Optronic Technologies, Inc. v. Ningbo Sunny Electronic Co., Ltd.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: June 1, 2022
• Docket: 5:16-cv-06370
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 OPTRONIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC, et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-06370-EJD

9 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 10 v. UNDER SEAL

11 NINGBO SUNNY ELECTRONIC CO., LTD., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 792 12 Defendants.

13 14 Third-party movant Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP (“Sheppard Mullin”) 15 moves to seal two documents submitted in connection with Plaintiff Optronic Technologies Inc.’s 16 (“Orion”) Administrative Motion for Further Post-Judgment Discovery. Dkt. No. 786. 17 “Historically, courts have recognized a general right to inspect and copy public records and 18 documents, including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 19 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted). If the court record is “more than tangentially 20 related to the merits of the case”—as is the case with the PSAC—then there is a “strong 21 presumption in favor of access.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1102 22 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. To overcome this presumption, the party who 23 wishes to keep the record under seal must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific 24 factual findings” for doing so. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. “The mere fact that the production of 25 records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will 26 not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. at 1179. Courts applying the 27 compelling reasons standard have upheld the sealing of trade secrets, marketing strategies, product 1 development plans, detailed product-specific financial information, customer information, internal 2 || reports and other such materials that could harm a party's competitive standing. See, e.g., In re 3 || Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008); Opperman v. Path, Inc., No.13-cv-00453- 4 JST, 2017 WL 1036652, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2017); Lucas v. Breg, Inc., No. 15-cv-00258- 5 BAS-NLS, 2016 WL 5464549, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2016); Rodman v. Safeway Inc., No. 11- 6 || cv-03003-JST, 2015 WL 13673842 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2015). 7 Orion’s motion concerns post-judgment discovery in an attempt to collect on Orion’s 8 || judgment. The underlying motion does not address the merits of the parties’ claims or defenses 9 and thus the Court applies the “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c). Sheppard Mullin and Orion 10 || now dispute whether two of the exhibits attached to Orion’s motion are protected from disclosure 11 by the attorney-client privilege. Based on the representations made in Sheppard Mullin’s motion 12 and accompanying declarations, the Court finds good cause to maintain these two documents 5 13 under seal. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Sheppard Mullin’s motion to file under seal. The 14 || following material shall be maintained under seal: 3 15 e Exhibit 1 to Orion’s Motion for Further Post-Judgment Discovery (Dkt. No. 786-2); a 16 and

= 17 e Exhibit 3 to Orion’s Motion for Further Post-Judgment Discovery (Dkt. No. 786-4). 18 As to Orion’s request to grant it leave to file Exhibit A attached to the declaration of 19 Ronald Fisher in support of its opposition to Sheppard Mullin’s motion to seal, Dkt. No. 793 at 1, 20 || the Court grants that request. The Court does not rule on Orion’s motion for further discovery at 21 this time for the reasons stated on the record at the April 14, 2022 status conference. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: June 1, 2022 24

EDWARD J. DAVILA 26 United States District Judge 27 28 || Case No.: 5:16-cv-06370-EJD ORDER GRANTING ADMIN. MOT. TO FILE UNDER SEAL