Scientific Applications & Research Associates v. International

Background

The court had previously issued orders on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment and Daubert motions. It initially placed those orders under seal and gave the parties an opportunity to identify which portions should remain sealed. SARA designated no portions. Zipline sought to seal portions of both orders. This order addresses Docket Nos. 258 and 261 and applies to the court’s orders at Docket Nos. 257 and 260.

Legal standard

The court stated that court records carry a strong presumption of public access. A party seeking to seal judicial records must show compelling reasons to overcome that presumption, and sealing requests must be narrowly tailored to material that is properly sealable.

Rulings on the summary-judgment order

For the order at Docket No. 257, the court ruled as follows:

- Lines 3:16–20: Granted. The material contained nonpublic information about Zipline’s detect-and-avoid technology. - Lines 12:27–28 and 13:2–5: Granted. The material contained confidential information from Zipline’s nonpublic communications with the Federal Aviation Administration about its technology and regulatory strategy. - Lines 13:7–8: Denied. The information was the basis of Zipline’s summary-judgment argument on noninfringement and had been discussed at length in open court. - Lines 14:20–22: Granted. The material described a nonpublic internal document concerning the configuration of Zipline’s P2 system. - Lines 15:7–10: Granted. The material contained confidential information in an expert’s opinions about how parts of Zipline’s technology functioned. - Lines 15:11–12 and 15:17: Denied in Part. The court denied sealing for statements and arguments openly discussed at public hearings and for legal argument that was not a factual statement. Granted in Part. The court allowed sealing of line 25 because it contained confidential information about the functioning of the RPKF filter.

Rulings on the Daubert order

For the order at Docket No. 260, the court ruled as follows:

- Lines 5:16–26: Granted. The material quoted an expert’s opening report and contained confidential information about the functions of Zipline’s detect-and-avoid technology. - Lines 6:10–11, 6:23, and 6:27: Denied. The court found that the material did not disclose confidential information, that Zipline had not explained why some lines were confidential, and that similar material was left unsealed elsewhere. - Lines 7:8–10, 7:12, 7:14, and 7:20: Denied. The court found that its descriptions of the expert’s opinions were generalized, that Zipline did not specify which portions of some lines it sought to seal, and that other portions of the order undermined Zipline’s request. - Lines 13:20–21: Denied. The material contained statements and arguments discussed at public hearings and not sealed in Zipline’s summary-judgment motion.

Disposition

Judge Jacquelyn Corley granted in part and denied in part Zipline’s designations to seal portions of the court’s prior orders. The order states that it disposes of Docket Nos. 258 and 261. The opinion does not decide the parties’ underlying patent dispute in this order.