Unicorn Energy AG v. Tesla, Inc.

Opinion

UNICORN ENERGY GMBH, Case No. 21-cv-07476-BLF

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS; DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE TESLA INC., MOTIONS; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART Defendant. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS

[Re: ECF Nos. 374, 375, 376, 403, 405,

406, 407, 408, 420, 421, 423] Before the court are eleven administrative motions filed in connection with the parties’ motions for summary judgment: 1. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed. ECF No. 374. 2. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed. ECF No. 375. 3. Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Tesla's Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 376. 4. Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Exhibit 30 to Its Opposition to Unicorn's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. ECF No. 403. 5. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed. ECF No. 405. 6. Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Regarding Plaintiff's Opposition to Tesla's Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 406. Sealed. ECF No. 407. 8. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed. ECF No. 408. 9. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed. ECF No. 420. 10. Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Tesla Reply in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment and Exhibits 24-27. ECF No. 421. 11. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed. ECF No. 423. For the reasons described below, the Court rules as follows: the administrative motions at ECF Nos. 374, 376, 403, 405, 421 are GRANTED; the administrative motion at ECF No. 408, 420 are DENIED; the administrative motion at ECF No. 375, 406, 407, 423 are GRANTED IN PART “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. Of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits of a case,” however, are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This standard requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). A. ECF No. 374 Unicorn filed the Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed on February 12, 2024. ECF No. 374. Tesla submitted a declaration and exhibits. ECF Nos. 390, 391. Tesla seeks to seal portions of exhibits. ECF No. 390-1 ¶ 3. Tesla writes that the information should be sealed because “[d]isclosure of this information would also help Tesla’s competitors advance their own technical development and shape their business decisions, thereby harming Tesla’s competitive standing in the energy storage industry.” Id. ¶ 4. Tesla argues that the portions are narrowly tailored. Id. ¶ 5. The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the documents. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7911651, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under “compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG, 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons standard.). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored. The Court’s ruling is summarized below: \\ \\ ECF or Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling Exhibit No. ECF 373-8 Excerpts of the Highlighted portions at the Granted, as the highlighted (Ex. 7) Rebuttal Expert following pages: 76, 77, 82, portions of this document reflect Report of Dr. 83, 93, 94, 106, 107, 119-21, specific technical details Christopher D. 127-31, 149, 150, 162-64, regarding Tesla Products. See Rahn (“Exhibit 166, 167. infra ¶ 4. 7”) B. ECF No. 375 Tesla filed the Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed on February 12, 2024. ECF No. 375. Unicorn submitted a declaration and exhibits. ECF Nos. 392, 393. Unicorn seeks to seal selected portions of the brief and its corresponding exhibits. ECF No. 392-1 ¶ 2. Unicorn writes that the information should be sealed because “disclosure of such information would allow Unicorn’s competitors to shape their business decisions to undermine Unicorn’s operational and strategic advantage in the energy storage industry.” Id. ¶ 10; see also id. ¶ 4-9. Unicorn argues that the portions are narrowly tailored. Id. ¶ 2. The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the certain portions of the highlighted portions of the documents. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7911651, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under “compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17- CV-04810-HSG, 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons standard.). Except as otherwise noted below, the Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored. Where the Court has denied the motion to seal, it is because the document does not appear to contain sensitive or confidential material, or the request is overly broad. See Civ. L.R. 79-5 (“A party must explore all reasonable alternatives to filing documents under seal, minimize the number of documents filed under seal, and avoid wherever possible sealing entire documents”). The Court’s ruling is summarized below: ECF or Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling Exhibit No. 375.01 Tesla’s Motion Portions highlighted for Granted, as the cited portions of for Summary redaction at the following the document reflect specific Judgment page and line numbers: 5:8- details of Unicorn’s sensitive 25; 9:15; strategic, financial, and internal 10:7-10; 10:23-24; 10:27- technical information, which has 11:6; been designated as 13:13-14 “CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED – ONLY” under the Stipulated Protective Order. 375.05 Exhibit 2 (ZAI Entire document DENIED as overly broad. 000001) Furthermore, neither the email nor attachment are marked in such a way to suggest that the information is confidential 375.06 Exhibit 3 (ZAI Entire document DENIED as overly broad. 000034) Furthermore, the attachment is not marked in such a way to suggest that the information is confidential 375.07 Exhibit 4 (ZAI Portions highlighted for Granted, as the cited document 000751) redaction at the following reflects specific details of page numbers: 2-3 Unicorn’s sensitive strategic and financial information, which has been designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” under the Stipulated Protective Order. 375.08 Exhibit 5 (ZAI Portions highlighted for Granted, as the cited document 000814) redaction at the following reflects specific details of page numbers: 1, 2, 4 Unicorn’s sensitive strategic and financial information, which has been designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” under the Stipulated Protective Order. 375.09 Exhibit 6 Portions highlighted for Granted, as the parties dispute (email string redaction on the following whether reflects confidential between pages: 2 settlement communications. Tesla’s counsel Unicorn’s counsel (D. Jonas), dated April 5, 2023 to April 13, 2023) 375.10 Exhibit 7 Entire excerpt DENIED as overly broad. (excerpts from the deposition transcript of Felix Friedrich) 375.13 Exhibit 10 Entire excerpt DENIED as overly broad. (excerpts from the deposition transcript of Christian Zugel) 375.14 Exhibit 11 Entire excerpt DENIED as overly broad. (excerpts from Unicorn’s First Supplemental Responses and Objections to Tesla’s Second Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 12 and 14)) 375.15 Exhibit 12 Entire excerpt DENIED as overly broad. (excerpts from Furthermore, the information Unicorn’s does not appear to be confidential Second or sensitive. Supplemental Responses and Objections to Tesla’s Interrogatories (Nos. 2, 4 and 8)) 375.16 Exhibit 13 Pages highlighted for DENIED as to paragraph 468, and (excerpts from redaction: 217-236 otherwise granted, as the cited the Rebuttal portions of the document reflect Expert Report specific details of Unicorn’s of Dr. sensitive strategic and internal Christopher D. technical information, which has Rahn) been designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ ONLY” under the Stipulated Protective Order. 375.21 Exhibit 18 Portions highlighted for Granted, as the cited portions of (excerpts from redaction at the following the document reflect specific the deposition page and line numbers: details of Unicorn’s sensitive transcript of 17:15-18:14 strategic, financial, and internal Axel technical information, which has Heinemann) been designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED – ONLY” under the Stipulated Protective Order. C. ECF No. 376 Tesla filed the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Tesla's Motion for Summary Judgment on February 13, 2024. ECF No. 376. Tesla seeks to seal selected portions of the brief and its corresponding exhibits. Id. Tesla writes that the information should be sealed because “public disclosure of this highly confidential information would allow Tesla’s competitors to reverse engineer and achiever similar results in their own products” and “would also help Tesla’s competitors advance their own technical development and shape their business decisions, thereby harming Tesla’s competitive standing in the energy storage industry.” Id. ¶ 4. Tesla argues that the portions are narrowly tailored. Id. ¶ 6. The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the document. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7911651, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under “compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG, 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons standard.). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored. The Court’s ruling is summarized below: ECF or Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling Exhibit No. ECF 375-1 Tesla’s Motion Highlighted portions at the Granted, as the highlighted for Summary following pages and lines: 3:4-5, portions of this document Judgment 3:18-20, 3:22-25, 6:14-16, 15:18, reflect specific technical details (“Tesla’s 15:21-24, 15:26-27, 16:8, 16:10, of Tesla Products. See ECF Motion”) 16:13-14, 16:17, 16:19, 16:25, No. 376-1 ¶ 4. 16:27, 17:1-5, 17:9, 17:11-12, 17:14-15, 18:2, 18:5, 18:10, 18:12-13, 18:16, 18:18-20, 19:1- 4, 20:12-13, 20:16, 20:26, 21:5- 6, 21:9, 21:20-21, 21:26, 22:10. 22:23, 23:10, 23:13, 23:15, 23:21-24:4. Ex. 1 Excerpts of Highlighted (with red outline) Granted, as the highlighted Transcript from portions at the following pages portions of this document Deposition of and lines: 188:1-190:25, 231:5- reflect specific technical details Ralf Gomm, 24, 232:2-234:25. of Tesla Products and Tesla’s dated Aug. 18, strategic and operational 2023 information. See ECF No. 376- (“Exhibit 1”) 1 ¶¶ 4, 5. Ex. 13 Excerpts of Highlighted portions at the Granted, as the highlighted Rebuttal Expert following pages: 216-17. portions of this document Report of Dr. reflect specific technical details Christopher of Tesla Products. See ECF D. Rahn, dated No. 376-1 ¶ 4. Nov. 22, 2023 (“Exhibit 13”) Ex. 16 Third Errata to Highlighted portions at the Granted, as the highlighted the Oct. 17, following pages: 2, 3, 4. portions of this document 2023 Initial reflect specific technical details Expert Report of Tesla Products and Tesla’s of Marc strategic and operational Herniter information. See ECF No. 376- (“Exhibit 16”) 1 ¶¶ 4, 5. Ex. 17 Excerpts of Highlighted (with red outline) Granted, as the highlighted Transcript from portions at the following pages portions of this document Deposition of and lines: 246:4. reflect specific technical details Dr. Marc of Tesla Products. See ECF Herniter, dated No. 376-1 ¶ 4. Dec. 22, 2023 (“Exhibit 17”) Ex. 19 Excerpts of Highlighted (with red outline) Granted, as the highlighted Transcript portions at the following pages portions of this document from and lines: 68:2-4, 68:13-19, reflect specific technical details Deposition of 68:25-69:1, 69:12-13, 69:17- of Tesla Products. See ECF Ozbek, dated 76:8-9, 76:19-25, 84:1-85:25, Sep. 7, 2023 86:3-87:10. (“Exhibit 19”) Ex. 20 Excerpts of Highlighted (with red outline) Granted, as the highlighted Transcript portions at the following pages portions of this document from and lines: 159:1-160:7, 160:19- reflect specific technical details Deposition of 161:25, 205:1-207:4, 207:12-13, of Tesla Products. See ECF AJ Booth, 207:22-23, 208:6-25. No. 376-1 ¶ 4. dated Sep. 12, 2023 (“Exhibit 20”) D. ECF No. 403 Tesla filed the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Exhibit 30 to Its Opposition to Unicorn's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on March 4, 2024. ECF No. 403. Tesla seeks to seal selected portions of the brief and its corresponding exhibits. ECF No. 403-1 ¶ 3. Tesla writes that the information should be sealed because “disclosure of such information would allow Tesla’s competitors to shape their business decisions to undermine Tesla’s operational and strategic advantage in the energy storage industry.” Id. ¶ 4. Tesla argues that the portions are narrowly tailored. Id. ¶ 5. The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the document. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7911651, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under “compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG, 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons standard.). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored. The Court’s ruling is summarized below: ECF or Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling Exhibit No. Ex. 30 Excerpts from 10/17/2023 Highlighted Granted, as the highlighted Expert Report of James E. portions at pages portions of this document reflect Malackowski (“Exhibit 5 and 80. Tesla strategic and operational E. ECF No. 405 Unicorn filed the Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed on March 4, 2024. ECF No. 405. Tesla submitted a declaration and exhibits. ECF Nos. 414, 415. Tesla seeks to seal selected portions of the brief and its corresponding exhibits. ECF No. 414-1 ¶ 3. Tesla writes that the information should be sealed because “public disclosure of this highly confidential information would allow Tesla’s competitors to reverse engineer and achiever similar results in their own products” and “would also help Tesla’s competitors advance their own technical development and shape their business decisions, thereby harming Tesla’s competitive standing in the energy storage industry.” Id. ¶ 4. Tesla argues that the portions are narrowly tailored. Id. ¶ 5. The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the document. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7911651, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under “compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG, 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons standard.). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored. The Court’s ruling is summarized below:

ECF or Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling Exhibit No. ECF 404 Unicorn’s Highlighted portions with Granted, as the highlighted Opposition to red borders at the following portions of this document reflect Tesla’s Motion pages and lines: 15:11-15, specific technical details of Tesla for Summary 15:17-28, 16:2-3, 16:5, 16:7- Products. See ECF No. 414-1 ¶ 4. Judgment 11, 16:14-24, 16:26-17:1, (“Unicorn’s 17:3, 17:11-21, 18:1-8, 18:10- Opposition”) 14, 18:16-19, 18:22-23, 18:25-26, 19:5-6, 19:10-11, 19:13-14, 19:16-18, 19:25, 19:27, 20:4-5, 20:8, 20:12-15, 20:24, 20:28, 21:2-4, 21:6, 21:10, 21:17, 21:24-22:1, 22:3-20, 22:24-26, 22:28- 15, 25:3-12, 25:14, 25:18. Ex. 6 Excerpts from Highlighted portions with Granted, as the highlighted the Initial red borders at the following portions of this document reflect Expert Report pages: 20-21, 25-26, 216- specific technical details of Tesla of Marc 217, 320, 324, 342-344, 376, Products. See ECF No. 414-1 ¶ 4. Herniter 395-397, 401, 437-439, 473. Regarding Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,008,869 (“Exhibit 6”) Ex. 9 Excerpts from Highlighted portions with Granted, as the highlighted the deposition red borders at the following portions of this document reflect transcript of pages and lines: 148:2-5, specific technical details of Tesla Ralf Gomm, 148:6-149:25, 242:1-11, Products. See ECF No. 414-1 ¶ 4. Ph.D., dated 242:13-18, 242:20-244:25. August 18, 2023 (“Exhibit 9”) Ex. 10 Excerpts Highlighted portions with red Granted, as the highlighted from the borders at the following page portions of this document reflect deposition and lines: 244:1-25. specific technical details of Tesla transcript Products. See ECF No. 414-1 ¶ 4. of AJ Booth, dated September 12, 2023 (“Exhibit 10”) Ex. 12 Excerpts from Highlighted portions with Granted, as the highlighted Tesla, Inc.’s red borders at the following portions of this document reflect First pages and lines: 2:28-3:1, specific technical details of Tesla Supplemental 3:3-6, 3:8-11, 3:13-18, 3:21- Products. See ECF No. 414-1 ¶ 4. Responses to 4:4, 4:8, 4:10-11, 4:13-19, Unicorn 4:21-27, 5:8-18, 5:21-22, Energy AG’s 5:24, 5:27-28. Fifth Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 16, 18), dated September 14, 2023 Ex. 13 Excerpts from Highlighted portions at with Granted, as the highlighted the deposition red borders at the following portions of this document reflect transcript of pages and lines: 61:1-3, specific technical details of Tesla Yuval Joseph, 61:5, 61:7-10, 61:13-15, Products. See ECF No. 414-1 ¶ 4. dated October 61:17-23, 62:1, 62:3-17, 11, 2023 62:20-22, 62:24-63:10, 63:13- (“Exhibit 13”) 14, 63:16-19, 63:21-22, 63:24-25, 94:2-6, 94:9-10, 94:12-95:8, 95:13-14, 95:25, 127:3, 127:5-7, 127:10, 127:12-17, 127:20, 127:22- 128:13, 128:15-19, 128:22, 128:24-129:14, 129:17, 129:19-23, 130:1-3, 130:5-8, 130:10-14, 130:19-25. Ex. 14 Excerpts from Highlighted portions with Granted, as the highlighted the deposition red borders at the following portions of this document reflect transcript of pages and lines: 143:1-3, specific technical details of Tesla Marc Herniter, 143:6-12, 143:14-16, 143:18- Products. See ECF No. 414-1 ¶ 4. dated 20, 143:22-25, 198:2-9, December 22, 198:11-12. 