Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 26, 2024

Dialight PLC v. Sanmina Corporation

Judge
Katherine Failla
Docket
1:19-cv-11712
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Dialight plc v. Sanmina Corporation, Judge Failla granted sealing of specified exhibits and kept four docket entries under seal.

Who this affects

Sanmina Corporation and Dialight plc, as well as public access to the specified court filings. The sealed docket entries may be viewed only by the court and the parties.

What happened

In Dialight plc v. Sanmina Corporation, Sanmina asked to file the parties’ Manufacturing Services Agreement and two Dialight documents under seal. The request concerned related cases in the Southern District of New York.

Sanmina said the documents were confidential under the protective order and included pricing and contract terms. It also noted that the court had previously allowed the Manufacturing Services Agreement to be filed under seal.

Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the application, ordered four docket entries in the two cases to remain under seal and viewable only by the court and the parties, and terminated the pending motions identified in the order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Dialight PLC v. Sanmina Corporation · No. 1:19-cv-11712
Judge
Katherine Failla
Date
Feb. 26, 2024

Background

Sanmina Corporation asked for permission to file three documents under seal in support of motions in limine: the parties’ Manufacturing Services Agreement, a Dialight document titled “Assessment of Potential Suppliers,” and a June 2018 email exchange between Dialight personnel. The request applied to two related cases: Sanmina Corporation v. Dialight plc, No. 1:19-cv-11710, and Dialight plc v. Sanmina Corporation, No. 1:19-cv-11712.

Sanmina stated that both parties had designated the documents as confidential under the protective order. It argued that the Manufacturing Services Agreement contained product pricing and terms of the parties’ contract-manufacturing agreement that could interest competitors. Sanmina also noted that the court had previously determined that the agreement should be filed under seal.

Ruling

The court granted the application. It directed the clerk to maintain docket entries 180 and 182 in Case No. 1:19-cv-11710 and docket entries 152 and 154 in Case No. 1:19-cv-11712 under seal, accessible only to the court and the parties. The court also directed the clerk to file the order in both cases and terminate the pending motion at docket entry 176 in Case No. 1:19-cv-11710 and docket entry 148 in Case No. 1:19-cv-11712. Judge Katherine Polk Failla signed the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.