1 2 3 7 8 VALEO SCHALTER UND SENSOREN Case No. 23-cv-05721-NW (VKD) GMBH, 9 Plaintiff, ORDER RE SEALING 10 v. Re: Dkt. No. 209, 214, 215 11 NVIDIA CORPORATION, 12 Defendant.
13 14 Plaintiff Valeo Schalter und Sensoren GmbH (“Valeo”) has filed several administrative 15 motions to seal or to consider whether defendant NVIDIA Corporation’s (“NVIDIA”) material 16 should be sealed in connection with the parties’ recent discovery disputes. Dkt. Nos. 209, 214, 17 215. NVIDIA has filed declarations in support of sealing pursuant to Local Rule 79-5(f)(3). Dkt. 18 Nos. 218, 219. 19 There is a strong presumption in favor of access by the public to judicial records and 20 documents accompanying dispositive motions that can be overcome only by a showing of 21 “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of 22 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (cleaned up). However, the presumption does 23 not apply equally to a motion addressing matters that are only “tangentially related to the merits of 24 a case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). A 25 party seeking to seal documents or information in connection with such a motion must meet the 26 lower “good cause” standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Id. at 1098-99; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 27 1179-80. The discovery matters at issue here do not address the merits of either party’s claims or 1 A. Dkt. No. 208 and Exhibits: 2 NVIDIA asserts that good cause exists to seal the requested information because it 3 concerns: (1) the names of NVIDIA employees who are only “tangentially connected” to this 4 litigation; (2) the names of specific, confidential NVIDIA internal projects and source code files; 5 (3)descriptions of how NVIDIA systems and source code repositories are configured; (4) 6 information about how NVIDIA assigns devices and network locations to employees; and (5) 7 discussions of NVIDIA security measures and policies as well as the security and forensic tools 8 employed by NVIDIA to investigate breaches of security. Dkt. No. 218 at 1, 4-5. NVIDIA 9 asserts that disclosure of this information would not only be harmful to its competitive standing 10 but “could be used to ‘hack’ or otherwise overcome NVIDIA’s security systems.” Id. at 5. 11 B. Dkt. No. 213 and Exhibits: 12 NVIDIA asserts that good cause exists to seal certain portions of these materials because it 13 concerns: (1) “substantial details regarding NVIDIA’s autonomous driving features, algorithms, 14 functions, names of NVIDIA’s code files, and file paths”; (2) “details of NVIDIA’s code 15 development regarding autonomous driving”; (3) details regarding functions and features that 16 were implemented into previous versions of NVIDIA’s code; (4) “the names of two specific code 17 repositories used by NVIDIA”; and (5) “NVIDIA’s internal investigation and information security 18 measures.” Dkt. No. 219 at 1-3, 5. NVIDIA again asserts that release of this information would 19 be harmful to its competitive standing as well as potentially compromising to NVIDIA’s security. 20 Id. 21 Similarly, Valeo asserts that good cause exists to seal other portions of these materials 22 because the information contains: (1) the structure and names of folders of information 23 comprising Valeo’s source code; (2) information comprising Valeo’s Trade Secrets, and (3) 24 personal identifiable information of Valeo’s employees. Dkt. No. 215 at 1-2. 25 C. Disposition 26 The Court agrees that good cause exists to seal the information NVIDIA and Valeo have 27 designated within these documents. Generally, the redactions proposed to the public versions of 1 5(c)(3). The Court notes, however, that the sealing of entire documents is strongly discouraged. 2 See Civil L.R. 79-5(a) (“A party must . . . avoid wherever possible sealing entire documents (as 3 opposed to merely redacting the truly sensitive information in a document).”). The parties are 4 reminded that, in the context of jointly filed reports or discovery disputes, they should confer 5 regarding which portions of discovery dispute letter, report or exhibits require sealing. Any 6 subsequent sealing motions should reflect only those necessary proposed redactions, whether the 7 motion is filed pursuant to Local Rule 79-5(c) or 79-5(f). Accordingly, the following materials 8 shall be sealed: 9 Document Portions to be Filed Under Seal 10 Joint Status Report re NVIDIA’s Portions of the document as redacted by NVIDIA in 11 Production of Investigation Documents Exhibit A (Dkt. No. 218-1) to the Declaration of (Dkt. No. 208) Michael LaFond (Dkt. No. 218) 12 Exhibit A (Dkt. No. 208-1) Portions of the document as redacted on the docket 13 at Dkt. No. 119-3 14 Exhibit C (Dkt. No. 208-3) Entire Document 15 Exhibit D (Dkt. No. 208-4) Entire Document 16 Exhibit E (Dkt. No. 208-5) Entire Document 17 Exhibit F (Dkt. No. 208-6) Entire Document 18 19 Exhibit G (Dkt. No. 208-7) Entire Document 20 Exhibit H (Dkt. No. 208-8) Entire