Flextronics International USA, Inc. v. Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

Background

Defendants filed an administrative motion asking the court to seal portions of Plaintiff’s amended complaint. The opinion’s title refers to the third amended complaint, while the body refers to the second amended complaint. The motion was unopposed, and the designating party was a defendant.

Legal standard

The court stated that court records are generally open to public inspection. Because the material was more than tangentially related to the underlying claims, the moving party had to show compelling reasons for sealing it. That required specific factual support showing that confidentiality interests outweighed the public’s presumptive right of access. The court noted that trade secrets, confidential customer information, marketing strategies, product-development plans, and detailed product-specific financial information may justify sealing. Broad allegations of harm, embarrassment, or incrimination do not satisfy that standard, and a confidentiality designation under a protective order alone is insufficient.

Rulings

The court granted sealing for the listed complaint paragraphs concerning confidential customer identities and customer trade secrets, based on defendants’ assertion that disclosure could violate nondisclosure agreements and disadvantage defendants in future negotiations.

For paragraph 259, the court granted in part and denied in part the request. The phrases “Joint unlawful activity by TDK, Taiyo Yuden, and Murata” and “By January of 2013, Murata, Taiyo Yuden, and TDK were supplying” could not be sealed because they concerned Plaintiff’s general allegations against defendants. The remainder of the information sought in that paragraph, identified as customer names and products, could be sealed.

Judge Edward J. Davila’s final order denied in part and granted in part the sealing motion at ECF 91.