Optronic Technologies, Inc., v. Ningbo Sunny Electronic Co., Ltd. et al

Filing 294

ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL 251 253 255 257 259 269 271 275 283 289 Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 9/10/2019. (ejdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/10/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8
9
10

OPTRONIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC,
Plaintiff,

ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL

v.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

NINGBO SUNNY ELECTRONIC CO.,
LTD., et al.,

12

Defendants.

13

Case No. 5:16-cv-06370-EJD

Re: Dkt. No. 251, 253, 255, 257, 259, 269,
271, 275, 283, 289

The parties have filed ten administrative motions to file under seal the briefing and

14

supporting documentation for their motions for summary judgment and motions to strike expert

15

testimony. Dkt. Nos. 251, 253, 255, 257, 259, 269, 271, 275, 283, 289. This omnibus order

16

addresses in turn each motion to file under seal

17

U.S. courts recognize that the public has “a general right to inspect and copy public records

18

and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Whitewater W. Indus., Ltd. v. Pac.

19

Surf Designs, Inc., 2019 WL 1590470, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2019) (quoting Nixon v. Warner

20

Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). “When considering a sealing request, ‘a strong

21

presumption in favor of access is the starting point.’” Space Data Corp. v. Alphabet Inc., 2019

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

WL 2305278, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 30, 2019) (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447
F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). This right is not absolute though. Whitewater W. Indus., 2019
WL 1590470, at *1 (quoting Nixon, 434 U.S. at 598). In order to seal judicial records that are
“more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action,” the moving party must show
“compelling reasons” that outweigh the presumption in favor of disclosure. Space Data, 2019 WL
2305278, at *1 (citing Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016)).
Case No.: 5:16-cv-06370-EJD
ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL
1

1

To make this showing, the moving party must provide “specific factual findings that outweigh the

2

general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Opperman v. Path, Inc.,

3

2017 WL 1036652, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2017). Courts applying the compelling reasons

4

standard have upheld the sealing of trade secrets, marketing strategies, product development plans,

5

detailed product-specific financial information, customer information, internal reports and other

6

such materials that could harm a party’s competitive standing. See, e.g., In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298

7

F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008); Opperman, 2017 WL 1036652; Lucas v. Breg, Inc., 2016 WL

8

5464549, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2016); Rodman v. Safeway Inc., 2015 WL 13673842 (N.D.

9

Cal. Aug. 4, 2015).

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

However, courts should exercise caution not allow these exceptions swallow the strong
presumption in favor of disclosure. “There fact that the production of records may lead to a
litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more,
compel the court to seal its records.” Lucas, 2016 WL 5464549, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2016)
(quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific
examples of articulated reasoning” will not carry the compelling standards burden. Space Data,
2019 WL 2305278, at *1 (quoting Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th
Cir. 1992)). Mere designation of a document as confidential under a protective order is not
sufficient to establish that said document, or portions thereof, are sealable. Civil L.R. 795(d)(1)(A).
Motions to strike expert testimony that are connected to summary judgment motions may
be more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action so that the party seeking sealing
of such materials must demonstrate a compelling reason for doing so. In re Midland Nat. Life Ins.
Co. Annuity Sales Practices Litig., 686 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2012). The court will apply the
compelling reasons standard to the pending motions to seal, whether they seek the sealing of
summary judgment materials or Daubert materials. The court now considers each motion to file
under seal.

26
27
28

Case No.: 5:16-cv-06370-EJD
ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL
2

1

I.

Docket Entry 251 – Defendants’ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portions
of Its Motion to Strike Certain Testimony of Orion’s Economic Expert Dr. Zona

2

The court has reviewed Defendants’ motion, the supporting papers, and Plaintiff’s

3

declaration in support of the motion. Dkt. No. 265. Finding that Plaintiff has met the compelling

4

reasons standard, the court grants the motion as to portions of Exhibit A that correspond to the

5

highlighted sections of Docket Entry 255-4. The motion is otherwise denied.

6

II.

7

The court has reviewed Defendants’ motion, the supporting papers. Plaintiff, the

8
9
10

Docket Entry 253 – Defendants’ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portions
of Its Motion to Strike Certain Testimony of Orion’s Telescope Technology Expert
Dr. Sasian

designating party, did not file a declaration in support of this administrative motion. See Civil
L.R. 79-5(e). Accordingly, this motion to seal is denied.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

III.

Docket Entry 255 – Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in Support
of Motion for Summary Judgment

12

The Court has reviewed the motion, the supporting papers, and Defendants’ errata

13

declaration of Junwen “James” Chiu, filed in support of this motion. Dkt. No. 267. The court

14

grants in part and denies in part the motion as to the exhibits attached to the declaration of Ronald

15

Fisher as follows:
Exhibit 1: Granted for limited sealing in ¶ 70 as indicated in Docket Entry 255-4;

16
17

otherwise denied.
Exhibits 2-4: Denied; neither party has shown a compelling reason for sealing this

18
19

material.
Exhibit 5: Granted as to deposition excerpt of James Chiu at pages 92:20-95:6; otherwise

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

denied.
Exhibit 6: Granted as to deposition excerpt of Victor Aniceto at pages 330:14-332:13;
otherwise denied.
Exhibit 7: Granted as to deposition excerpt of Joseph Lupica at pages 372:22-373:25;
otherwise denied.
Exhibits 8-13: Denied; neither party has shown a compelling reason for sealing this

27

material.

