Spectrum Scientifics, LLC v. Celestron Acquisition, LLC
- Edward Davila
- 5:20-cv-03642
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In re Telescopes Antitrust Litigation: Judge Demarchi allowed plaintiffs to file disputed materials publicly because defendants did not support sealing them.
The Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, the defendants who designated the materials as confidential, and members of the public seeking access to the docket.
What happened
In In re Telescopes Antitrust Litigation, the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs asked to seal parts of a brief and exhibits connected to a motion to compel and for discovery sanctions. The materials had been labeled confidential or highly confidential by defendants.
The court applied the lower “good cause” standard because the discovery motion did not address the merits of the claims or defenses. Defendants did not submit the required explanation supporting continued sealing.
Judge Demarchi ordered that the plaintiffs may file unsealed versions of the materials on the public docket no earlier than July 14, 2023, and terminated the sealing motion docket entry.
The detailed version
- Spectrum Scientifics, LLC v. Celestron Acquisition, LLC · No. 5:20-cv-03642
- Edward Davila
- July 10, 2023
Background
The Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs filed an administrative motion asking the court to consider sealing portions of their brief and exhibits related to a motion to compel and for sanctions concerning a discovery dispute. The materials had been designated “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential” by defendants under the case’s protective order.
Legal standard
The court explained that judicial records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. For materials connected to a motion that is only tangentially related to the merits, however, a party seeking to seal them must satisfy the lower “good cause” standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Under Local Rule 79-5(f), the designating party must file a statement or declaration explaining the private or public interests supporting sealing, the injury that would result from disclosure, and why a less restrictive alternative would not be sufficient.
Ruling
The court found that the motion to compel and for sanctions did not address the merits of the parties’ claims or defenses, so it applied the good-cause standard. Defendants had not filed a supporting statement or declaration. Because defendants provided no support for keeping the designated materials under seal, the court ordered that the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs may file unsealed versions of the materials identified in Docket No. 423 on the public docket no earlier than July 14, 2023. The order terminated Docket No. 423.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.