SolarPark Korea Co., Ltd. v. Solaria Corporation

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. California
DecidedAugust 2, 2023
Docket3:23-cv-01181
StatusUnknown

This text of SolarPark Korea Co., Ltd. v. Solaria Corporation (SolarPark Korea Co., Ltd. v. Solaria Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
SolarPark Korea Co., Ltd. v. Solaria Corporation, (N.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 4 CASE NO. 3:23-cv-01181-AMO 5 SOLARPARK KOREA CO., LTD., JOINT [PROPOSED] SEALING 6 Plaintiff ORDER

7 v.

8 THE SOLARIA CORPORATION, 9 COMPLETE SOLARIA, INC., and DOES 1 THROUGH 10, 10 Defendants. 11

12 13 There are seven pending administrative motions to seal in this case, most of them related 14 to the two substantive motions addressed at the hearing on July 11, 2023. Pursuant to Civil 15 Local Rules 79-5(c)(3), 79-5(f) and 7-11, and after consideration of (1) Defendants The Solaria 16 Corporation and Complete Solaria, Inc.’s (“Defendants”) Administrative Motion to Consider 17 Whether Another Party’s Material Should be Sealed relating to Defendants’ Motion for 18 Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to the Complaint (Dkt. No. 23); (2) Plaintiff 19 SolarPark Korea Co., Ltd.’s (“SolarPark”) Administrative Motion to File Under Seal SolarPark’s 20 Notice of Motion and Motion For A Preliminary Injunction, Declaration in Support of the 21 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and Identification of Trade Secrets (Dkt. No. 27); 22 (3) Defendants’ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal and Consider Whether Another 23 Party’s Material Should be Sealed relating to Solaria’s Opposition to SolarPark’s Motion for a 24 Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 34); (4) SolarPark’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal 25 and Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should be Sealed relating to SolarPark’s Reply 26 in Support of its Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 40); 27 (5) Defendants’ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal and Consider Whether Another 28 Party’s Material Should be Sealed relating to Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss and Motion 1 to Stay (Dkt. No. 31); (6) SolarPark’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal and Consider 2 Whether Another Party’s Material Should be Sealed Relating to SolarPark’s Opposition to 3 Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Stay (Dkt No. 37); and (7) Defendants’ 4 Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should be Sealed relating 5 to Defendants’ Reply in Support of Its Partial Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Stay (Dkt. No. 6 47) and the supporting documents submitted concurrently with the foregoing motions to seal, the 7 Court rules as indicated in the table below. 8 A. Legal Standard 9 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5, the party seeking to file a document or portions of it 10 under seal must explain “(i) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing; (ii) the 11 injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is 12 not sufficient.” Civil L.R. 79-5(c)(1). The request must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the 13 sealable material.” Id. at 79-5(c)(3). 14 A party seeking to seal records must provide “compelling reasons” to overcome the 15 “strong presumption in favor of access.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. Of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 16 1178 (9th Cir. 2006); see Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th 17 Cir. 2016). The standard derives from the “common law right ‘to inspect and copy public 18 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors 19 Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). To overcome 20 this strong presumption, the party seeking to seal judicial records must “articulate compelling 21 reasons supported by specific factual findings . . . that outweigh the general history of access and 22 the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial 23 process.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (citations omitted). The party must make a 24 “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is 25 disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th 26 Cir. 2002) 27 It is in the “sound discretion of the trial court” to determine what constitutes a 28 “compelling reason” for sealing a court document. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097 1 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978)). Compelling reasons 2 justifying sealing court records generally exist when such “court files might . . . become a 3 vehicle for improper purposes” such as “releas[ing] trade secrets,” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179, 4 or “as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing,” Ctr. for 5 Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097; see In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) 6 (sealing trade secret information about “the pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed 7 minimum payment terms” in the parties’ licensing agreement). Additionally, there may be 8 compelling reasons for sealing documents referring to arbitration proceedings where the parties 9 are bound by arbitral confidentiality rules. See, e.g., Serenium, Inc. v. Zhou, No. 20-CV-02132- 10 BLF, 2020 WL 6270928, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2020) (finding that sealing was warranted 11 where the parties were bound by the confidentiality rules of the Beijing Arbitration 12 Commission). 13 B. Rulings 14 Many of the materials and redactions for which these parties seek sealing constitute trade 15 secrets or sources of business information that might harm the litigants’ competitive standing. 16 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179; Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097. The Court correspondingly 17 notes “trade secret” or “confidential business information” where appropriate to support sealing 18 in the chart below. 19 Other portions of the materials which the parties seek sealing constitute confidential 20 information protected by arbitration rules. See Zhou, 2020 WL 6270928, at *1. The parties here 21 are bound by the rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), which require 22 that all proceedings be kept confidential. See ECF 33 at 3. Specifically, SIAC Rule 39.1 23 provides that “[u]nless otherwise agreed by the parties, a party . . . shall at all times treat all 24 matters relating to the proceedings and the Award as confidential.” Id. SIAC Rule 39.3 further 25 clarifies that “matters relating to proceedings” includes “the existence of the proceedings, and the 26 pleadings, evidence and other materials in the arbitral proceedings,” but excludes matters that are 27 “otherwise in the public domain.” Id. The Court notes “arbitration material” where appropriate 28 to support sealing in the chart below. 1 The Court makes the following rulings regarding the materials requested to be sealed: 2 Document or Portion Evidence Objections Ruling of Document Sought offered in 3 to be Sealed Support of Sealing 4 Motion for Extension None. DENIED. 5 of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to 6 the Complaint (“Extension Motion”) 7 (Dkt. No. 22) at p. 2, lines 10-11 8 Extension Motion at None. DENIED. 9 p. 2, line 14 Extension Motion at None. DENIED. 10 p. 3, lines 2-4 Extension Motion at None. DENIED. 11 p. 3, lines 16-17 12 Extension Motion at None. DENIED. p. 3, lines 22-23 13 Extension Motion at None. DENIED. p. 3, line 25 14 Extension Motion at None. DENIED. 15 p. 4, lines 21-22 Extension Motion at None. DENIED. 16 p. 4, lines 25-27 Extension Motion at None. DENIED. 17 p. 5, line 1 Extension Motion at None. DENIED. 18 p. 5, lines 18-19 19 Declaration of Jamie None. DENIED. L. Lucia in Support of 20 Solaria’s Extension Motion (“Lucia 21 Extension Decl.”) 22 (Dkt. No. 22-1) at p.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc.
435 U.S. 589 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N
605 F.3d 665 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Phillips v. General Motors Corporation
307 F.3d 1206 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)
Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC
809 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)
Electronic Arts, Inc. v. United States District Court
298 F. App'x 568 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
SolarPark Korea Co., Ltd. v. Solaria Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/solarpark-korea-co-ltd-v-solaria-corporation-cand-2023.