1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 3D SYSTEMS, INC., Case No.: 21-cv-1141-AGS-DDL
12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 14 MOTION TO SEAL EXHIBITS BEN WYNNE, et al., 15 2 & 4 Defendants. 16 and 17 (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 18 MOTION TO SEAL EXHIBIT 19 E
20 [Dkt. Nos. 292, 301] 21
22 23 I. 24 INTRODUCTION 25 Before the Court are Defendants’ Motion to Consider Whether Plaintiff’s 26 Documents/Material Should Be Sealed (“Defendants’ Motion to Seal”) [Dkt. No. 292] 27 regarding two exhibits filed in support of Defendants’ Motion to Compel and Motion for 28 Sanctions and Plaintiff’s Motion to Consider Whether Materials Should Be Sealed [Dkt. 1 No. 301] regarding one exhibit submitted in support of its opposition to Defendants’ 2 Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions (“Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal”). 3 For the reasons set forth herein, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Seal at 4 Dkt. No 292, and further GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal at Dkt. No 301. 5 Notwithstanding that compelling reasons exist to seal certain information in the parties’ 6 exhibits, the parties must narrowly tailor the material to be sealed by redacting the material 7 and re-filing the exhibits on the public docket. 8 II. 9 LEGAL STANDARDS 10 The public enjoys “a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, 11 including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 12 589, 597 (1978). When evaluating a request to seal judicial records, courts in this Circuit 13 start with “a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’” to those records. Kamakana v. City 14 & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). The party 15 requesting sealing bears the burden of overcoming this strong presumption. Id. The 16 showing required depends upon whether the underlying motion is “closely related” to the 17 merits of the case—in which case the party must demonstrate “compelling reasons” to 18 seal—or is only “tangentially related” to them, which requires a less demanding showing 19 of “good cause.” See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 20 (9th Cir. 2016). 21 III. 22 DISCUSSION 23 A. The “Compelling Reasons” Standard Applies 24 In determining which standard should govern a request to seal judicial records, the 25 Ninth Circuit cautions against adopting a “bright line rule” that would employ the 26 “compelling reasons” standard only where the underlying motion is “technically 27 dispositive.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101-02. Here, the Court finds that 28 Defendants’ Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions (“Motion for Sanctions”) is 1 “more than tangentially related to the merits of [the] case,” id. at 1102. First, the Motion 2 for Sanctions (which the Court has denied) was based, in part, on Defendants’ contention 3 that Plaintiff spoliated evidence related to Plaintiff’s 2017 investigation of the individual 4 Defendants’ departure from their employment at 3D Systems, Inc., and that such evidence 5 was relevant to, and potentially dispositive of, Defendants’ statute of limitations defense 6 against Plaintiff’s misappropriation of trade secrets claim. See generally, Dkt. No. 294 at 7 6-12. Second, Defendants sought relief in the form of terminating and monetary sanctions. 8 See Keating v. Jastremski, No. 3:15-cv-00057-L-AGS, 2020 WL 1813549, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 9 Apr. 9, 2020) (analyzing motion to seal records related to motion for terminating sanctions 10 under compelling reasons standard because “the motion for terminating sanctions is more 11 than tangentially related to the merits of this case. . . . The dispositive nature of the motion 12 for terminating sanctions therefore also counsels against applying the good cause 13 standard”); see also Charles v. Target Corp., No. 20-CV-07854-HSG, 2022 WL 3205047, 14 at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 6, 2022) (applying compelling reasons standard to motion for 15 spoliation sanctions). As such, the Court applies the “compelling reasons” standard to both 16 motions to seal. 17 A party may meet that standard through a showing, supported by specific facts, that 18 the records at issue could “‘become a vehicle for improper purposes’” if not kept 19 confidential. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (citation omitted). See Charles, 2022 WL 20 3205047, at *2 (listing examples of compelling reasons to justify sealing, “such as the use 21 of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or 22 release trade secrets”). The Court must then “balance the competing interests of the public 23 and the party seeking to seal judicial records.” In re Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co. Annuity 24 Sales Prac. Litig., 686 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). 