Scientific Applications & Research Associates (SARA), Inc. v. Zipline International, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 SCIENTIFIC APPLICATIONS & Case No. 22-cv-04480-JSC RESEARCH ASSOCIATES (SARA), INC., 8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: SEALING OF THE v. 10 Re: Dkt. Nos. 258, 261 ZIPLINE INTERNATIONAL, INC., 11 Defendant.

12 13 The Court previously ruled on the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment and 14 Daubert motions, and provisionally docketed its Orders under seal, granting the parties the 15 opportunity to designate which portions of the Orders should remain sealed. (Dkt Nos. 257, 258, 16 260, 261.)1 SARA did not designate any portions of the Orders for sealing and Zipline seeks to 17 seal portions of both motions. (Dkt. Nos. 259, 265.) The Court now GRANTS in part and 18 DENIES in part Zipline’s designations to seal portions of the Court’s Orders. 19 The Court begins with “a strong presumption in favor of access to court records.” Foltz v. 20 State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). Zipline successfully 21 identifies limited sentences in the Court’s Orders that contain confidential information about the 22 development and functions of its drone technology. As to these limited designations, the Court 23 GRANTS Zipline’s request to seal. 24 But Zipline also requests sealing of portions of the Orders regarding matters uninhibitedly 25 discussed in open court and which it did not seek to seal in its motion for summary judgment. 26 (Compare Dkt. No. 193 at 34 (“The Court should grant summary judgment of noninfringement for 27 1 the accused P2 system because SARA has no evidence that there is any working P2 system at all 2 that includes acoustic DAA, let alone one that infringes any claim of the ‘115 patent.”); with Dkt. 3 No. 259 at 2 (seeking to seal Mr. Ananda’s testimony that the P2 drone is not currently operating a 4 detect-and-avoid system); and compare Dkt. No. 255 at 51:14-21 (Zipline counsel discussing P1’s 5 lack of RPKF filter; with Dkt. No. 259 at 2 (seeking to seal some, but not all, discussions about 6 P1’s lack of an RPKF filter).) At other times, Zipline seeks to seal certain sentences discussing 7 allegedly confidential technology but not other near-identical sentences. For these reasons, as to 8 these designations, Zipline has not demonstrated compelling reasons to keep certain portions of 9 the Court’s Orders under seal. See Civ. L.R. 79–5(d) (requiring parties to “narrowly tailor” their 10 requests only to the sealable material); Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 11 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[A] party seeking to seal a judicial record then bears the burden of 12 overcoming this strong presumption by meeting the ‘compelling reasons’ standard.”) (cleaned up). 13 As set forth below, the Court denies Zipline’s requests when it failed to meet its burden to 14 show the Orders reveal competitively damaging information sufficient to outweigh the 15 presumption of public access to judicial records. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 16 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (cleaned up) 17 Dkt. No. Portion(s) Sought to be Sealed Ruling 18 257 3:16-20 Granted. Zipline’s Interrogatory responses 19 (Order on address information not publicly discussed or Cross- available regarding its DAA technology. 20 Motions for 21 Summary Judgment) 22 12:27-28; Granted. Zipline’s non-public 23 13:2-5 communications with the FAA contain confidential information about its DAA 24 technology and its regulatory strategy. 13:7-8 Denied. This information was the basis of 25 Zipline’s summary judgment motion on non- infringement and was discussed at length in 26 open court. 27 14:20-22 Granted. Zipline’s non-public, internal document discussing the configuration of its P2 15:7-10 Granted. Zipline’s expert’s opinions about the 1 functioning of parts of its technology contains 2 confidential information about the functioning of its drones. 3 15:11-12; Denied in Part. Lines 11-12 contain 15:17 statements and arguments openly discussed at 4 15:24-25 public hearings and which were not sealed in Zipline’s motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. 5 No. 193 at 43-44.) Line 17 contains Zipline’s 6 argument that was discussed in open Court and is not a statement of fact but of legal argument. 7 Granted in Part. Line 25 contains information 8 about the functioning of the RPKF filter that contains confidential information. 9 260 5:16-26 Granted. Quotations from Mr. Baden’s 10 (Order on opening report contain confidential information Daubert about the functions of Zipline’s DAA 11 Motions) technology. 6:10-11; Denied. At lines 10-11, the Court does not 12 6:23; attach figures 3 and 4, so there is no 13 6:27 confidential information disclosed. At lines 23 and 27, Zipline has not explained how these 14 lines contain any confidential information. To the extent they discuss MVDR technology, 15 similar statements are made previously in the preceding paragraphs which Zipline did not 16 seek to seal. Further, Mr. Baden’s own 17 testimony which disclaims any conclusions about how Zipline’s drones actually function 18 defeats the argument this testimony contains confidential information. 19 7:8-10; Denied. The Court’s descriptions of what Mr. 7:12 Baden opines are generalized and do not 20 7:14 themselves disclose how Zipline’s technology 21 7:20 functions. Further, Zipline does not specify which portions of lines 12, 14, or 20 it seeks to 22 seal. And again, Zipline’s assertions are belied by the portions of the Order it does not seek to 23 seal. 13:20-21 Denied. This sentence contains statements and 24 arguments openly discussed at public hearings 25 and which were not sealed in Zipline’s motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 193 at 43- 26 44.) 27 The Court notes this Order only applies to sealing its Orders at Docket Nos. 257 and 260. 1 they must comply with the Court’s recent Order regarding sealing of documents. (Dkt. No. 267.) 2 This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 258, 261. 4 || Dated: April 11, 2025 5 6 ne CQYELINE SCOTT CORLEY 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 a 12

2B

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28