2023 (“Exhibit 14”) Ex. 15 Excerpts from Highlighted portions with red Granted, as the highlighted the Rebuttal borders at the following portions of this document reflect Expert Report pages: 80, 125, 160. specific technical details of Tesla of Dr. Products. See ECF No. 414-1 ¶ 4. Christopher D. Rahn, dated November 22, 2023 (“Exhibit 15”) Ex. 16 Excerpts from Highlighted portions with Granted, as the highlighted the deposition red borders at the following portions of this document reflect transcript of pages and lines: 451:9-11, specific technical details of Tesla Christopher D. 451:14-452:1. Products. See ECF No. 414-1 ¶ 4. Rahn, dated December 16, 2023 (“Exhibit 16”) F. ECF No. 406 Unicorn filed the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Regarding Plaintiff's Opposition to Tesla's Motion for Summary Judgment on March 4, 2024. ECF No. 406. Unicorn seeks to seal selected portions of the brief and its corresponding exhibits. ECF No. 406-1 ¶ 3. information about Unicorn Energy’s products, business assets, and its business and financial strategy. Thus, public disclosure of such information may lead to competitive harm to Unicorn as its competitors could use these details to gain a competitive advantage in the marketplace.” Id. ¶ 9. Unicorn argues that the portions are narrowly tailored. ECF No. 406 at 4. The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the certain portions of the highlighted portions of the documents. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7911651, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under “compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17- CV-04810-HSG, 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons standard.). Except as otherwise noted below, the Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored. Where the Court has denied the motion to seal, it is because the document does not appear to contain sensitive or confidential material, or the request is overly broad. See Civ. L.R. 79-5 (“A party must explore all reasonable alternatives to filing documents under seal, minimize the number of documents filed under seal, and avoid wherever possible sealing entire documents”). The Court’s ruling is summarized below:

ECF or Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling Exhibit No. 403.1 Unicorn’s Portions highlighted at the Granted, as the cited portions Opposition to following page numbers: of the document reflect specific Tesla’s Motion 1:2-8, 5:2-6, details of Unicorn’s sensitive for Summary 5:7, 5:9-10, strategic business and financial Judgment 6:8-10, 8:15, information, which has been 8:17-18, 8:20, designated as 8:23, 10:4, “CONFIDENTIAL” or 10:6-9, 10:14- “RESTRICTED – 20, 10:24-26, ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” 10:28-11:6, under the 11:26-28, Stipulated Protective Order. See 12:9-13, Jonas Declaration ISO MFUS ¶4. 12:25-26, 13:3-4, 13:14- 19 403.2 Tesla, Inc.’s Portions highlighted for Granted, as the cited portions First Set of redaction at the following of the document reflect specific Requests for page and line details of Unicorn’s sensitive Admission to numbers: 6:15-7:18 strategic business and financial Unicorn information, which has been Energy AG designated as (Nos. 1-75), “CONFIDENTIAL” or dated “RESTRICTED – August 15, 2023 ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” (“Exhibit 1”) under the Stipulated Protective Order. See Jonas Declaration ISO MFUS ¶5. 403.3 Excerpts from Portion highlighted for Granted, as these transcript the deposition redaction at the following excerpts reflect specific details transcript of pages: 5:19-22; 165:1-25 of Unicorn’s sensitive strategic, Thomas Weis, financial, and technical dated August information, which has been 31, designated as “RESTRICTED 2023 (“Exhibit – CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE 3”) CODE” under the Stipulated Protective Order. These transcript excerpts also reflect confidential, non-public personal information implicating witness or employee privacy. See Jonas Declaration ISO MFUS ¶6- 7. 403.4 Excerpts from Portion highlighted for Granted, as these transcript the deposition redaction at the following excerpts reflect specific details transcript of pages: 209:3- of Unicorn’s sensitive strategic, Felix 25; 212:1-25 financial, and technical Friederich, information, which has been dated designated as September 5, “CONFIDENTIAL” or 2023 “RESTRICTED – (Exhibit 4”) ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” under the Stipulated Protective Order. See Jonas Declaration ISO MFUS ¶8. 