25 B. Defendants’ Motion to Seal (Dkt. No. 292) 26 Defendants move to seal Exhibits 2 and 4 to the Declaration of Jeffrey J. Catalano 27 in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions, both of which 28 / / / 1 contain documents that were “produced and designated as CONFIDENTIAL pursuant to 2 the Stipulated Protective Order.” Dkt. No. 292 at 2. 3 Plaintiff filed a joinder in Defendants’ Motion to Seal. Dkt. No. 298. In the joinder, 4 Plaintiff categorized the documents in three groups as follows: (1) “emails that . . . contain 5 information related to 3DS’s customers and vendors, both of which have been identified as 6 3DS’s trade secret information in this case,” (2) “emails that . . . contain information about 7 the tools 3DS uses to develop its technology, and contains the email address and telephone 8 number of a third party, Win Childers,” and (3) “an email chain and an attachment 9 that . . . include URLs that were presumably used in connection with 3DS and file pathways 10 indicating where documents may be located on company servers.”1 Id. at 2-3. 11 1. Plaintiff’s Trade Secret Customer and Vendor Information 12 Plaintiff contends that certain emails in Exhibit 4 “include the identity of a 3DS 13 customer combined with sufficient information for a competitor to identify 3DS’s vendor 14 related to 3DS’s Figure 4 technology,” and that taken together, the information “is 15 confidential and competitive information of 3DS that it would not want in the public 16 domain.” Dkt. No. 298 at 4. In further support of its joinder in the motion to seal, Plaintiff 17 describes several measures it takes to maintain the secrecy of its customer and vendor 18 information, including limitations on access to the physical workspace and computer 19 system; mandatory confidentiality agreements for employees and mandatory non- 20 disclosure agreements for existing and prospective customer and vendors; established 21 policies for encryption, data storage, and acceptable uses of Plaintiff’s information 22 technology systems; and limited sharing of trade secret information solely to those on a 23 need-to-know basis. See id. at 4. 24 25 26 1 In its joinder, Plaintiff references specific ranges of Bates numbers. The record 27 before the Court reflects that the following Bates numbers were not included in the sealed exhibits lodged by Defendants at Dkt. No. 293: 3DSCORP_000046, 3DSCORP_000067, 28 1 As the Kamakana court explained, the potential disclosure of trade secrets is an 2 improper purpose sufficient to satisfy the “compelling reasons” standard to seal a court 3 record. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to 4 outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when 5 such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of 6 records to . . .
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 3D SYSTEMS, INC., Case No.: 21-cv-1141-AGS-DDL
12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 14 MOTION TO SEAL EXHIBITS BEN WYNNE, et al., 15 2 & 4 Defendants. 16 and 17 (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 18 MOTION TO SEAL EXHIBIT 19 E
20 [Dkt. Nos. 292, 301] 21
22 23 I. 24 INTRODUCTION 25 Before the Court are Defendants’ Motion to Consider Whether Plaintiff’s 26 Documents/Material Should Be Sealed (“Defendants’ Motion to Seal”) [Dkt. No. 292] 27 regarding two exhibits filed in support of Defendants’ Motion to Compel and Motion for 28 Sanctions and Plaintiff’s Motion to Consider Whether Materials Should Be Sealed [Dkt. 1 No. 301] regarding one exhibit submitted in support of its opposition to Defendants’ 2 Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions (“Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal”). 3 For the reasons set forth herein, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Seal at 4 Dkt. No 292, and further GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal at Dkt. No 301. 5 Notwithstanding that compelling reasons exist to seal certain information in the parties’ 6 exhibits, the parties must narrowly tailor the material to be sealed by redacting the material 7 and re-filing the exhibits on the public docket. 8 II. 9 LEGAL STANDARDS 10 The public enjoys “a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, 11 including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 12 589, 597 (1978). When evaluating a request to seal judicial records, courts in this Circuit 13 start with “a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’” to those records. Kamakana v. City 14 & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). The party 15 requesting sealing bears the burden of overcoming this strong presumption. Id. The 16 showing required depends upon whether the underlying motion is “closely related” to the 17 merits of the case—in which case the party must demonstrate “compelling reasons” to 18 seal—or is only “tangentially related” to them, which requires a less demanding showing 19 of “good cause.” See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 20 (9th Cir. 2016). 