Signify Holding B.V. v. TP-Link Research America Corporation

Background

Signify filed a motion to compel TP-Link Research America Corporation and TP-Link USA Corporation to produce documents that TP-Link argued were held by nonparty TP-Link Corporation Limited. In responding to that discovery motion, TP-Link filed an opposition brief and two exhibits. The parties jointly asked the court to keep an unredacted version of the brief and the exhibits under seal. The court considered only the sealing request in this opinion and stated that it would consider the motion to compel separately.

Legal standard

The common law and the First Amendment create a presumption that the public may access judicial documents. Documents filed for the court’s consideration in connection with a discovery motion are judicial documents. A party seeking to overcome that presumption must show, with specific findings on the record, that sealing is necessary to protect higher values and that the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored. Sensitive business information may qualify as a higher value. A confidentiality designation or protective order, by itself, is not enough.

Because the documents were submitted with a non-dispositive discovery motion, the public-access presumption was not as strong as it would have been for materials submitted with a motion resolving the merits of the case.

Court’s analysis

The email chain discussed an exchange of documents related to a possible settlement. The court agreed that some portions involved sensitive information, but found that other portions were relevant to the motion to compel and did not appear particularly sensitive. Sealing the entire exhibit was therefore not narrowly tailored. The court denied the motion to seal the entire email exhibit and allowed the parties to file a renewed motion proposing specific redactions and explaining what higher value each redaction would protect.

The licensing-agreement exhibit contained definitions and other contractual language. The court rejected the argument that the agreement’s confidentiality terms or the protective order justified sealing the exhibit. It found that information that could actually indicate sales volumes constituted sensitive business information that warranted sealing at that stage, but most of the exhibit did not contain such information. The court also rejected the argument that the agreement should remain entirely secret because it resulted from settlement efforts. The court denied the motion to seal the entire licensing-agreement exhibit and allowed a renewed motion proposing narrower redactions. It cautioned that the parties should not expect the court to decide the merits of the dispute while keeping the contract’s terms secret.

The proposed redactions in TP-Link’s opposition brief quoted definitions of “licensee” and “affiliate” and language concerning responsibility for sales and royalties. The parties did not explain why disclosure of those provisions would cause harm or what higher value sealing would protect. The court therefore denied the motion to file the opposition brief with redactions.

Disposition

The court denied the parties’ motion to seal without prejudice to a renewed motion proposing narrowly tailored redactions of the two exhibits. Any renewed motion had to be filed by September 9, 2022. The documents were to remain under seal pending that filing; if no renewed motion was filed by the deadline, the court stated that it would issue a separate order directing the clerk to unseal the documents. The clerk was directed to terminate the sealing motion at ECF No. 67.