28

Case No.: 5:16-cv-06370-EJD
ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL
3

Exhibit 14: Granted as to portions of Exhibit A to Exhibit 14, from NSE00001252-1258,

1
2

that disclose the home addresses of various individuals; otherwise denied.
Exhibits 15-41: Denied; neither party has shown a compelling reason for sealing this

3
4

material.

5

Exhibit 42: Granted.

6

Exhibits 43-49: Denied; neither party has shown a compelling reason for sealing this

7

material.

8

Exhibit 50: Granted.

9

Exhibits 51-66: Denied; neither party has shown a compelling reason for sealing this

10

material.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Exhibit 67: Granted as to pages 8:22-9:18 and 10:1-17; otherwise denied.

12

Exhibit 68: Granted as to ¶¶ 25 and 27; otherwise denied.

13

IV.

Docket Entry 257 – Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in Support
of Motion to Preclude Testimony of Jeffrey Dean Redman

14

The Court has reviewed the motion, the supporting papers, and Defendants’ declaration of

15

Junwen “James” Chiu filed in support of this motion Dkt. No. 263. This motion is granted in part

16

and denied in part as the exhibits attached to the declaration of Ronald Fisher as follows:

17
18

Exhibit A: Granted as to page 22 ¶ 70, page 37 ¶ 117, and page 37 note 125; otherwise
denied.

19

Exhibit B: Denied; neither party has shown a compelling reason for sealing this material.

20

Exhibit C: Granted as to page 23 ¶ 37 and note 60, page 24 ¶ 38 and notes 66 and 67, and

21

pages 62-63 ¶ 116; otherwise denied.

22

Exhibit D: Denied; neither party has shown a compelling reason for sealing this material.

23

Exhibit E: Granted as to ¶ 70 as indicated in Docket Entry 255-4; otherwise denied.

24

Exhibit F: Denied; neither party has shown a compelling reason for sealing this material.

25

Exhibit G: Denied; neither party has shown a compelling reason for sealing this material.

26
27
28

Case No.: 5:16-cv-06370-EJD
ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL
4

1

V.

Docket Entry 259 – Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in Support
of Motion to Preclude Testimony by Celeste Saravia, Ph.D
The Court has reviewed the motion, the supporting papers, and Defendants’ declaration of

2
3

Junwen “James” Chiu filed in support of this motion. Dkt. No. 264. This motion is granted in

4

part and denied in part as the exhibits attached to the declaration of Ronald Fisher as follows:

5

Exhibit A: Granted as to page 9:18-20; otherwise denied.

6

Exhibit C: Granted as to page 23 ¶ 37 and note 60, page 24 ¶ 38 and notes 66 and 67, and

7

pages 62-63 ¶ 116; otherwise denied.

8

Exhibit D: Granted as to pages 60:22-61:7, 204:5-205:8, and 242:8-11; otherwise denied.

9

Exhibit E: Granted for limited sealing in ¶ 70 as indicated in Docket Entry 255-4;

10

otherwise denied.
Exhibit F: Denied; neither party has shown a compelling reason for sealing this material.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

VI.

13

The court has reviewed the motion and supporting papers. Neither Plaintiff nor non-party

14
15
16
17
18

Docket Entry 269 – Defendants’ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portions
of Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff’s
Motion for Summary Judgment

Dave Anderson filed a declaration in support of this administrative motion. See Civil L.R. 795(e). The court grants the motion as to ¶¶ 25 and 27 of Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s
Separate Statement, Exhibit 48, and Exhibit 49. The motion is otherwise denied.
VII.

Docket Entry 271 – Defendants’ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portions
of Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Preclude Testimony by Saravia
The court has reviewed Defendants’ motion and supporting papers. Plaintiff, the

19
20

designating party, did not file a declaration in support of this motion. See Civil L.R. 79-5(e).

21

Accordingly, the motion is denied.

22
23
24
25

VIII.

Docket Entry 275 – Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in Support
of Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Strike Certain Testimony of Orion’s
Economic Expert Dr. Zona
The court has reviewed Plaintiff’s motion and the supporting papers. The court grants the

motion for limited sealing in ¶ 70 as indicated in Docket Entry 255-4.

26
27
28

Case No.: 5:16-cv-06370-EJD
ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL
5

1

IX.

2
3
4

The court has reviewed Plaintiff’s motion, the supporting papers, and Defendants’
declaration of Joy O. Siu filed in support of the motion. The court grants the motion as follows:
Exhibit 14: Granted as to the highlighted portions in Docket Entry 283-30.

5
6
7

Exhibit 17: Granted as to Facts 25 and 27; otherwise denied.
The motion is otherwise denied.
X.

8

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Docket Entry 289 – Defendants’ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portions
of Defendants’ Reply in Support of Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment
The court has considered Defendants’ motion and the supporting papers. Plaintiff did not

9
10

Docket Entry 283 – Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents
in Support of Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to
Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment

file a declaration in support of sealing. See Civil L.R. 79-5(e). Because neither party has shown a
compelling reason to seal documents subject to this motion, the motion is denied.
XI.

Conclusion
Where necessary, the parties shall comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5(f).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 10, 2019
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No.: 5:16-cv-06370-EJD
ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL
6