21 III. 22 DISCUSSION 23 A. The “Compelling Reasons” Standard Applies 24 In determining which standard should govern a request to seal judicial records, the 25 Ninth Circuit cautions against adopting a “bright line rule” that would employ the 26 “compelling reasons” standard only where the underlying motion is “technically 27 dispositive.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101-02. Here, the Court finds that 28 Defendants’ Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions (“Motion for Sanctions”) is 1 “more than tangentially related to the merits of [the] case,” id. at 1102. First, the Motion 2 for Sanctions (which the Court has denied) was based, in part, on Defendants’ contention 3 that Plaintiff spoliated evidence related to Plaintiff’s 2017 investigation of the individual 4 Defendants’ departure from their employment at 3D Systems, Inc., and that such evidence 5 was relevant to, and potentially dispositive of, Defendants’ statute of limitations defense 6 against Plaintiff’s misappropriation of trade secrets claim. See generally, Dkt. No. 294 at 7 6-12. Second, Defendants sought relief in the form of terminating and monetary sanctions. 8 See Keating v. Jastremski, No. 3:15-cv-00057-L-AGS, 2020 WL 1813549, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 9 Apr. 9, 2020) (analyzing motion to seal records related to motion for terminating sanctions 10 under compelling reasons standard because “the motion for terminating sanctions is more 11 than tangentially related to the merits of this case. . . . The dispositive nature of the motion 12 for terminating sanctions therefore also counsels against applying the good cause 13 standard”); see also Charles v. Target Corp., No. 20-CV-07854-HSG, 2022 WL 3205047, 14 at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 6, 2022) (applying compelling reasons standard to motion for 15 spoliation sanctions). As such, the Court applies the “compelling reasons” standard to both 16 motions to seal. 17 A party may meet that standard through a showing, supported by specific facts, that 18 the records at issue could “‘become a vehicle for improper purposes’” if not kept 19 confidential. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (citation omitted). See Charles, 2022 WL 20 3205047, at *2 (listing examples of compelling reasons to justify sealing, “such as the use 21 of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or 22 release trade secrets”). The Court must then “balance the competing interests of the public 23 and the party seeking to seal judicial records.” In re Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co. Annuity 24 Sales Prac. Litig., 686 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). 25 B. Defendants’ Motion to Seal (Dkt. No. 292) 26 Defendants move to seal Exhibits 2 and 4 to the Declaration of Jeffrey J. Catalano 27 in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions, both of which 28 / / / 1 contain documents that were “produced and designated as CONFIDENTIAL pursuant to 2 the Stipulated Protective Order.” Dkt. No. 292 at 2. 3 Plaintiff filed a joinder in Defendants’ Motion to Seal. Dkt. No. 298. In the joinder, 4 Plaintiff categorized the documents in three groups as follows: (1) “emails that . . . contain 5 information related to 3DS’s customers and vendors, both of which have been identified as 6 3DS’s trade secret information in this case,” (2) “emails that . . . contain information about 7 the tools 3DS uses to develop its technology, and contains the email address and telephone 8 number of a third party, Win Childers,” and (3) “an email chain and an attachment 9 that . . . include URLs that were presumably used in connection with 3DS and file pathways 10 indicating where documents may be located on company servers.”1 Id. at 2-3. 11 1. Plaintiff’s Trade Secret Customer and Vendor Information 12 Plaintiff contends that certain emails in Exhibit 4 “include the identity of a 3DS 13 customer combined with sufficient information for a competitor to identify 3DS’s vendor 14 related to 3DS’s Figure 4 technology,” and that taken together, the information “is 15 confidential and competitive information of 3DS that it would not want in the public 16 domain.” Dkt. No. 298 at 4. In further support of its joinder in the motion to seal, Plaintiff 17 describes several measures it takes to maintain the secrecy of its customer and vendor 18 information, including limitations on access to the physical workspace and computer 19 system; mandatory confidentiality agreements for employees and mandatory non- 20 disclosure agreements for existing and prospective customer and vendors; established 21 policies for encryption, data storage, and acceptable uses of Plaintiff’s information 22 technology systems; and limited sharing of trade secret information solely to those on a 23 need-to-know basis. See id. at 4. 