Nazemian v. NVIDIA Corporation
- Jon Tigar
- 4:24-cv-01454
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Abdi Nazemian v. NVIDIA, Judge Tigar denied one sealing motion in part, granted one, and denied three others.
The order affected Abdi Nazemian and the other plaintiffs, NVIDIA Corporation, and public access to the parties’ court filings. Some NVIDIA-related business materials may remain sealed, while other materials must be filed publicly for the court to consider them.
What happened
In Abdi Nazemian, et al. v. NVIDIA Corporation, the parties disputed whether parts of court filings should be kept from the public. NVIDIA sought to protect information it described as confidential business information, including references to websites and databases allegedly used to develop its artificial-intelligence models.
The court found that some exhibits contained genuine product-development information and confidential business decisions whose disclosure could cause competitive harm. But it found that references to Anna’s Archive and other databases, and allegations about NVIDIA’s alleged use of them, were not shown to be confidential or to justify secrecy.
Judge Jon S. Tigar denied the motion at ECF No. 192 in part, granted the motion at ECF No. 207, and denied the motions at ECF Nos. 203, 210, and 211. Filings covered by denied requests would not be considered unless they were filed publicly without redactions within seven days.
The detailed version
- Nazemian v. NVIDIA Corporation · No. 4:24-cv-01454
- Jon Tigar
- Dec. 4, 2025
Background
The court considered motions and oppositions concerning whether portions of filings should be sealed. The materials involved motions about changing the case schedule, amending the complaint, opposing sealing, opposing the amendment, and replying in support of leave to amend.
The court explained that a party seeking to seal a court filing must comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5 and overcome the strong presumption that court records should be publicly accessible. For most judicial records, the party must show “compelling reasons” supported by specific facts. For records only indirectly related to the merits of a case, the party may instead need to show “good cause” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), meaning protection from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.
Rulings
For ECF Nos. 192 and 200, the plaintiffs sought to seal materials designated by NVIDIA as confidential. The plaintiffs opposed sealing three documents: Exhibit A, the proposed amended complaint; Exhibit B, a redline of that complaint; and Exhibit F, an email chain. NVIDIA argued that references to Anna’s Archive disclosed its research priorities, research-and-development strategy, and internal development details, and that disclosure could harm its competitive position.
The court rejected that justification. It found that NVIDIA’s statements about possible commercial harm were conclusory and that the request appeared designed to avoid negative publicity rather than protect sensitive business information. The court also found no compelling reason to seal references to Anna’s Archive, Books3, LibGen, Sci-Hub, or Z-Library, or allegations that NVIDIA attempted to pirate copyrighted works. The requests to seal or redact Exhibits A, B, and F were denied.
The court reached a different conclusion for Exhibits D through R, excepting none of the listed exhibits: D, E, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, and R. It found that NVIDIA sufficiently showed that these exhibits involved genuine product development and confidential business decision-making, whose disclosure could foreseeably cause competitive harm. The court partially granted the motion as to those exhibits. In its conclusion, the court described the result on ECF No. 192 as denying that motion in part.
For ECF No. 203, NVIDIA sought to seal portions of the plaintiffs’ opposition to NVIDIA’s statement supporting sealing, including references to Anna’s Archive. The court found neither good cause nor compelling reasons to seal those materials and denied the motion.
For ECF No. 207, NVIDIA sought to seal a declaration attached to its opposition to the motion to amend the complaint, arguing that the declaration contained confidential business information. The court granted the motion to seal at ECF No. 207.
For ECF Nos. 210 and 211, the plaintiffs sought to seal materials NVIDIA had designated as confidential in the plaintiffs’ reply supporting leave to amend. NVIDIA argued that references to allegedly used piracy platforms contained confidential business information and posed a substantial risk of harm. For the reasons already stated, the court found no basis for sealing and denied both motions.
Disposition and Effect
Judge Jon S. Tigar denied in part the motion to seal at ECF No. 192, granted the motion at ECF No. 207, and denied the motions at ECF Nos. 203, 210, and 211. The court stated that it would not consider documents covered by the denied requests unless the filing party placed them on the public record without redactions within seven days of the order.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.