1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MATTSON TECHNOLOGY, INC., Case No. 23-cv-06071-SVK
8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 9 v. DENYING IN PART THE PARTIES’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO 10 APPLIED MATERIALS, INC., et al., SEAL 11 Defendants. Re: Dkt. Nos. 158, 159, 166, 167, 171, 180
12 In connection with Defendant Applied Materials, Inc.’s (“Applied”) Motion to Disqualify, 13 (Dkt. 157), both Parties1 have filed administrative motions to seal their own information and each 14 other’s information. See Dkts. 158 (Motion, Applied’s information), 159 (Motion, Mattson’s 15 information), 166 (Opposition, Mattson’s information), 167 (Opposition, Applied’s information), 171 (Reply, Applied’s information), 180 (Applied’s demonstrative slides, Applied’s information). 16 No Party has opposed any other Party’s motions. Pursuant to Civil L.R. 79-5(f), Applied filed a 17 statement in support of Dkt. 167. See Dkt. 169. Mattson has not filed any statement in support of 18 Dkt. 159. Having considered the Parties’ submissions, the relevant law and the record in this 19 action, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the administrative motions 20 to seal. 21 Courts recognize a “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, 22 including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. Of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 23 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 24 (1978)). The standard for overcoming the presumption of public access to court records depends 25 on the purpose for which the records are filed with the court. A party seeking to seal court records 26
27 1 Two co-defendants, Rene George and Dr. Vladimir Nagorny, did not join the motion to 1 relating to motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” must 2 demonstrate “compelling reasons” that support secrecy. Ctr. For Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 3 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016). For records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits of the case,” such as “a discovery motion unrelated to the merits 4 of the case,” the lower “good cause” standard applies. Id.; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. 5 The Court finds that Applied’s Motion to Disqualify is “only tangentially related[] to the merits of 6 the case,” and so that the “good cause” standard governs. See Ctr. For Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 7 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Bold Ltd. v. Rocket Resume, Inc., No. 22-cv-01045-BLF, 2024 WL 54692, 8 at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2024) (applying the “good cause” standard to a motion to disqualify 9 counsel); WhatsApp Inc. v. NSO Grp. Techs. Ltd., No. 19-cv-07123-PJH, 2020 WL 7133773, at 10 *9 (N.D. Cal. June 16, 2020) (same). 11 In support of its administrative motion to seal its motion, reply and its lodged 12 demonstrative slides, Applied proposes redactions to what Applied contends represents its 13 “confidential and proprietary business information,” relating to “internal investigations into its 14 competitors” and “internal procedures relating to the protection of Applied intellectual property, 15 including [its] trade secrets.” Dkt. 158 at 3; Dkt. 171 at 3; Dkt. 180 at 3. In support of Mattson’s 16 administrative motion to seal portions of its opposition as containing Applied information, 17 Applied similarly contends that such portions contain information on “Applied’s internal business activities,” but also adds that these excerpts “would reveal highly confidential information 18 pertaining to Applied’s … legal counsel.” Dkt. 169 at 3-4. The Court agrees that—where 19 appropriate—proprietary business information, including internal investigations and procedures 20 relating to intellectual property and trade secrets, meet the good cause standard. The Court does 21 not agree that all confidential information related to “legal counsel” meets this standard, but the 22 Court is mindful that such information may be sealable in some cases. See, e.g., William v. 23 Morrison & Foerster LLP, No. 18-cv-02542-JSC, 2020 WL 8736128, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 24 2020) (“While courts generally accept attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine as a 25 ‘compelling reason’ justifying a motion to seal,” even such information must be “narrowly 26 tailored to only seek sealing of properly sealable information.”). As for Plaintiff, Mattson seeks to 27 seal information about the “confidential details [of] the structure of Mattson’s legal department 1 Having considered the reasons proffered by the Parties for sealing and the proposed 2 redactions, the Court rules summarized in the following chart:
3 Document Portions to be Sealed Court Ruling Applied’s Motion to Green-highlighted portions as The Court finds that these 4 Disqualify [Dkt. 158-3] modified, at ECF: excerpts contain Applied confidential information 5 7:11-12, excluding the words which is not publicly known “Mr. Adams investigated” on and may cause harm if 6 line 11. disclosed. The motions to seal are GRANTED-IN- 7 10:7-9, excluding the words PART as to these excerpts. “Beginning in 2013, Mr. 8 Adams was tasked with The Court otherwise DENIES developing an internal the motions as to Applied’s 9 Applied procedure that proposed redactions as addressed.” overbroad and DENIES the 10 motions to seal as to 10:9-10, excluding the words Mattson’s information (blue- 11 “That task also included.” highlighted) because Mattson failed to file a statement in 12 10:11-12, excluding the words support of sealing such “In 2016, Mr. Adams information. 13 identified as a performance review objective the 14 development of” as well as footnote 13. 15 10:12-15, excluding the words 16 “And in 2019, Mr. Adams was recognized for.” 17 10:18-20 18 11:5-6, excluding the words 19 “misappropriation of Applied IP, as well as.” 20 11:7-8, excluding the words 21 “Mattson in the context of.”
