SolarPark Korea Co., Ltd. v. Solaria Corporation
- 3:23-cv-01181
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 35
SolarPark Korea Co., Ltd. v. The Solaria Corporation involved sealing requests; the court granted some, denied others, and ordered public versions of denied materials.
SolarPark Korea Co., Ltd., The Solaria Corporation, Complete Solaria, Inc., and the public’s access to the parties’ court filings were affected. Materials covered by granted requests remained sealed, while the parties had to file public versions of materials for which sealing was denied.
What happened
In SolarPark Korea Co., Ltd. v. The Solaria Corporation, the parties asked to keep portions of filings and supporting documents secret in connection with requests to extend time, a preliminary-injunction motion, and dismissal and stay motions.
The court applied rules requiring specific reasons for secrecy and found that some materials contained trade secrets, confidential business information, or information protected by Singapore arbitration confidentiality rules. It granted some requests and denied others, including requests for material that was already public or not shown to be confidential.
The court directed the parties to file public versions of documents for which sealing was denied within seven days, while documents covered by granted requests would remain sealed. The opinion does not identify the judge clearly; the court issued the order on August 2, 2023.
The detailed version
- SolarPark Korea Co., Ltd. v. Solaria Corporation · No. 3:23-cv-01181
- Aug. 2, 2023
Background
The court addressed seven administrative motions concerning whether portions of filings and supporting documents should be filed under seal. The materials related primarily to a motion to extend the defendants’ time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint, SolarPark’s motion for a preliminary injunction and related briefing, and the defendants’ partial motion to dismiss and motion to stay and related briefing.
Legal standard
Under the Northern District of California’s sealing rules, the party seeking secrecy had to identify the private or public interests supporting sealing, explain the harm that would result from disclosure, and show why a less restrictive option was insufficient. Because court records are presumptively open to the public, the court required compelling reasons supported by specific facts and a narrowly tailored request. The court stated that compelling reasons may include disclosure of trade secrets, business information that could harm competitive standing, and information covered by confidential arbitration rules.
The court noted that the parties were bound by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre’s confidentiality rules. Those rules generally covered matters related to the arbitration, including its existence, pleadings, evidence, and other materials, unless the information was already publicly available.
Rulings
The court granted and denied requests throughout the sealing chart rather than granting or denying all seven administrative motions as a whole. For the motion to extend time, the court denied the listed requests except that it granted sealing for Exhibits 2 and 3 to Jamie L. Lucia’s supporting declaration based on confidential business information.
For SolarPark’s preliminary-injunction motion and supporting declarations, the court generally granted the listed requests based on trade-secret protection. The court overruled Solaria’s objections to those requests. The court also granted some requests concerning Solaria’s opposition and SolarPark’s reply based on trade secrets or confidential business information, but denied other requests because the material was not confidential or had already been made public. In at least one instance, the court sustained Solaria’s objection on the ground that SolarPark had made the information public.
For the partial motion to dismiss and motion to stay, and the related opposition and reply, the court granted many requests based on arbitration confidentiality rules. It denied other requests because the information was public or otherwise not confidential. The court ordered that documents covered by granted sealing requests would remain under seal. It directed the parties to file public versions of all documents for which sealing was denied within seven days of the order. The opinion addresses sealing only and does not decide the preliminary-injunction, dismissal, or stay motions on their merits.
Read the full 35-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.