Valeo Schalter und Sensoren GmbH v. NVIDIA Corporation

Filing 187

ORDER re 170 174 175 176 Administrative Motions to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi on 1/9/2025. (vkdlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2025)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISIONON

7
8

VALEO SCHALTER UND SENSOREN
GMBH,

Case No. 23-cv-05721-EKL (VKD)

9

Plaintiff,

ORDER SEALING DOCUMENTS

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

v.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 170, 174, 175, 176

NVIDIA CORPORATION,
Defendant.

13
14

On December 26, 2024, plaintiff Valeo Schalter und Sensoren GMBH (“Valeo”) filed four

15

administrative motions to consider whether NVIDIA Corporation’s (“NVIDIA”) materials should

16

be sealed in connection with four discovery dispute letters and attachments filed the same day.

17

Dkt. Nos. 170, 174, 175, 176. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f), defendant NVIDIA filed a

18

declaration in support of Valeo’s sealing motions, but indicated that a narrower set of materials

19

requires sealing. Dkt. No. 178.

20

There is a strong presumption in favor of access by the public to judicial records and

21

documents accompanying dispositive motions that can be overcome only by a showing of

22

“compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of

23

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (cleaned up). However, the presumption does

24

not apply equally to a motion addressing matters that are only “tangentially related to the merits of

25

a case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). A

26

party seeking to seal documents or information in connection with such a motion must meet the

27

lower “good cause” standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Id. at 1098-99; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at

28

1179-80. The discovery matters at issue here do not address the merits of either party’s claims or

1
2

defenses, so the Court applies the “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c).
NVIDIA asserts that the information it seeks to seal contains confidential business

3

information as well specific details regarding the technical aspects and personnel involved in

4

ongoing and forthcoming projects. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 178 ¶¶ 8-9, 14. NVIDIA states that this

5

information, if revealed, could cause damage to NVIDIA’s competitive standing and would

6

increase the risk that “bad actors” could “gain access to NVIDIA’s confidential technical

7

information.” Id. ¶¶ 10-11. The Court agrees that good cause exists to seal the information

8

NVIDIA has designated within these documents. The redactions proposed to the public versions

9

of these documents are minimal and narrowly tailored to address the concerns it identifies. See

10

Civil L.R. 79-5(c)(3). The following materials shall be sealed:

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Document

Portions to be Filed Under Seal

13

Discovery Letter Brief to Compel
NVIDIA to Produce Custodial ESI (Dkt.
No. 169)

Portions of the document as redacted by NVIDIA in
Exhibit A (Dkt. No. 178-1) to the Declaration of
Michael LaFond (Dkt. No. 178)

Discovery Letter Brief re NVIDIA’s
Failure to Produce Responsive
Documents (Dkt. No. 171)

Portions of the document as redacted by NVIDIA in
Exhibit B (Dkt. No. 178-2) to the Declaration of
Michael LaFond (Dkt. No. 178)

Exhibit 3 to Dkt. No. 171

Portions of the document as redacted by NVIDIA in
Exhibit C (Dkt. No. 178-3) to the Declaration of
Michael LaFond (Dkt. No. 178)

Exhibit 4 to Dkt. No. 171

Portions of the document as redacted by NVIDIA in
Exhibit D (Dkt. No. 178-4) to the Declaration of
Michael LaFond (Dkt. No. 178)

Discovery Letter Brief to Compel
NVIDIA to Produce Financial
Documents (Dkt. No. 172)

Portions of the document as redacted by NVIDIA in
Exhibit E (Dkt. No. 178-5) to the Declaration of
Michael LaFond (Dkt. No. 178)

Exhibit 2 to Dkt. No. 172

Entire Document

Discovery Letter Brief re NVIDIA’s
Failure to Properly Prepare 30(b)(6)
Witnesses (Dkt. No. 173)

Portions of the document as redacted by NVIDIA in
Exhibit F (Dkt. No. 178-6) to the Declaration of
Michael LaFond (Dkt. No. 178)

Exhibit 1 to Dkt. No. 173

Portions of the document as redacted by NVIDIA in
Exhibit G (Dkt. No. 178-7) to the Declaration of
2

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

Michael LaFond (Dkt. No. 178)

1
2

Exhibit 2 to Dkt. No. 173

Portions of the document as redacted by NVIDIA in
Exhibit H (Dkt. No. 178-8) to the Declaration of
Michael LaFond (Dkt. No. 178)

Exhibit 3 to Dkt. No. 173

Portions of the document as redacted by NVIDIA in
Exhibit I (Dkt. No. 178-9) to the Declaration of
Michael LaFond (Dkt. No. 178)

Exhibit 4 to Dkt. No. 173

Portions of the document as redacted by NVIDIA in
Exhibit J (Dkt. No. 178-10) to the Declaration of
Michael LaFond (Dkt. No. 178)

3
4
5
6
7
8

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

Redacted versions of these documents are available on the public docket. No further

10

action by the parties is required.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated: January 9, 2025

13
14
Virginia K. DeMarchi
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3