Dialight PLC v. Sanmina Corporation
- Katherine Failla
- 1:19-cv-11712
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Dialight v. Sanmina, Judge Failla granted sealing of specified exhibits and documents, restricting access to the parties and court.
Dialight PLC, Sanmina Corporation, and the public’s access to the specified exhibits and related documents in the two related cases.
What happened
Dialight PLC and Sanmina Corporation asked the court to keep certain exhibits and related documents from public view in their cases concerning the parties. The request covered five spreadsheet exhibits, an internal Dialight quality report, and an expert report, along with quoted material in a filing.
The exhibits had been designated confidential under the parties’ discovery-protection order. The parties agreed that many previously confidential exhibits could be filed publicly, but they could not agree about these materials. Sanmina asked to file the listed materials under seal and to submit a redacted version of another filing.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the application. She directed the clerk to keep the described exhibits and other documents under seal, viewable only by the parties and the court, and directed the clerk to terminate the sealing motions in both related docket entries.
The detailed version
- Dialight PLC v. Sanmina Corporation · No. 1:19-cv-11712
- Katherine Failla
- July 19, 2022
Background
Sanmina Corporation moved for permission to file under seal materials supporting its reply on its motion for partial summary judgment. The materials included five Kinaxis output spreadsheets provided by Sanmina to Dialight, an internal Dialight quality report identified as Deposition Exhibit 446, and the expert report of Andrew K.G. Hildreth identified as Deposition Exhibit 561. Sanmina also requested permission to file in redacted form its objections to Dialight’s responses to Sanmina’s statement of material undisputed facts, protecting quotations from exhibits that the parties sought to seal.
The parties had designated the materials confidential under their protective order. They had agreed that many exhibits previously marked confidential could be filed publicly, but they could not agree on public filing of all the listed exhibits. Sanmina stated that it took no position on whether the materials should properly be sealed because Dialight had produced and designated them under the protective order, but Sanmina made the sealing request.
Ruling
The court granted the application. It 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.
Legal Context
The filing referred to the general public right to inspect and copy judicial records, while also recognizing that access is not absolute and may be restricted for business information that could harm a litigant’s competitive position. The order itself did not provide additional reasons for granting the application.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.