CF Traverse LLC v. Amprius, Inc.
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:20-cv-00484
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
CF Traverse v. Amprius: Judge Spero denied sealing and ordered Amprius to publicly file an unredacted discovery letter.
Amprius, Inc., which was ordered to file an unredacted public version of the discovery letter; CF Traverse LLC’s sealing request was denied.
What happened
In CF Traverse LLC v. Amprius, Inc., CF Traverse asked the court to keep parts of a joint discovery letter and related financial information secret because Amprius had labeled them confidential.
Amprius argued that the information concerned internal product development and finances, and that disclosure could cause competitive and economic harm. The court found that Amprius had not shown sufficient reasons to overcome the public’s presumptive access to court records.
Judge Joseph C. Spero denied the motion to file under seal and ordered Amprius to file an unredacted public version of the discovery letter by August 19, 2020.
The detailed version
- CF Traverse LLC v. Amprius, Inc. · No. 3:20-cv-00484
- Richard Seeborg
- Aug. 12, 2020
Background
The parties submitted a joint letter about a discovery dispute. CF Traverse LLC filed an administrative motion asking to seal portions of Amprius, Inc.’s section of that letter because Amprius had designated the information as confidential.
The proposed sealed material described sales of THL-5000 batteries, the status and location of certain Amprius subsidiaries, the period and approximate amount of sales, and financial data concerning those sales. It also described differences between products developed or sold by Amprius’s U.S. and Chinese subsidiaries.
Amprius supported sealing through a declaration from outside counsel. The declaration stated that the material was internal product-development and financial information, was not publicly available, and was treated as highly confidential. Amprius asserted that disclosure could cause irreparable, competitive, and economic harm.
Court’s Analysis
The court first said the parties’ procedure for raising Amprius’s confidentiality claim was questionable under the local rules. Because the material appeared in Amprius’s portion of a joint letter, the court said Amprius could have filed the sealing motion itself when the letter was submitted, with a supporting declaration.
The court then held that Amprius had not met its burden under either potentially applicable standard: the stricter “compelling reasons” standard or the more relaxed “good cause” standard for material connected only indirectly to the case’s merits. The court noted that the declaration did not show that Amprius’s corporate structure or subsidiary locations were sensitive. It also noted that the description of silicon nanowire anodes appeared on Amprius’s public website, and that the financial information concerned sales more than five years earlier by a subsidiary that had ceased to exist and a product Amprius no longer sold. The declaration did not explain what harm disclosure would cause.
Disposition
The court DENIED the motion to file under seal. It ORDERED Amprius to file an unredacted public version of the discovery letter by August 19, 2020. The order resolved the sealing request and did not decide the underlying discovery dispute.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.