Optronic Technologies, Inc. v. Ningbo Sunny Electronic Co., Ltd.
- Edward Davila
- 5:16-cv-06370
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Optronic Technologies v. Ningbo Sunny, Judge Davila granted a motion to seal two post-judgment-discovery exhibits and allowed another exhibit to be filed.
Sheppard Mullin’s two exhibits were kept under seal, while Optronic was allowed to file Exhibit A; the court did not decide the further-discovery request.
What happened
Optronic Technologies, Inc. v. Ningbo Sunny Electronic Co., Ltd. involved a third-party request by Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP to seal two documents connected to Optronic’s request for further discovery after judgment. That discovery concerned efforts to collect on a judgment.
The court found good cause to keep the two documents under seal based on the attorney-client privilege representations in Sheppard Mullin’s motion and supporting declarations. The sealed materials were Exhibits 1 and 3 to Optronic’s discovery motion. The court also granted Optronic permission to file another exhibit supporting its opposition to the sealing request.
Judge Edward J. Davila granted Sheppard Mullin’s motion to file the two exhibits under seal and granted Optronic’s request to file Exhibit A. The court did not rule at that time on Optronic’s request for further discovery.
The detailed version
- Optronic Technologies, Inc. v. Ningbo Sunny Electronic Co., Ltd. · No. 5:16-cv-06370
- Edward Davila
- June 1, 2022
Background
Third-party movant Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP moved to seal two documents submitted with Plaintiff Optronic Technologies, Inc.’s administrative motion for further post-judgment discovery.
The court explained that judicial records are generally open to public inspection. It distinguished between records related to the merits of a case, which receive a strong presumption of public access, and Optronic’s post-judgment discovery request, which did not address the merits of the parties’ claims or defenses. For that reason, the court applied the “good cause” standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c).
Ruling
Sheppard Mullin and Optronic disputed whether two exhibits were protected by attorney-client privilege. Based on the representations in Sheppard Mullin’s motion and supporting declarations, the court found good cause to keep the documents under seal.
The court granted Sheppard Mullin’s motion to file under seal. The following materials must remain under seal:
- Exhibit 1 to Optronic’s Motion for Further Post-Judgment Discovery, Dkt. No. 786-2. - Exhibit 3 to Optronic’s Motion for Further Post-Judgment Discovery, Dkt. No. 786-4.
The court also granted Optronic’s request for permission to file Exhibit A attached to Ronald Fisher’s declaration supporting Optronic’s opposition to the sealing motion. The court did not rule on Optronic’s motion for further discovery at that time, citing reasons stated on the record at the April 14, 2022 status conference.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.