Document 21 Exhibit I (Dkt. No. 208-9) Entire Document 22 Joint Status Report re Additional Portions of the document as redacted by NVIDIA in Depositions (Dkt. No. 213) Exhibit A (Dkt. No. 219-1) to the Declaration of 23 Michael LaFond (Dkt. No. 219) 24 Exhibit 1 (Dkt. No. 213-1) Entire Document 25 Exhibit 2 (Dkt. No. 213-2) Portions of the document highlighted in yellow by 26 Valeo at Dkt. No. 215-3 27 Portions of the document as redacted by NVIDIA in Exhibit B (Dkt. No. 219-2) to the Declaration of 1 Exhibit 3 (Dkt. No. 213-3) Portions of the document already redacted at Dkt. No. 119-3 2 Exhibit 4 (Dkt. No. 213-4) Entire Document 3 Exhibit B (Dkt. No. 213-6) Entire document except as to those portions publicly 4 filed at Dkt. No. 119-3 5 Exhibit C (Dkt. No. 213-7) Portions of the document highlighted in yellow by 6 Valeo at Dkt. No. 215-6 7 The Court however does not grant NVIDIA’s request to seal Exhibit A to Dkt. No. 213 8 (Dkt. No. 213-5) in its entirety. NVIDIA does not show that the information it seeks to protect in 9 this document—“(i) details of the German investigations, (ii) NVIDIA’s actions in response to the 10 German investigation, including modifications to the code, (iii) NVIDIA’s internal code audit, and 11 (iii)information about how NVIDIA’s source code repositories are configured and reviewed”— 12 require sealing of the entire document. Dkt. No. 219 at 4. Indeed, the Court notes that details of 13 the investigation have already been filed publicly in connection with the parties’ other discovery 14 disputes. See Dkt. No. 99. NVIDIA shall file on the public docket a proposed redacted version of 15 the document consistent with the Court’s past orders approving sealing and redaction. See Dkt. 16 Nos.136, 145. 17 Public redacted versions of many of the above-referenced documents are already available. 18 To the extent such versions do not exist, the Court hereby orders: 19 1. Exhibit A to Dkt. No. 208 (Dkt. No. 208-1): Valeo shall file on the public docket 20 a redacted version of this document that reflects the redactions at Dkt. No. 119-3 in 21 compliance with this Court’s order. 22 2. Exhibit 2 to Dkt. No. 213 (Dkt. No. 213-2): NVIDIA shall file an updated 23 redacted version of this document which reflects Valeo’s proposed redactions at 24 Dkt. No. 215-3. The Clerk of the Court shall seal the currently redacted version on 25 the docket (Dkt. No. 219-2). 26 3. Exhibit 3 to Dkt. No. 213 (Dkt. No. 213-3): Valeo shall file on the public docket 27 a redacted version of this document that reflects the redactions at Dkt. No. 119-3 in 1 4. Exhibit A to Dkt. No. 213 (Dkt. No.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 7 8 VALEO SCHALTER UND SENSOREN Case No. 23-cv-05721-NW (VKD) GMBH, 9 Plaintiff, ORDER RE SEALING 10 v. Re: Dkt. No. 209, 214, 215 11 NVIDIA CORPORATION, 12 Defendant.
13 14 Plaintiff Valeo Schalter und Sensoren GmbH (“Valeo”) has filed several administrative 15 motions to seal or to consider whether defendant NVIDIA Corporation’s (“NVIDIA”) material 16 should be sealed in connection with the parties’ recent discovery disputes. Dkt. Nos. 209, 214, 17 215. NVIDIA has filed declarations in support of sealing pursuant to Local Rule 79-5(f)(3). Dkt. 18 Nos. 218, 219. 19 There is a strong presumption in favor of access by the public to judicial records and 20 documents accompanying dispositive motions that can be overcome only by a showing of 21 “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of 22 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (cleaned up). However, the presumption does 23 not apply equally to a motion addressing matters that are only “tangentially related to the merits of 24 a case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). A 25 party seeking to seal documents or information in connection with such a motion must meet the 26 lower “good cause” standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Id. at 1098-99; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 27 1179-80. The discovery matters at issue here do not address the merits of either party’s claims or 1 A. Dkt. No. 208 and Exhibits: 2 NVIDIA asserts that good cause exists to seal the requested information because it 3 concerns: (1) the names of NVIDIA employees who are only “tangentially connected” to this 4 litigation; (2) the names of specific, confidential NVIDIA internal projects and source code files; 5 (3)descriptions of how NVIDIA systems and source code repositories are configured; (4) 6 information about how NVIDIA assigns devices and network locations to employees; and (5) 7 discussions of NVIDIA security measures and policies as well as the security and forensic tools 8 employed by NVIDIA to investigate breaches of security. Dkt. No. 218 at 1, 4-5. NVIDIA 9 asserts that disclosure of this information would not only be harmful to its competitive standing 10 but “could be used to ‘hack’ or otherwise overcome NVIDIA’s security systems.” Id. at 5. 