Optronic Technologies, Inc. v. Ningbo Sunny Electronic Co., Ltd.
- Edward Davila
- 5:16-cv-06370
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Optronic Technologies v. Ningbo Sunny, Judge Davila partly granted and partly denied motions to seal materials filed with summary-judgment and expert-testimony motions.
The parties and the public: the parties’ requests to keep portions of court filings secret were granted only for specified materials, while other materials remained subject to public access.
What happened
In Optronic Technologies, Inc. v. Ningbo Sunny Electronic Co., Ltd., the parties filed ten requests to keep parts of briefs and supporting documents secret. The documents related to motions for summary judgment and motions challenging expert testimony.
The court said the public generally has a right to inspect court records. Parties seeking secrecy had to show specific, compelling reasons, such as protecting trade secrets, private addresses, or sensitive business information. General claims that disclosure could cause harm were not enough.
Judge Edward J. Davila granted some requests, granted some in part and denied some in part, and denied others entirely. The court ordered the parties to follow the applicable local rule for filing sealed materials.
The detailed version
- Optronic Technologies, Inc. v. Ningbo Sunny Electronic Co., Ltd. · No. 5:16-cv-06370
- Edward Davila
- Sept. 10, 2019
Background
The parties filed ten administrative motions asking the court to seal portions of briefing and supporting documents connected to motions for summary judgment and motions to strike or preclude expert testimony. The order addressed docket entries 251, 253, 255, 257, 259, 269, 271, 275, 283, and 289.
Legal standard
The court explained that judicial records are generally open to the public. Because the materials were more than only indirectly related to the underlying claims, the parties seeking secrecy had to show “compelling reasons” that outweighed the public’s interest in access. Specific information that might qualify included trade secrets, marketing strategies, product-development plans, detailed product-specific financial information, customer information, and internal reports. Broad claims of possible harm, embarrassment, or exposure to further litigation were not enough, and merely designating material as confidential under a protective order did not establish that it could be sealed.
Rulings on the motions
- Docket 251: The court granted the motion as to portions of Exhibit A corresponding to the highlighted sections of Docket 255-4. The motion was otherwise denied. - Docket 253: The court denied the motion because the designating party did not file a supporting declaration. - Docket 255: The court granted in part and denied in part the motion. It allowed limited sealing of specified portions of Exhibits 1, 5, 6, 7, 14, 42, 50, 67, and
- It denied sealing for the remaining portions of those exhibits and for Exhibits 2 through 4, 8 through 13, 15 through 41, and 43 through 49, finding no compelling reason to seal that material. - Docket 257: The court granted in part and denied in part the motion. It allowed sealing of specified portions of Exhibits A, C, and E, and denied sealing of the remaining portions and all requested sealing for Exhibits B, D, F, and G. - Docket 259: The court granted in part and denied in part the motion. It allowed sealing of specified portions of Exhibits A, C, D, and E, and denied sealing of the remaining portions and the requested sealing of Exhibit F. - Docket 269: The court granted the motion as to paragraphs 25 and 27 of the defendants’ response to the plaintiff’s separate statement, Exhibit 48, and Exhibit
- The motion was otherwise denied. - Docket 271: The court denied the motion because the designating party did not file a supporting declaration. - Docket 275: The court granted the motion for limited sealing of paragraph 70 as indicated in Docket 255-4. - Docket 283: The court granted the motion as to the highlighted portions of Exhibit 14 and Facts 25 and 27 of Exhibit
- The motion was otherwise denied. - Docket 289: The court denied the motion because neither party showed a compelling reason to seal the documents covered by it.
Disposition
The court directed the parties, where necessary, to comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5(f). Edward J. Davila, United States District Judge, entered the order on September 10, 2019.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.