403.5 Plaintiff Portion highlighted for Granted, as the cited portions Unicorn redaction at the following of the document reflect specific Energy AG’s pages: 9:18- details of Unicorn’s sensitive First 10:8 strategic business and financial Supplemental information, which has been Responses and designated as Objections to “CONFIDENTIAL” or Defendant “RESTRICTED – Second Set of under the Interrogatories Stipulated Protective Order. See (Nos 12 and Jonas Declaration ISO MFUS ¶8. 14), dated September 14, 2023, with Verification of Interrogatory Answers, dated September 15, 2023 (“Exhibit 5”) 403.2 Tesla, Inc.’s Portions highlighted for Granted, as the cited portions First Set of redaction at the following of the document reflect specific Requests for page and line details of Unicorn’s sensitive Admission to numbers: 6:15-7:18 strategic business and financial Unicorn information, which has been Energy AG designated as (Nos. 1-75), “CONFIDENTIAL” or dated “RESTRICTED – August 15, 2023 ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” (“Exhibit 1”) under the Stipulated Protective Order. See Jonas Declaration ISO MFUS ¶5. 403.6 Excerpts from Portions highlighted for Granted, as the cited portions the Initial redaction at the following of the document reflect specific Expert Report page numbers: 470-473 details of Unicorn’s sensitive of Marc (¶¶ 1126-34) technical information, which Herniter has been designated as Regarding “CONFIDENTIAL” or Infringement “RESTRICTED – (“Exhibit 6”) ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” under the Stipulated Protective Order. See Jonas Declaration ISO MFUS ¶6. 403.7 Excerpts from Entire Excerpt DENIED as overly broad. Plaintiff Unicorn Energy AG’s Second Supplemental Responses and Objections to Defendant Tesla, Inc.’s First Set of Interrogatories 8) and Third Supplemental Response and Objections to Interrogatory No. 5, dated September 14, 2023, with Verification of Interrogatory Answers, dated September 15, 2023 (“Exhibit 7”) 403.10 Excerpts Entire Excerpt DENIED as overly broad. from the deposition transcript of Axel Heinemann, dated October 3, 2023 (“Exhibit 8”) 403.13 Excerpts from Portion highlighted for Granted, as these transcript the deposition redaction at the following excerpts reflect confidential, non- transcript of pages: 5:6-9 public personal information Marc Herniter, implicating witness or employee dated privacy. See Jonas Declaration December 22, ISO MFUS ¶7. 2023 (“Exhibit 14”) G. ECF No. 407 Tesla filed the Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed on March 4, 2024. ECF No. 407. Unicorn submitted a declaration and exhibits. ECF Nos. 411, 412. Unicorn seeks to seal selected portions of the brief and its corresponding exhibits. ECF No. 411-1 ¶ 2. Unicorn writes that the information should be sealed because “[p]ublic disclosure of such information would allow Unicorn’s competitors to shape their business decisions to undermine Unicorn’s operational and strategic advantage in the energy storage industry.” Id. ¶ 7. Unicorn argues that the portions are narrowly tailored. Id. ¶ 8. portions of the documents. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7911651, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under “compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17- CV-04810-HSG, 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons standard.). Except as otherwise noted below, the Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored. Where the Court has denied the motion to seal, it is because the document does not appear to contain sensitive or confidential material, or the request is overly broad. See Civ. L.R. 79-5 (“A party must explore all reasonable alternatives to filing documents under seal, minimize the number of documents filed under seal, and avoid wherever possible sealing entire documents”). The Court’s ruling is summarized below:

