Dialight PLC v. Sanmina Corporation
- Katherine Failla
- 1:19-cv-11712
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Dialight plc v. Sanmina Corporation, Judge Failla granted Sanmina’s application to seal specified exhibits and related filings.
Sanmina Corporation and Dialight plc, whose confidential litigation materials were kept under seal; access to docket entries 86, 87, and 88 was limited to the parties and the court.
What happened
Dialight plc v. Sanmina Corporation involved Sanmina’s request to file certain exhibits under seal in support of its motion for partial summary judgment. The request concerned documents designated confidential under the parties’ protective order.
Sanmina said the documents contained sensitive information, including product pricing and contract-manufacturing terms, and noted that the court had previously allowed the parties’ manufacturing agreement to be filed under seal. The parties had agreed that some exhibits could be filed publicly but did not agree about all of them.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the application. She directed the clerk to keep docket entries 86, 87, and 88 under seal, accessible only to the parties and the court, and directed the clerk to terminate the related motions at docket entries 79 and 64.
The detailed version
- Dialight PLC v. Sanmina Corporation · No. 1:19-cv-11712
- Katherine Failla
- May 3, 2022
Background
Sanmina Corporation asked for permission to file under seal specified deposition exhibits supporting its motion for partial summary judgment. The exhibits included Sanmina’s response to Dialight’s request for proposals, a presentation identifying Sanmina customers, drafts and a signed version of the parties’ manufacturing services agreement, and various Dialight reports, memoranda, and emails. The request also sought to maintain under seal unredacted versions of Sanmina’s motion and separate statement, while filing redacted versions publicly.
Parties’ Positions
The parties had designated the exhibits confidential under their protective order. They agreed that many previously confidential exhibits could be filed publicly, but they could not agree about all of the deposition exhibits. Sanmina argued that the documents contained information of significant interest to competitors, including product pricing and terms of the parties’ contract-manufacturing agreement. Sanmina also pointed to the court’s earlier determination that the signed manufacturing services agreement warranted sealing. Sanmina stated that it took no position on whether sealing was proper for several exhibits designated by Dialight, but it nevertheless sought to file those exhibits under seal.
Ruling
Judge Failla granted the application. The clerk was ordered to maintain docket entries 86, 87, and 88 under seal, viewable only by the parties and the court. The clerk was also directed to terminate the motions at docket entry 79 in case number 19 Civ. 11710 and docket entry 64 in case number 19 Civ. 11712. The opinion text does not provide a separate explanation beyond stating that the application was granted for the reasons stated in Sanmina’s submission.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.