Flextronics International USA, Inc. v. Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
- Edward Davila
- 5:19-cv-00078
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Flextronics v. Murata: Judge Davila denied in part without prejudice and granted in part a motion to seal portions of the complaint.
Flextronics and Murata were affected by the partial sealing ruling, and the ruling also affected the public’s access to the complaint and related judicial records.
What happened
In Flextronics International USA, Inc. v. Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Flextronics asked to seal parts of its second amended complaint. Murata was the designating party and supported sealing some information.
The court allowed sealing for certain customer identities, customer trade secrets, and product or commercial development information covered by nondisclosure agreements. It refused to seal general allegations, employee names, or information about Murata’s own products because Murata had not provided specific reasons showing that confidentiality outweighed the public’s right to access court records.
Judge Edward J. Davila granted in part and denied in part the sealing motion, with the denial described at the beginning of the order as without prejudice. The court allowed the motion to be renewed within 10 days with adequate supporting reasons and declarations.
The detailed version
- Flextronics International USA, Inc. v. Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. · No. 5:19-cv-00078
- Edward Davila
- Dec. 16, 2019
Background
Flextronics filed an administrative motion concerning the sealing of portions of its second amended complaint. The order identifies the motion as ECF 68. Murata was the designating party and submitted a supporting declaration. No party objected to the motion.
Legal standard
The court explained that the public generally has a right to inspect and copy judicial records. For records more than tangentially related to the underlying case, a party seeking sealing must show compelling reasons—specific facts demonstrating that confidentiality interests outweigh the strong presumption of public access. General claims that information is confidential, embarrassment or possible incrimination, and a confidentiality designation under a protective order are not enough by themselves.
Rulings on the requested paragraphs
The court granted sealing for paragraphs 235, 241, 264, and 268. The information concerned confidential customer identities and customer trade secrets. The court accepted the explanation that disclosure could violate nondisclosure agreements and disadvantage Murata in future negotiations.
The court denied sealing for paragraphs 237–38, 244–45, 248, 251, 254, 258, 261–63, 266–67, and 269. Those paragraphs involved Flextronics’s general allegations against the defendants. The court found that Murata’s declaration did not provide specific compelling reasons for sealing them. The court also rejected the asserted basis of confidential identification information and individual privacy rights for current and former employees.
For paragraphs 239, 240, 242, 252, 256–57, and 265, the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. It granted sealing as to confidential customer identities but denied sealing as to the names of current and former employees.
For paragraphs 243, 246, 255, 259–60, and 270, the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. It granted sealing as to confidential customer identities and customer trade secrets concerning product and commercial development that were the subject of nondisclosure agreements. It denied sealing as to the names of current and former employees and Murata’s own products.
Disposition
The order states that the sealing motion was denied in part and granted in part. Earlier, it describes the ruling as granting the motion in part and denying it in part without prejudice. Flextronics was permitted to renew the motion, and the moving party could submit adequate supporting reasons in declarations within 10 days after the order was filed. Judge Edward J. Davila signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.