22 11:8-10, ending at (and excluding) footnote 19. 23 11:13-15, beginning after “He 24 also participated in an Applied legal department presentation 25 on.”
26 12:1, ending at (and excluding) footnote 24. 27 12:9-13 and 17. [CONTINUED] 1 13:13-16, excluding the words 2 “reviewed,” footnote 37, footnote 38 and “He also 3 reviewed.”
4 18:20-22
5 19:4-6, excluding the words “While both were at Applied, 6 Mr. Adams worked with Shubert Chu regarding.” 7 19:7-9, excluding the words 8 “what Applied did or did not know about Mattson.” 9 Declaration of Nathan Zhang Green-highlighted portions as The Court finds that these in support of Applied’s modified, at: excerpts contain Applied 10 Motion to Disqualify confidential information [Dkt. 158-4] ¶¶ 5, 7-8 which is not publicly known 11 and may cause harm if ¶ 6, excluding for the words disclosed. The motions to 12 “beginning in 2013 Mr. seal are GRANTED-IN- Adams developed internal PART as to these excerpts. 13 processes and procedures that Addressed,” “In his 2016 The Court otherwise DENIES 14 performance review, Mr. the motions as to Applied’s Adams also identified proposed redactions as 15 development” and “In his overbroad. 2019 performance review, Mr. 16 Adams was recognized for.”
17 ¶ 10, excluding the words “including investigations 18 specifically assessing Mattson.” 19 ¶ 11, lines 18-19, excluding 20 the words “at least in 2013 Mr. Adams was directly 21 involved in Applied’s assessment of” & “Mattson.” 22 ¶ 11, lines 19-22, excluding 23 the words “Mr. Adams also participated in an Applied 24 legal department presentation on.” 25 ¶ 12, lines 23-24, excluding 26 the words “At least in 2018, Mr. Adams was directly 27 involved in Applied’s ¶ 13, lines 3-4, ending at “to 1 stay apprised of.”
