Credo Technology Group, Ltd. v. Credo.AI Corp.

Opinion

1 Vijay K. Toke (SB# 215079) Nikolaus A. Woloszczuk (SB# 286633) 2 PRANGER LAW PC 88 Guy Place, Suite 405 3 San Francisco, CA 94105 Tel: 415-885-9800 | Fax: 415-944-1110 4 vtoke@prangerlaw.com nwoloszczuk@prangerlaw.com 5 Attorneys for Defendant 6 CREDO.AI CORP. 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LTD., Case No. 3:24-cv-02032-CRB 10

Plaintiff, 11

vs. DEFENDANT CREDO.AI 12 CORP.’S UNOPPOSED CREDO.AI CORP., ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION 13 OBJECTING TO PROVISION OF 14 Defendant. PUBLIC ACCESS TO FEBRUARY 13, 2026 HEARING 15 ORDER Judge: Hon. Charles R. Breyer 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 77-3(b)-(c) and 7-11, Defendant Credo.AI Corp. 2 (“Defendant” or “Credo AI”) respectfully submits this administrative motion objecting 3 to provision of public access for the February 13, 2026 hearing on the parties’ Motions 4 for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 72-3 and 76-3) and Defendant’s Motion to Exclude 5 Evidence of Corrective Advertising, Strike Plaintiff’s Jury Demand, and Withdraw 6 Defendant’s Jury Demand (ECF 150) (the “Hearing”) due to the likelihood of the 7 parties’ highly confidential information being discussed at the Hearing. Plaintiff does 8 not oppose this Motion. See attached Woloszczuk Declaration. 9 Civil Local Rule 77-3(b) provides that provision of remote public access to 10 proceeds may be prohibited if such public access “would risk interfering with the 11 integrity of the proceedings. This includes, but is not limited to, situations where remote 12 public access would risk infringing on privacy interests, creating safety concerns, or 13 materially affecting witness testimony.” Here, remote public access for the Hearing 14 would risk interfering with the privacy rights of the parties as Defendant anticipates that 15 at the Hearing, the Court and the parties will discuss highly confidential business 16 information of both parties. Portions of nearly all the briefing on the parties’ motions 17 that will be heard at the Hearing has been filed under seal due to protect confidential and 18 sensitive proprietary information not disclosed to the public. The types of information 19 include (1) confidential financial and sales data such as profits and losses, and pricing, 20 including for Credo AI—a private company; (2) confidential business and marketing 21 strategies; (3) confidential customer identities and information on their contract terms 22 and purchases; and (4) confidential information about the parties’ products and services. 23 The Court has previously found compelling reasons to seal this information in its orders 24 granting the parties’ motions to seal. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 97, 99, 117-22, 127-28, 138- 25 39, 146-47, 151-52. 26 Courts in this District consistently hold that these types of confidential 27 commercial information may be sealed where disclosure would harm a party’s 1 competitive standing or reveal non-public terms of commercial relationships. See, e.g, 2 FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 17-cv-00220-LHK, 2019 WL 95922, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3 3, 2019) (sealing information that “may harm ... competitive standing” or would divulge 4 “terms of confidential contracts [or] contract negotiations”); Icon-IP Pty Ltd. v. 5 Specialized Bicycle Components, Inc., 2015 WL 984121, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2015) 6 (information is sealable where disclosure “could be used to the company’s competitive 7 disadvantage”); Algarin, Doyle v. Galderma, Inc., No. 19-CV-05678 (TSH), 2021 WL 8 4926999, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2021) (granting a motion to seal because the 9 documents contained “confidential, proprietary and strategic information about sales and 10 marketing related to Galderma’s prescription business sales organization.”). 11 Compelling reasons warrant sealing of the Hearing as public disclosure of this 12 information could result in improper use by business competitors seeking to replicate 13 Credo.AI’s or Plaintiff’s business strategies and practices and gain an advantage in the 14 market, while circumventing expending their own resources necessary to develop their 15 own practices and strategies. 16 In light of the foregoing, Defendant Credo AI respectfully requests that the Court 17 grant the Unopposed Administrative Motion. 18 19 Dated: January 30, 2026 VIJAY K. TOKE NIKOLAUS A. WOLOSZCZUK 20 PRANGER LAW PC 21 By: /s/ Vijay K. Toke 22 Vijay K. Toke 23 Attorneys for Defendant CREDO.AI CORP 24

25 26 27 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER 2 Upon consideration of the above Unopposed Administrative Motion Objecting to 3 || Provision of Public Access to February 13, 2026 Hearing, and for good cause shown, IT || ISSO ORDERED: 5 The February 13, 2026 hearing shall not include provision of remote public 6 || access. The hearing will be held remotely using the non-public platform. Counsel shall register on 2/9 at crbcrd@cand.uscourts.gov to be included as a participant for the proceedings.

Dated: February 4, 2026 ? Hon. Charles R. Breyer 10 United States District Court Judge 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 || UNOPPOSED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION OBJECTING TO PROVISION OF PUBLIC ACCESS TO FEBRUARY 13, 2026 HEARING & [Proposed] Order Case No. 3:24-cv-02032-CRB

1 Vijay K. Toke (SB# 215079) Nikolaus A. Woloszczuk (SB# 286633) 2 PRANGER LAW PC 88 Guy Place, Suite 405 3 San Francisco, CA 94105 Tel: 415-885-9800 | Fax: 415-944-1110 4 vtoke@prangerlaw.com nwoloszczuk@prangerlaw.com 5 Attorneys for Defendant 6 CREDO.AI CORP. 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LTD., Case No. 3:24-cv-02032-CRB 10

vs. DECLARATION OF NIKOLAUS A. 12 WOLOSZCZUK IN SUPPORT OF 13 CREDO.AI CORP., CREDO.AI CORP.’S UNOPPOSED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION 14 Defendant. OBJECTING TO PROVISION OF

PUBLIC ACCESS TO FEBRUARY 15 13, 2026 HEARING

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 DECLARATION OF NIKOLAUS A. WOLOSZCZUK IN SUPPORT OF CREDO.AI CORP.’S 1 I, Nikolaus A. Woloszczuk, declare as follows: 2 1. I am an attorney at law, duly admitted to practice before this Court, and 3 am counsel of record for Defendant Credo.AI Corp. (“Credo AI”). I have firsthand, 4 personal knowledge of the matters stated herein and, if called as a witness, would and 5 could competently testify thereto. I submit this declaration in support of Credo AI’s 6 Unopposed Administrative Motion Objecting to Provision of Public Access to February 7 13, 2026 Hearing (the “Motion”). 8 2. Defendant Credo AI sought Plaintiff Credo Technology Group Ltd.’s 9 stipulation to the Motion. Counsel for Plaintiff stated that although Plaintiff would not 10 join the Motion, that it does not oppose it. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that 11 this declaration is executed on January 30, 2026 at Redwood City, California. 12

13 /s/ Nikolaus A. Woloszczuk 14 Nikolaus A. Woloszczuk 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27