Access Optical Networks, Inc. v. Seagate Technology LLC

Background

The court considered administrative motions to file materials under seal in connection with Seagate’s motion to compel adequate trade-secret disclosures and for sanctions, a discovery dispute concerning Access Optical Networks, Inc.’s responses to Seagate’s Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 12, and a joint request to extend AON’s time to comply with an earlier discovery order.

AON supported sealing information concerning its alleged trade secrets, including technical knowledge, methods, parameters, and optimized properties related to magnetic data storage, media optimization, dopant properties, and near-field optics. Seagate opposed sealing some material, particularly generic words, interrogatory requests, and certain responses.

Legal standard

Because the sealing requests concerned discovery matters, the court applied the good-cause standard. The party seeking sealing had to make a particularized showing that specific harm or prejudice would result without protection. Broad or unsupported allegations were insufficient.

Rulings

The court held that good cause supported sealing material it had previously ordered sealed, as well as new material containing the text of AON’s alleged trade secrets and non-generic technical terminology. It held that AON had not shown good cause to seal generic technical terms and commonly used phrases when they appeared separately and outside the context of an alleged trade secret.

For the materials connected to Seagate’s motion to compel and sanctions, the court granted in part and denied in part AON’s sealing requests. The order identifies the ruling for specific passages in Docket Nos. 79, 79-1 through 79-6, 87, and 91. It granted sealing for many passages and exhibits, while denying sealing for other passages and excepting certain generic terms and phrases, including references to “Optical Components,” “recording media,” “recording medium,” “light source,” and “light output” in the specified places.

For the joint discovery-dispute letter, the court granted in part and denied in part AON’s requests to seal portions of Exhibit A to Docket No. 105. The court sealed some identified passages but denied sealing for other passages, including certain generic words, interrogatory requests, and interrogatory responses.

For AON’s motion concerning the parties’ stipulated request to extend AON’s time to comply with the court’s September 25, 2025 discovery order, the court granted AON’s motion to seal. The court stated that good cause supported sealing the requested information, and the opinion says Seagate did not oppose that request.

Disposition

Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi ordered that, where a sealing request had been denied in whole or in part, the party must file a revised public version with appropriate redactions by October 22, 2025. The order addressed access to discovery-related materials and did not state a final ruling on the underlying trade-secret or discovery disputes.