Sanmina Corporation v. Dialight PLC
- Katherine Failla
- 1:19-cv-11710
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Sanmina Corporation v. Dialight PLC, Judge Failla granted Sanmina’s request to keep specified exhibits and filings under seal.
Sanmina Corporation and Dialight PLC, whose specified filings and exhibits will remain accessible only to the parties and the Court; public access to those docket entries is restricted.
What happened
Sanmina asked to file specified deposition exhibits and related summary-judgment materials under seal. The exhibits included contract drafts, the parties’ manufacturing agreement, business reports, and internal communications.
Sanmina said the materials contained sensitive pricing, contract terms, customer information, and other business information that could interest competitors. The parties had agreed that some previously confidential exhibits could be filed publicly but had not agreed about all of them.
Judge Failla granted the application. She directed the Clerk to keep docket entries 86, 87, and 88 under seal, available only to the parties and the Court, and to terminate specified sealing motions on the two related case dockets.
The detailed version
- Sanmina Corporation v. Dialight PLC · No. 1:19-cv-11710
- Katherine Failla
- May 3, 2022
Background
Sanmina Corporation requested permission to file certain deposition exhibits under seal in support of its motion for partial summary judgment. The request covered exhibits concerning Sanmina’s response to a request for proposal, Sanmina’s customers, the parties’ confidential manufacturing services agreement and drafts of that agreement, Dialight’s internal reports and communications, and consultant reports about outsourcing and potential manufacturing partners.
The parties’ protective order allowed documents designated confidential in discovery to remain nonpublic unless the designating party consented to public filing. Sanmina and Dialight agreed that many previously confidential exhibits could be filed publicly, but they did not reach agreement about all of the exhibits. Sanmina also requested permission to file redacted versions of its motion and separate statement publicly while keeping unredacted versions provisionally under seal.
Reasons Given for Sealing
Sanmina argued that the documents contained information that could be of significant interest to competitors, including product pricing and terms of the contract manufacturing agreement. It also pointed to an earlier determination that the signed manufacturing services agreement warranted sealing and argued that several drafts contained similar sensitive information. The application cited the general public right to inspect judicial records, along with the exception for business information that could harm a litigant’s competitive position.
Ruling
Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the application. The Court ordered the Clerk to maintain docket entries 86, 87, and 88 under seal, viewable only by the parties and the Court. The Court also directed the Clerk to terminate the motions at docket entry 79 in case number 19 Civ. 11710 and docket entry 64 in related case number 19 Civ. 11712. The provided opinion does not decide Sanmina’s partial-summary-judgment motion or the underlying dispute between the parties.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.