24 25 26 1 In its joinder, Plaintiff references specific ranges of Bates numbers. The record 27 before the Court reflects that the following Bates numbers were not included in the sealed exhibits lodged by Defendants at Dkt. No. 293: 3DSCORP_000046, 3DSCORP_000067, 28 1 As the Kamakana court explained, the potential disclosure of trade secrets is an 2 improper purpose sufficient to satisfy the “compelling reasons” standard to seal a court 3 record. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to 4 outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when 5 such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of 6 records to . . . release trade secrets.”) (citation omitted). As set forth in Plaintiff’s responses 7 to Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories, Plaintiff contends that its customer list and 8 vendor and supplier contact information are among its trade secrets at issue in the case. 9 Dkt. No. 298 at 4; see Dkt. No. 232-1 at 154-155. Plaintiff’s alleged trade secret customer 10 and vendor lists include information that, if disclosed, could be used by a competitor for 11 any number of improper purposes that harm Plaintiff’s competitive standing. Accordingly, 12 compelling reasons justify the sealing of Plaintiff’s customer and vendor list information. 13 2. Plaintiff’s Technology and Third-Party Contact Information 14 Plaintiff asserts that certain emails in Exhibits 2 and 4 “contain a compilation and 15 list of development tools and technology that 3DS uses to develop its technology, and this 16 information would be valuable to competitors and could harm 3DS’s competitive standing 17 if disclosed, because competitors could then use the same tools to develop their own 18 technology.” Dkt. No. 298 at 5. As stated above, the potential disclosure of trade secrets 19 constitutes a “compelling reason” to seal a court record. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. 20 But even if Plaintiff’s development tools and technology were not sealable as trade secrets, 21 “‘sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing’ often 22 warrant protection under seal.” In re Mahltig Mgmt. Und Beteiligungsgesellschaft MBH, 23 No. 18-mc-80037 NC, 2018 WL 11198061, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2018) (citing Nixon, 24 435 U.S. at 598). Plaintiff’s operation and competitive standing depend, at least in part, 25 on the innovative and exclusive nature of its technologies. Accordingly, documents 26 disclosing information about Plaintiff’s development tools and technology are properly 27 sealed. 28 / / / 1 Additionally, Plaintiff states these emails “contain the contact information for a third 2 party who is not a party to this lawsuit, and the public disclosure of this contact information 3 would violate the individual’s [right] to privacy set forth in the California Constitution.” 4 Dkt. No. 298 at 5. Courts have found that compelling reasons exist to seal non-parties’ 5 personal information when such information is not central to the issues in the case. See 6 ImprimisRx, LLC v. OSRX, Inc., No. 21-cv-01305-BAS-DDL, 2023 WL 7029210, at *4 7 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2023) (granting motion to seal record containing patients’ names, dates 8 of birth, addresses, and phone numbers upon finding the information is “not central to the 9 dispute between the parties and presents a compelling reason to seal the document”). As 10 with trade secrets, personal identifying information is the proper subject of a motion to seal 11 because it “could become a vehicle for improper purposes.” Stafford v. Rite Aid Corp., No. 12 17-cv-1340-AJB-JLB, 2019 WL 3818015, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2019). Here, the third 13 party’s contact information is not central to the matters at issue in the case and is therefore 14 subject to sealing. 15 3. Plaintiff’s URLs and File Pathways 16 Plaintiff contends that certain emails in Exhibit 4 “contain two URLs that were once 17 used in connection with work performed for 3DS, which individuals could use to attempt 18 to access 3DS information if made public.” Dkt. No. 298 at 5. Additionally, Plaintiff states 19 that emails display “the pathway where certain information is stored on 3DS’s servers 20 related to 3DS’s Figure 4 technology, and if made public this information could potentially 21 be exploited to attempt to access 3DS’s confidential information.” Id. 22 If disclosed, such URLs and file pathways could be a vehicle for improper use of 23 confidential information and access to Plaintiff’s trade secrets. For the reasons previously 24 stated with respect to misuse of business or trade secret information, the Court finds this 25 information suitable for sealing. 