Align Technology, Inc. v. SmileDirectClub, LLC
- Edward Chen
- 3:23-cv-00023
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Align Technology v. SmileDirectClub: Judge Chen granted SmileDirectClub’s motion to pause the sealing order while its appeal proceeds.
SmileDirectClub’s appeal and Align Technology are affected. The stay pauses enforcement of the earlier sealing order while the appeal proceeds, preventing the disputed information from being publicly filed during that period.
What happened
In Align Technology, Inc. v. SmileDirectClub, LLC, SmileDirectClub appealed an earlier order that partly denied its request to keep information sealed.
SmileDirectClub asked the court to pause enforcement of that order during the appeal. Align Technology did not oppose the pause as long as the case could continue.
Judge Chen granted the motion to stay pending appeal, finding that denying it could effectively eliminate SmileDirectClub’s possible remedy and that the balance of hardships favored SmileDirectClub. The court did not say its earlier sealing decision was wrong.
The detailed version
- Align Technology, Inc. v. SmileDirectClub, LLC · No. 3:23-cv-00023
- Edward Chen
- Mar. 3, 2023
Background
The court had previously granted in part and denied in part defendants’ request to seal information. SmileDirectClub, which the opinion uses collectively for the defendants, appealed the portion of that order denying sealing. The court had already stayed enforcement temporarily while SmileDirectClub prepared its motion for a stay pending appeal.
SmileDirectClub then filed that motion. Align did not oppose a stay pending appeal so long as the case could proceed.
Court’s analysis
The court applied the factors governing a stay pending appeal: the applicant’s likelihood of success, the risk of irreparable harm without a stay, harm to other interested parties, and the public interest. The party requesting the stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify it. The court also considered the flexible approach under which serious questions on appeal and a sharply favorable balance of hardships can support a stay.
The court concluded that the equitable factors favored SmileDirectClub. It reasoned that publicly filing the information could effectively destroy any remedy available through the appeal because information that became public would no longer remain confidential. The balance of hardships also favored SmileDirectClub, particularly because Align did not oppose the stay.
The court clarified that it did not believe its earlier partial denial of the sealing request was erroneous. It noted that the earlier order had allowed some information to be sealed, including the amount of a payment in one paragraph and the last sentence of another paragraph.
Ruling
Judge Edward M. Chen granted defendants’ motion to stay enforcement of the sealing order pending appeal. The order disposed of Docket No. 41.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.