ECF or Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling Exhibit No. 407.01 Tesla’s Portions Granted, as the cited portions of the Opposition highlighted in document reflect specific details of Unicorn’s to Unicorn darker yellow sensitive strategic and financial information, Energy’s for redaction at which has been designated as Motion for the following “CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED – Partial page and line ATTORNEYS’ EYES Summary numbers: vii:7- ONLY” under the Stipulated Protective Order. Judgment 16; 25:14-24 See ECF No. 411-1 ¶ 3. 407.02 Exhibit 24 Entire document DENIED as overly broad. Furthermore, this document does not appear to contain “sensitive business strategy and financial decisions, and internal technical information” as claim by Unicorn. See ECF No. 411-1 ¶ 4. 407.03 Exhibit 25 Entire document DENIED as overly broad. Furthermore, this document does not appear to contain “sensitive business strategy and financial decisions, and internal technical information” as claim by Unicorn. See ECF No. 411-1 ¶ 4. 407.04 Exhibit 26 Entire document Granted, as the cited document reflects specific details of Unicorn’s internal technical information, which has been designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” under the See ECF No. 411-1 ¶ 4. 407.05 Exhibit 27 Entire document DENIED as overly broad. Furthermore, Unicorn has supplied no basis (confidentiality clause, NDA, etc.) to justify sealing portions of this document. 407.06 Exhibit 28 Entire document DENIED as overly broad. Furthermore, Unicorn has supplied no basis (confidentiality clause, NDA, etc.) to justify sealing portions of this document. 407.07 Exhibit 29 Entire document DENIED as overly broad. Furthermore, Unicorn has supplied no basis (confidentiality clause, NDA, etc.) to justify sealing portions of this document. 407.08 Exhibit 30 Portions Granted, as the excerpted portions of this (Expert Report highlighted on expert report reflect specific details of of James E. page 5 and 81 Unicorn’s sensitive strategic and financial Malackowski) information, which has been designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” under the Stipulated Protective Order. See ECF No. 411-1 ¶ 6. H. ECF No. 408 Tesla filed the Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed on March 4, 2024. ECF No. 408. The documents at issues “have been designated, or rely on documents that have been designated, ‘Confidential’ or ‘Restricted – Attorneys’ Eyes Only’ by third-party Mr. Greg Tremelling.” Id. Mr. Tremelling is not a party to this case, Tesla has not filed proof of service, and Mr. Tremelling has not filed a declaration. As such, the motion is denied. I. ECF No. 420. Unicorn filed the Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed on March 21, 2024. ECF No. 420. Tesla indicated that the materials identified do not contain Tesla’s confidential information. As such, the motion is denied. J. ECF No. 421. Tesla filed the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Tesla Reply in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment and Exhibits 24-27 on March 21, 2024. ECF No. 421. Tesla seeks to seal selected portions of the brief and its corresponding exhibits. ECF No. 421-1 ¶ 3. Tesla writes that the information should be sealed because “public disclosure of this highly confidential information would allow Tesla’s competitors to reverse engineer and achiever similar results in their own products” and “would also help Tesla’s competitors advance their own technical development and shape their business decisions, thereby harming Tesla’s competitive standing in the energy storage industry.” Id. ¶ 4. Tesla argues that the portions are narrowly tailored. Id. ¶ 5. The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the document. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7911651, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under “compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG, 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons standard.). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored. The Court’s ruling is summarized below:

ECF or Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling Exhibit No. ECF 418 Tesla’s Reply in Highlighted portions at the Granted, as the Support of Motion for following pages and lines: highlighted portions of Summary 1:10, 9:23-25, 9:28, 10:4, this document reflect Judgment (“Tesla’s 10:6-11, 10:13, 10:17, 10:22- specific technical details Reply”) 24, 10:28-11:3, 11:5, 11:7-9, of Tesla Products. See 11:16, 11:18, 11:24, 11:26, infra ¶ 4. 