In re Sandisk SSDS Litigation
- 3:23-cv-04152
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In re SANDISK SSDs LITIGATION: the court granted sealing for Exhibits G and J, denied it for other exhibits, and required unredacted filings.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the litigation, and members of the public seeking access to the exhibits.
What happened
In re SANDISK SSDs LITIGATION concerns whether documents supporting a discovery letter brief should be kept from public view. Plaintiffs filed the administrative motion based on defendants’ confidentiality designations.
Defendants argued that Exhibits G and J contained technical details about their investigation of and response to an alleged defect in solid-state drives, and that public disclosure could cause competitive harm. The court found good cause to keep those two exhibits under seal.
The court granted defendants’ request for Exhibits G and J, denied the motion as to all other exhibits, and ordered plaintiffs to file unredacted copies of those exhibits by May 15, 2025. The judge’s name is not clear in the opinion text.
The detailed version
- In re Sandisk SSDS Litigation · No. 3:23-cv-04152
- May 8, 2025
Background
Plaintiffs filed an administrative motion under Civil Local Rule 79-5(f) asking the court to consider whether documents submitted with a discovery letter brief should be filed under seal. The motion was based solely on defendants’ confidentiality designations.
Defendants responded that Exhibits G and J should remain under seal. According to defendants, those exhibits contain technical details about their investigation of and response to an alleged defect in solid-state drives. Defendants argued that disclosure could cause competitive harm.
Ruling
The court found that good cause had been shown and granted defendants’ request to maintain Exhibits G and J under seal. The court denied the administrative motion as to all other exhibits at issue.
The court ordered plaintiffs to file unredacted copies of the other exhibits by May 15, 2025, to complete the public record. The court expressly did not decide whether a stronger showing of “compelling reasons” would be required to seal Exhibits G and J if they were later offered in a context more closely related to the merits of the case.
Effect of the Order
Exhibits G and J remain sealed under this order, while the other exhibits at issue must be filed publicly in unredacted form. This was an order about access to documents, not a decision on the underlying claims or alleged defect.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.