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

Sanmina Corporation v. Dialight PLC

Judge
Katherine Failla
Docket
1:19-cv-11710
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Sanmina Corporation v. Dialight plc, Judge Failla granted Sanmina’s motion to keep specified exhibits sealed.

Who this affects

Sanmina Corporation and Dialight plc; the specified exhibits are not publicly viewable and may be viewed only by the court and the parties.

What happened

Sanmina Corporation asked the court to seal the parties’ Manufacturing Services Agreement and two documents concerning suppliers and a June 2018 email exchange. The request covered related cases involving Sanmina and Dialight plc.

Sanmina said the documents were designated confidential under the protective order and contained sensitive business information, including product pricing and contract-manufacturing 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. She directed the clerk to keep the specified docket entries in both cases under seal, accessible only to the court and the parties, and directed the clerk to terminate the pending sealing motions.

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
Feb. 26, 2024

Background

Sanmina Corporation moved for permission to file three exhibits under seal in support of its motions concerning the evidence to be used in the case. The exhibits were the parties’ Manufacturing Services Agreement, Dialight’s assessment of potential suppliers, and a June 2018 email exchange between Dialight personnel.

Sanmina represented that both parties had designated the exhibits confidential under the protective order. The request stated that the Manufacturing Services Agreement included product pricing and terms concerning the parties’ contract-manufacturing agreement, information that could be of interest to competitors. Sanmina also stated that the court had previously determined that the agreement warranted filing under seal.

Ruling

Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the application. The clerk was directed to maintain docket entries 180 and 182 in Case No. 19 Civ. 11710 and docket entries 152 and 154 in Case No. 19 Civ. 11712 under seal, viewable only by the court and the parties. The clerk was also directed to file the order in both cases and terminate the pending motions at docket entries 176 and 148, respectively.

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.