12:2-3, 12:5-9, 12:11, 12:14- 15, 12:17-20, 13:8, 13:12-15, 13:23-24, 13:26-27, 14:4, 15:3-7, 15:9-10, 15:14-18, 15:21-23. Ex. 24 Megapack Operation Entirety of document. Granted, as the entirety of and Maintenance this document reflects Manual specific technical details (“Exhibit 24”) of Tesla Products. See infra ¶ 4. Furthermore, the document is marked “SHARED UNDER NDA ONLY.” Ex. 25 Excerpt of Transcript Highlighted portions with Granted, as the of red boarders at the following highlighted portions of 12/22/2023 Deposition pages and lines: 137:1-2, this document reflect of Marc Herniter 137:4-6, 137:9-11, 137:13, specific technical details (“Exhibit 25”) 137:15-17, 137:19-138:5, of Tesla Products. See 138:8-11, 138:13-15, 138:17- infra ¶ 4. 20, 138:22-139:5, 139:9-10, 139:12, 139:14-140:2, 140:5- 6, 140:8-10, 140:12-16. Ex. 26 May 31, 2022 Letter Highlighted portions with red Granted, as the from Tesla’s counsel (J. borders at the following highlighted portions of Smith) to Unicorn pages: 4, 5, 7-11, 13-16. this document reflect Regarding Deficiencies specific technical details in Unicorn’s of Tesla Products. See Infringement infra ¶ 4. Contentions (“Exhibit 26”) Ex. 27 June 8, 2022 Letter Highlighted portions with red Granted, as the from Unicorn’s borders at the following highlighted portions of Counsel (D. Jonas) to page: 4. this document reflect Tesla Regarding specific technical details Unicorn’s Infringement of Tesla Products. See Contentions (“Exhibit infra ¶ 4. 27”) K. ECF No. 423. Tesla filed the Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed on March 21, 2024. ECF No. 423. Unicorn submitted a declaration and exhibits. ECF Nos. 425, 426. Unicorn seeks to seal selected portions of the brief and its corresponding exhibits. ECF No. 425-1 ¶ 2. Unicorn writes that the information should be sealed because “[p]ublic disclosure of such information would allow Unicorn’s competitors to shape their business decisions to undermine Unicorn’s operational and strategic advantage in the energy storage industry.” Id. ¶ 5. Unicorn argues that the portions are narrowly tailored. Id. ¶ 6. portions of the documents. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7911651, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under “compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17- CV-04810-HSG, 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons standard.). Except as otherwise noted below, the Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored. Where the Court has denied the motion to seal, it is because the document does not appear to contain sensitive or confidential material, or the request is overly broad. See Civ. L.R. 79-5 (“A party must explore all reasonable alternatives to filing documents under seal, minimize the number of documents filed under seal, and avoid wherever possible sealing entire documents”). The Court’s ruling is summarized below:

ECF or Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling Exhibit No. 418 Tesla’s Reply Portions highlighted in Granted, as the cited portions reflect in Support of darker yellow for specific details of Unicorn’s sensitive its Motion for redaction at the following strategic and financial information, Summary page and line numbers: and internal technical information, Judgment i:9- 11; 1:3; 1:14; 1:16- which has been designated as 17; 1:20-22; 3:21-26; “CONFIDENTIAL” or 4:10; 4:13-15; 4:19-23; “RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ 4:25-27; 5:1; 5:6-9; 5:12- EYES ONLY” under the 13; 5:27-6:14; 6:18-19; Stipulated Protective Order. See Jonas 7:6-23; 8:1-11; 8:28 Declaration ISO MFUS ¶ 3. 423.01 Exhibit 22 Entire excerpt DENIED as overly broad. (portions of deposition transcript of Mr. Felix Friederich) 423.02 Exhibit 23 Entire excerpt DENIED as overly broad. (portions of deposition transcript of Mr. Axel Heinemman) 2 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. ECF No. 374 is GRANTED. 4 2. ECF No. 375 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 5 3. ECF No. 376 is GRANTED. 6 4. ECF No. 403 is GRANTED. 7 5. ECF No. 405 is GRANTED. 8 6. ECF No. 406 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 9 7. ECF No. 407 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 10 8. ECF No. 408 is DENIED. 11 9. ECF No. 420 is DENIED. 12 10. ECF No. 421 is GRANTED. 13 11. ECF No. 423 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 14 All denials ace WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Any refiled administrative motion SHALL be 3 15 filed no later than May 1, 2024. The Court will deny any future administrative motion with a 16 highlighting where various shades of the same color purport to have different meaning. See, e.g., 17 BCFNos. 425-1, 426. 18 19 Dated: April 10, 2024 _foilufredian _ BETH LABSON FREEMAN 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28