26 The parties have demonstrated compelling reasons to seal the aforementioned 27 information in Exhibits 2 and 4 to the Catalano Declaration. Defendants’ Motion to Seal 28 is GRANTED. 1 C. Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal (Dkt. No. 301) 2 Plaintiff moves to seal Exhibit E to the Declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel D. Andrew 3 Quigley (“Quigley Declaration”) filed in support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ 4 Motion for Sanctions. Plaintiff states that “Exhibit E is a copy of Intrepid Automation’s 5 responses to 3DS’s Interrogatories, Set One, to Intrepid Automation regarding Intrepid 6 Automation’s counterclaims against 3DS. Intrepid Automation designated the entirety of 7 these responses as ‘CONFIDENTIAL – FOR COUNSEL ONLY.’” Dkt. No. 301 at 2 8 (bolding in original). 9 Defendants filed a joinder in Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal, asserting that compelling 10 reasons exist to justify sealing Exhibit E “because the material sought to be sealed identifies 11 and fully describes Intrepid’s trade secret information.” Dkt. No. 450 at 4. Specifically, 12 Defendants state the following: 13 Here, there is no question Exhibit E identifies Intrepid’s trade secrets and contains other highly sensitive commercial 14 information. Specifically, Exhibit E contains internal 15 photographs and technical information related to Intrepid’s DLP test bed used to prove concept of Intrepid’s multi-projection edge 16 blending and calibration, including the specific configuration of 17 the details of the test bed, which have never been made available to the public; ultraviolet images depicting layers (e.g., the image 18 of a cross-section of an actual part); Intrepid’s in-development 19 technologies; and Intrepid’s business plans. Dkt. No. 302, Ex. E, Rog. No. 1. 20
21 This information constitutes non-public, confidential business information of Intrepid which, if made public, would impose a 22 risk of harm to Intrepid’s competitive standing. It would expose 23 to competitors how Intrepid’s novel technology works while revealing confirmation of proof of concept. . . . In short, this 24 would allow competitors . . . to develop and implement their own 25 DLP multi-projector printer system. Intrepid’s trade secret information should be sealed to prevent this harm. [Citation 26 omitted.] 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Exhibit E should be sealed also because the disclosure of Intrepid’s in-development technologies and other non-public 2 business plans, as well as customer information, likewise poses 3 a risk of competitive harm, as such information could be used by competitors . . . to undermine Intrepid’s position in the market, 4 steal customers, or make disparaging statements about Intrepid 5 to Intrepid’s customers . . . .
6 Id. at 5-6. 7 As discussed above, the potential disclosure of trade secrets is an improper purpose 8 sufficient to satisfy the “compelling reasons” standard to seal a court record. See 9 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. In its joinder in Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal, Defendants 10 specifically cite only to Interrogatory No. 1 as containing responses which reveal its trade 11 secrets and other highly confidential information. See Dkt. No. 450 at 5 (citing “Dkt. No. 12 302, Ex. E, Rog. No. 1” after listing trade secrets revealed in Exhibit E). However, Exhibit 13 E also contains Interrogatory Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5, and Defendants’ responses thereto. The 14 Court reviews each of these interrogatory responses in turn. 15 On the one hand, Defendants’ response to Interrogatory No. 3 identifies the names 16 and addresses of certain of Defendants’ former prospective customers, which is 17 information Defendants identified as a trade secret in their response to Interrogatory No. 1. 18 Dkt. No. 302 at 14; see id. at 10. Additionally, Defendants’ response to Interrogatory 19 No. 5 identifies facts that allegedly support Defendants’ allegation that 3D Systems 20 employees engaged in certain conduct to gain access to Defendants’ trade secret 21 information and includes references to customer information. See id. at 15-19. On the 22 other hand, Interrogatory No. 2 pertains to “‘false’ or ‘disparaging’ 23 COMMUNICATIONS” that Defendants allege Plaintiff made, and Interrogatory No. 4 24 pertains to Defendants’ alleged damages. See id. at 11-13, 14-15. While it is evident that 25 Defendants’ responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 3, and 5 reflect the disclosures of at least 26 some trade secrets, the same cannot be said of Defendants’ responses to Interrogatory Nos. 