Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 19, 2022

Sanmina Corporation v. Dialight PLC

Judge
Katherine Failla
Docket
1:19-cv-11710
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Sanmina v. Dialight, Judge Failla granted Sanmina’s request to seal exhibits and related filings, limiting access to the parties and court.

Who this affects

Sanmina Corporation and Dialight PLC, whose specified exhibits and related documents were kept under seal and made viewable only to the parties and the court.

What happened

Sanmina Corporation asked to file seven exhibits connected to its reply supporting a motion for partial summary judgment under seal in Sanmina Corporation v. Dialight PLC and a related case. The materials had been marked confidential under the parties’ protective order.

Sanmina and Dialight agreed that many previously confidential exhibits could be filed publicly, but they could not agree about all seven listed exhibits. Sanmina also asked to file portions of its objections in redacted form to protect quotations from those exhibits.

Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the application. She directed the clerk to keep the listed exhibits and other described documents under seal, available only to the parties and the court, and to terminate the sealing motions in both related cases.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Sanmina Corporation v. Dialight PLC · No. 1:19-cv-11710
Judge
Katherine Failla
Date
July 19, 2022

Background

Sanmina submitted a letter requesting permission to file seven exhibits under seal in support of its reply on its motion for partial summary judgment. The exhibits were five Kinaxis output spreadsheets provided by Sanmina to Dialight, an internal Dialight quality report, and an expert report. Sanmina also requested permission to file its objections to Dialight’s responses to Sanmina’s statement of undisputed facts in redacted form, protecting quotations from exhibits that the parties sought to seal.

The letter stated that both parties had designated the materials confidential under the protective order. The parties had agreed that many previously confidential exhibits could be filed publicly, but they did not reach agreement about all of the materials listed in the application. Sanmina stated that it took no position on whether sealing was proper for the materials produced and designated by Dialight, but it moved to file them under seal under the protective order.

Ruling

Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the application. The court directed the clerk to maintain the described exhibits and other documents under seal, viewable only by the parties and the court. The court also directed the clerk to terminate the motion at docket entry 101 in docket 19 Civ. 11710 and docket entry 84 in docket 19 Civ. 11712. The order addressed access to litigation materials; it did not decide the parties’ underlying claims or Sanmina’s partial-summary-judgment motion.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.