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MATTSON TECHNOLOGY, INC., Case No. 23-cv-06071-SVK
8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 9 v. DENYING IN PART THE PARTIES’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO 10 APPLIED MATERIALS, INC., et al., SEAL 11 Defendants. Re: Dkt. Nos. 158, 159, 166, 167, 171, 180
12 In connection with Defendant Applied Materials, Inc.’s (“Applied”) Motion to Disqualify, 13 (Dkt. 157), both Parties1 have filed administrative motions to seal their own information and each 14 other’s information. See Dkts. 158 (Motion, Applied’s information), 159 (Motion, Mattson’s 15 information), 166 (Opposition, Mattson’s information), 167 (Opposition, Applied’s information), 171 (Reply, Applied’s information), 180 (Applied’s demonstrative slides, Applied’s information). 16 No Party has opposed any other Party’s motions. Pursuant to Civil L.R. 79-5(f), Applied filed a 17 statement in support of Dkt. 167. See Dkt. 169. Mattson has not filed any statement in support of 18 Dkt. 159. Having considered the Parties’ submissions, the relevant law and the record in this 19 action, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the administrative motions 20 to seal. 21 Courts recognize a “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, 22 including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. Of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 23 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 24 (1978)). The standard for overcoming the presumption of public access to court records depends 25 on the purpose for which the records are filed with the court. A party seeking to seal court records 26
27 1 Two co-defendants, Rene George and Dr. Vladimir Nagorny, did not join the motion to 1 relating to motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” must 2 demonstrate “compelling reasons” that support secrecy. Ctr. For Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 3 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016). For records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits of the case,” such as “a discovery motion unrelated to the merits 4 of the case,” the lower “good cause” standard applies. Id.; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. 5 The Court finds that Applied’s Motion to Disqualify is “only tangentially related[] to the merits of 6 the case,” and so that the “good cause” standard governs. See Ctr. For Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 7 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Bold Ltd. v. Rocket Resume, Inc., No. 22-cv-01045-BLF, 2024 WL 54692, 8 at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2024) (applying the “good cause” standard to a motion to disqualify 9 counsel); WhatsApp Inc. v. NSO Grp. Techs. Ltd., No. 19-cv-07123-PJH, 2020 WL 7133773, at 10 *9 (N.D. Cal. June 16, 2020) (same). 11 In support of its administrative motion to seal its motion, reply and its lodged 12 demonstrative slides, Applied proposes redactions to what Applied contends represents its 13 “confidential and proprietary business information,” relating to “internal investigations into its 14 competitors” and “internal procedures relating to the protection of Applied intellectual property, 15 including [its] trade secrets.” Dkt. 158 at 3; Dkt. 171 at 3; Dkt. 180 at 3. In support of Mattson’s 16 administrative motion to seal portions of its opposition as containing Applied information, 17 Applied similarly contends that such portions contain information on “Applied’s internal business activities,” but also adds that these excerpts “would reveal highly confidential information 18 pertaining to Applied’s … legal counsel.” Dkt. 169 at 3-4. The Court agrees that—where 19 appropriate—proprietary business information, including internal investigations and procedures 20 relating to intellectual property and trade secrets, meet the good cause standard. The Court does 21 not agree that all confidential information related to “legal counsel” meets this standard, but the 22 Court is mindful that such information may be sealable in some cases. See, e.g., William v. 23 Morrison & Foerster LLP, No. 18-cv-02542-JSC, 2020 WL 8736128, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 24 2020) (“While courts generally accept attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine as a 25 ‘compelling reason’ justifying a motion to seal,” even such information must be “narrowly 26 tailored to only seek sealing of properly sealable information.”). As for Plaintiff, Mattson seeks to 27 seal information about the “confidential details [of] the structure of Mattson’s legal department 1 Having considered the reasons proffered by the Parties for sealing and the proposed 2 redactions, the Court rules summarized in the following chart:
3 Document Portions to be Sealed Court Ruling Applied’s Motion to Green-highlighted portions as The Court finds that these 4 Disqualify [Dkt. 158-3] modified, at ECF: excerpts contain Applied confidential information 5 7:11-12, excluding the words which is not publicly known “Mr. Adams investigated” on and may cause harm if 6 line 11. disclosed. The motions to seal are GRANTED-IN- 7 10:7-9, excluding the words PART as to these excerpts. “Beginning in 2013, Mr. 8 Adams was tasked with The Court otherwise DENIES developing an internal the motions as to Applied’s 9 Applied procedure that proposed redactions as addressed.” overbroad and DENIES the 10 motions to seal as to 10:9-10, excluding the words Mattson’s information (blue- 11 “That task also included.” highlighted) because Mattson failed to file a statement in 12 10:11-12, excluding the words support of sealing such “In 2016, Mr. Adams information. 13 identified as a performance review objective the 14 development of” as well as footnote 13. 15 10:12-15, excluding the words 16 “And in 2019, Mr. Adams was recognized for.” 17 10:18-20 18 11:5-6, excluding the words 19 “misappropriation of Applied IP, as well as.” 20 11:7-8, excluding the words 21 “Mattson in the context of.”
