Defendants’
Proposed Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law
Exhibit 8 to Defendants’
Proposed Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law

Plaintiff’s Confidential
Information redacted at
paragraphs: 26-28, 30, 33-36,
38, 93-97, 103-107, 125-127,
130-134, 141, 142, 211, 214219, 237
Excerpts from the Deposition
of John Habel (November 10,
2015)
Excerpts from the Deposition
of Joe Naccarello (January 13,
2016)
Excerpts from the Deposition
of Susan Snyder (January 15,
2016)
Excerpts from the Deposition
of Stephen Prowse (February
23, 2016)
Excerpts from the Deposition
of John Albert (March 1, 2016)
Excerpts from the Deposition
of John Habel (March 10,
2016)

DENIED.

DENIED.

DENIED.

DENIED.

DENIED.

DENIED.

For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motions at ECF 221, 341, 343 are GRANTED IN

17

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

18

denied because the party designating a document as confidential or subject to a protective order

19

has not provided sufficient reasons to seal, the submitting party must file the unredacted (or lesser

20

redacted) documents into the public record no earlier than 4 days and no later than 10 days form

21

the filing of this order.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24
25
26
27

Dated: August 24, 2016
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

28
3