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 2 or 4. Thus, compelling reasons justify partial redactions of Exhibit E with respect to 2 Defendants’ responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 3, and 5 only. 3 For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that compelling reasons justify partially 4 sealing Exhibit E through redaction. Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal is GRANTED. 5 D. The Information to Be Sealed is Not Narrowly Tailored 6 Defendants and Plaintiff each lodged the documents they request to seal without 7 proposed redactions. See Dkt. No. 293; see also Dkt. No. 302. Moreover, as opposed to 8 filing the documents publicly with proposed redactions, Defendants omitted Exhibits 2 and 9 4 from the Catalano Declaration and Plaintiff omitted Exhibit E from the Quigley 10 Declaration each in their entirety. Dkt. Nos. 294-3 and 294-5; Dkt. No. 300-6. 11 Notwithstanding the parties’ showing that compelling reasons exist to seal certain 12 information in Exhibits 2 and 4 and Exhibit E, the parties have failed to narrowly tailor 13 their respective requests to seal. Narrowly tailored redactions will adequately serve the 14 parties’ interests in protecting confidential information while also balancing the public 15 interest in access to public court records. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 16 F.3d 1122, 1139 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding it was an abuse of discretion to grant a motion to 17 seal an entire document where the confidential information could have been “redacted with 18 minimal effort”). For this reason, the parties must re-file the exhibits with appropriate 19 redactions in accordance with Appendices A and B attached hereto. 20 IV. 21 CONCLUSION 22 The Court ORDERS as follows: 23 1. Defendants’ Motion to Seal at Dkt. No. 292 is GRANTED. The parties must 24 meet and confer to determine appropriate redactions to Exhibits 2 and 4 to the 25 Catalano Declaration in accordance with Appendix A attached hereto. By not 26 later than March 21, 2024, Defendants must re-file the Catalano Declaration 27 with redactions to Exhibits 2 and 4 in accordance with Appendix A. 28 / / / 1 2. Plaintiff's Motion to Seal at Dkt. No. 301 is GRANTED. The parties must 2 meet and confer to determine appropriate redactions to Exhibit E to the 3 Quigley Declaration in accordance with Appendix B attached hereto. By not 4 later than March 21, 2024, Plaintiff must re-file the Quigley Declaration with 5 redactions to Exhibit E in accordance with Appendix B. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: March 14, 2024 8 Tb Lh, a
10 United States Magistrate Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1 APPENDIX A 2 3 Bates No.2 Content to Be Redacted 4 • 3DSCORP_000064 – 67 • All information which identifies or which is 5 • 3DSCORP_000071 – 73 sufficient to determine the identity of Plaintiff’s • 3DSCORP_000078 customer and vendor “related to 3DS’s Figure 4 6 • 3DSCORP_000086 – 89 technology.” Dkt. No. 298 at 4. 7 • 3DSCORP_000103 – 107 • 3DSCORP_000108 – 111 8 • 3DS_005026 – 27 • All references to “development tools and 9 • 3DSCORP_000090 – 92 technology that 3DS uses to develop its • 3DSCORP_000096 – 98 technology.” Dkt. No. 298 at 5. 10 • 3DSCORP_000099 – 102 11 • All references to third party Winthrop “Win” Childers’s email address and phone number. Id. 12 13 • 3DSCORP_000045 – 47 • All references to “URLs that were once used in connection with work performed for 3DS.” Dkt. 14 No. 298 at 5. 15 • All references to “the pathway where certain 16 information is stored on 3DS’s servers related to 3DS’s Figure 4 technology.” Id. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 2 The record before the Court reflects that the following Bates numbers were not included in the sealed exhibits lodged by Defendants at Dkt. No. 293: 3DSCORP_000046, 28 1 APPENDIX B 2 3 Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. Content to Be Redacted 4 Interrogatory No. 1 All information, including images, set forth in 5 Defendant Intrepid Automation’s Response to Interrogatory No. 1 starting at page 5, line 9 through 6 page 9, line 22.3 7 Interrogatory No. 3 All information set forth in Defendant Intrepid 8 Automation’s Response to Interrogatory No. 3 at page 12, lines 5 through 9. 9 10 Interrogatory No. 5 All references in Defendant Intrepid Automation’s Response to Interrogatory No. 5 which identify 11 Intrepid’s customer(s) or prospective customer(s). 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 3 All references to page numbers in Appendix B are to the page numbers at the bottom center of the Defendant Intrepid Automation’s Responses to Plaintiff 3D Systems, Inc.’s 28