22 11:8-10, ending at (and excluding) footnote 19. 23 11:13-15, beginning after “He 24 also participated in an Applied legal department presentation 25 on.”
26 12:1, ending at (and excluding) footnote 24. 27 12:9-13 and 17. [CONTINUED] 1 13:13-16, excluding the words 2 “reviewed,” footnote 37, footnote 38 and “He also 3 reviewed.”
4 18:20-22
5 19:4-6, excluding the words “While both were at Applied, 6 Mr. Adams worked with Shubert Chu regarding.” 7 19:7-9, excluding the words 8 “what Applied did or did not know about Mattson.” 9 Declaration of Nathan Zhang Green-highlighted portions as The Court finds that these in support of Applied’s modified, at: excerpts contain Applied 10 Motion to Disqualify confidential information [Dkt. 158-4] ¶¶ 5, 7-8 which is not publicly known 11 and may cause harm if ¶ 6, excluding for the words disclosed. The motions to 12 “beginning in 2013 Mr. seal are GRANTED-IN- Adams developed internal PART as to these excerpts. 13 processes and procedures that Addressed,” “In his 2016 The Court otherwise DENIES 14 performance review, Mr. the motions as to Applied’s Adams also identified proposed redactions as 15 development” and “In his overbroad. 2019 performance review, Mr. 16 Adams was recognized for.”
17 ¶ 10, excluding the words “including investigations 18 specifically assessing Mattson.” 19 ¶ 11, lines 18-19, excluding 20 the words “at least in 2013 Mr. Adams was directly 21 involved in Applied’s assessment of” & “Mattson.” 22 ¶ 11, lines 19-22, excluding 23 the words “Mr. Adams also participated in an Applied 24 legal department presentation on.” 25 ¶ 12, lines 23-24, excluding 26 the words “At least in 2018, Mr. Adams was directly 27 involved in Applied’s ¶ 13, lines 3-4, ending at “to 1 stay apprised of.”
2 ¶ 14, beginning after the word “regarding.” 3 Declaration of Christina E. Green-highlighted portion, The Court finds that these Myrold in support of i.e., ¶ 11 excerpts contain Applied 4 Applied’s Motion to confidential information Disqualify which is not publicly known 5 [Dkt. 158-5] and may cause harm if disclosed. Applied’s motion 6 to seal its own confidential information is thus 7 GRANTED.
8 The Court DENIES the motions to consider whether 9 Mattson’s confidential information (the blue- 10 highlighted text) should be sealed, as Mattson did not file 11 a statement in support thereof. Exhibit 2 to the Myrold DENIED. As to Applied’s confidential 12 Declaration [Dkt. 158-6] information (the green- highlighted text), the bare fact 13 that Adams was involved in Applied internal 14 investigations into Mattson— without details as to what 15 such investigations entailed— does not warrant sealing. 16 DENIED.
