Viavi Solutions Inc. v. Platinum Optics Technology Inc.
- Edward Davila
- 5:20-cv-05501
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Viavi Solutions v. Platinum Optics, Judge Davila granted Viavi’s motion to seal confidential business information in a further joint case-management statement.
Viavi Solutions Inc., the confidential business information and relationships described in the order, and members of the public seeking access to the specified court filing were affected. The order limited public access to the identified document and passages.
What happened
In Viavi Solutions Inc. v. Platinum Optics Technology Inc., Viavi asked the court to seal a further joint case-management statement.
The requested sealing covered passages about Viavi’s confidential relationships with third parties and the parties’ confidential business information, including Viavi’s business strategy.
Judge Edward J. Davila granted the motion, finding that disclosure could injure Viavi because competitors could use the information to gain a marketplace advantage. The specified document and passages were ordered filed under seal.
The detailed version
- Viavi Solutions Inc. v. Platinum Optics Technology Inc. · No. 5:20-cv-05501
- Edward Davila
- Oct. 20, 2021
Background
Viavi Solutions Inc. filed an administrative motion to seal material in a further joint case-management statement. The opinion says the requested material concerned Viavi’s confidential relationships with third parties and the parties’ confidential business information, including information about Viavi’s business strategy.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied the “compelling reasons” standard for sealing court records. It found that disclosure of the confidential and proprietary business information could create a risk of injury because competitors could use the information to gain a competitive advantage in the marketplace.
Ruling
Judge Edward J. Davila granted Viavi’s motion to seal. The court ordered that the further joint case-management statement, or the specified portions of it, be filed under seal. The opinion does not state that the motion was granted in part or denied in part.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.