17 The Court DENIES the motions to consider whether 18 Mattson’s confidential information (the blue- 19 highlighted text) should be sealed, as Mattson did not file 20 a statement in support thereof. Exhibit 3 to the Myrold Green-highlighted portions as The Court finds that these 21 Declaration [Dkt. 158-7] modified, at ECF: excerpts contain Applied confidential information 22 Page 2, entire first highlighted which is not publicly known block. and may cause harm if 23 disclosed. The motions to Page 2, second highlighted seal are GRANTED-IN- 24 block, excluding the words PART as to these excerpts. “Mattson-specific 25 investigations, including.” The Court otherwise DENIES the motions as to Applied’s 26 Page 3, but only with regard proposed redactions as to point (3). overbroad and DENIES the 27 motions to seal as to failed to file a statement in 1 support of sealing such information. 2 Mattson’s Opposition to the Green-highlighted portions as The Court finds that the Motion to Disqualify modified, at ECF: identified green-highlighted 3 [Dkt. 166-4] portions contain Applied 19:6-7 confidential information 4 which is not publicly known 22:10-11 and may cause harm if 5 disclosed. The motion to 24:11-13, beginning after the consider whether to seal 6 words “trade secrets and Applied’s information as to patents.” these excerpts is GRANTED- 7 IN-PART. The Court 24:23, beginning after “and otherwise DENIES the 8 that he helped.” proposed green-highlighted redactions as overbroad. 9 Blue-highlighted text at ECF 26, line 9. The Court finds that the 10 identified blue-highlighted portion contains Mattson 11 confidential information which is not publicly known 12 and may cause harm if disclosed. The motion to seal 13 is GRANTED. Declaration of J. Parks Blue-highlighted text in ¶ 13. The Court finds that the 14 Workman in support of identified blue-highlighted Mattson’s Opposition portion contains Mattson 15 [Dkt. 166-6] confidential information which is not publicly known 16 and may cause harm if disclosed. The motion to seal 17 is GRANTED. Ex. 1 to Mattson’s Opposition DENIED. The Court DENIES the 18 [Dkt. 167-6] motions to consider whether Applied’s confidential 19 information (the green- highlighted text) should be 20 sealed, as Applied did not seek to seal such information 21 in its supporting statement. Ex. 1 to Mattson’s Opposition DENIED. Neither the bare fact that 22 [Dkt. 167-7] Adams was involved in Applied internal 23 investigations into Mattson (without details as to what 24 such investigations entailed) nor the simple length of time 25 and title of Mr. Adams’ tenure at Applied are likely to result 26 in harm to Applied if publicly disclosed. This information 27 does not warrant sealing. Applied’s Reply in support of | Green-highlighted portions as | The Court finds that the 1 its Motion to Disqualify modified, at ECF: identified green-highlighted [Dkt. 171-3] portions contain Applied 2 12:12-14, excluding the words | confidential information “participated in legal which is not publicly known 3 department presentations and may cause harm if regarding.” disclosed. The motion to seal 4 Applied’s information as to 12:28 these excerpts is GRANTED- 5 IN-PART. The Court 13:11, beginning after otherwise DENIES the 6 “Mattson’s” proposed green-highlighted redactions as overbroad. 7 13:14-15 8 Applied’s demonstrative Green-highlighted portions as | The Court finds that the slides from the September 16, | modified, at: identified green-highlighted 9 2025, hearing [Dkt. 180-3] portions contain Applied Slide 19, bullet points 4 and 5. | confidential information 10 which is not publicly known and may cause harm if 1 disclosed. The motion to seal Applied’s information as to 12 these excerpts is GRANTED- IN-PART. The Court 13 otherwise DENIES the 3 proposed green-highlighted redactions (i.e., Slide 19 bullets 1 or 6, as well as slide 15 32) as overbroad. 16 The Clerk of Court shall unseal Dkts. 158-6, 167-6 and 167-7. The Clerk shall maintain
17 Dkts. 158-3, 158-4, 158-5, 158-7, 166-4, 166-6, 171-3 and 180-3 under seal. However, no later
4 18 || than October 6, Applied SHALL publicly file more narrowly redacted versions of Dkts. 158-3, 19 158-4, 158-5, 158-7, 173-3 and 180-3, in conformance with the Court’s rulings above. By the 20 || same date, Mattson (who may do so via Dorrity & Manning, notwithstanding the firm’s elsewise 21 disqualification) SHALL publicly file a more narrowly redacted version of Dkt. 166-4; Mattson 22 |) need not file a more narrowly redacted version of Dkt. 166-6, which is sufficient. 23 Failure by a Party to submit a proper public redacted version may result in the Court 24 || unsealing the corresponding sealed docket entry. 25 SO ORDERED. 26 || Dated: September 23, 2025 27 Seco vertul 28 SUSAN VAN KEULEN United States Magistrate Judge