11 B. Dkt. No. 213 and Exhibits: 12 NVIDIA asserts that good cause exists to seal certain portions of these materials because it 13 concerns: (1) “substantial details regarding NVIDIA’s autonomous driving features, algorithms, 14 functions, names of NVIDIA’s code files, and file paths”; (2) “details of NVIDIA’s code 15 development regarding autonomous driving”; (3) details regarding functions and features that 16 were implemented into previous versions of NVIDIA’s code; (4) “the names of two specific code 17 repositories used by NVIDIA”; and (5) “NVIDIA’s internal investigation and information security 18 measures.” Dkt. No. 219 at 1-3, 5. NVIDIA again asserts that release of this information would 19 be harmful to its competitive standing as well as potentially compromising to NVIDIA’s security. 20 Id. 21 Similarly, Valeo asserts that good cause exists to seal other portions of these materials 22 because the information contains: (1) the structure and names of folders of information 23 comprising Valeo’s source code; (2) information comprising Valeo’s Trade Secrets, and (3) 24 personal identifiable information of Valeo’s employees. Dkt. No. 215 at 1-2. 25 C. Disposition 26 The Court agrees that good cause exists to seal the information NVIDIA and Valeo have 27 designated within these documents. Generally, the redactions proposed to the public versions of 1 5(c)(3). The Court notes, however, that the sealing of entire documents is strongly discouraged. 2 See Civil L.R. 79-5(a) (“A party must . . . avoid wherever possible sealing entire documents (as 3 opposed to merely redacting the truly sensitive information in a document).”). The parties are 4 reminded that, in the context of jointly filed reports or discovery disputes, they should confer 5 regarding which portions of discovery dispute letter, report or exhibits require sealing. Any 6 subsequent sealing motions should reflect only those necessary proposed redactions, whether the 7 motion is filed pursuant to Local Rule 79-5(c) or 79-5(f). Accordingly, the following materials 8 shall be sealed: 9 Document Portions to be Filed Under Seal 10 Joint Status Report re NVIDIA’s Portions of the document as redacted by NVIDIA in 11 Production of Investigation Documents Exhibit A (Dkt. No. 218-1) to the Declaration of (Dkt. No. 208) Michael LaFond (Dkt. No. 218) 12 Exhibit A (Dkt. No. 208-1) Portions of the document as redacted on the docket 13 at Dkt. No. 119-3 14 Exhibit C (Dkt. No. 208-3) Entire Document 15 Exhibit D (Dkt. No. 208-4) Entire Document 16 Exhibit E (Dkt. No. 208-5) Entire Document 17 Exhibit F (Dkt. No. 208-6) Entire Document 18 19 Exhibit G (Dkt. No. 208-7) Entire Document 20 Exhibit H (Dkt. No. 208-8) Entire Document 21 Exhibit I (Dkt. No. 208-9) Entire Document 22 Joint Status Report re Additional Portions of the document as redacted by NVIDIA in Depositions (Dkt. No. 213) Exhibit A (Dkt. No. 219-1) to the Declaration of 23 Michael LaFond (Dkt. No. 219) 24 Exhibit 1 (Dkt. No. 213-1) Entire Document 25 Exhibit 2 (Dkt. No. 213-2) Portions of the document highlighted in yellow by 26 Valeo at Dkt. No. 215-3 27 Portions of the document as redacted by NVIDIA in Exhibit B (Dkt. No. 219-2) to the Declaration of 1 Exhibit 3 (Dkt. No. 213-3) Portions of the document already redacted at Dkt. No. 119-3 2 Exhibit 4 (Dkt. No. 213-4) Entire Document 3 Exhibit B (Dkt. No. 213-6) Entire document except as to those portions publicly 4 filed at Dkt. No. 119-3 5 Exhibit C (Dkt. No. 213-7) Portions of the document highlighted in yellow by 6 Valeo at Dkt. No. 215-6 7 The Court however does not grant NVIDIA’s request to seal Exhibit A to Dkt. No. 213 8 (Dkt. No. 213-5) in its entirety. NVIDIA does not show that the information it seeks to protect in 9 this document—“(i) details of the German investigations, (ii) NVIDIA’s actions in response to the 10 German investigation, including modifications to the code, (iii) NVIDIA’s internal code audit, and 11 (iii)information about how NVIDIA’s source code repositories are configured and reviewed”— 12 require sealing of the entire document. Dkt. No. 219 at 4. Indeed, the Court notes that details of 13 the investigation have already been filed publicly in connection with the parties’ other discovery 14 disputes. See Dkt. No. 99. NVIDIA shall file on the public docket a proposed redacted version of 15 the document consistent with the Court’s past orders approving sealing and redaction. See Dkt. 16 Nos.136, 145. 17 Public redacted versions of many of the above-referenced documents are already available. 18 To the extent such versions do not exist, the Court hereby orders: 19 1. Exhibit A to Dkt. No. 208 (Dkt. No. 208-1): Valeo shall file on the public docket 20 a redacted version of this document that reflects the redactions at Dkt. No. 119-3 in 21 compliance with this Court’s order. 22 2. Exhibit 2 to Dkt. No. 213 (Dkt. No. 213-2): NVIDIA shall file an updated 23 redacted version of this document which reflects Valeo’s proposed redactions at 24 Dkt. No. 215-3. The Clerk of the Court shall seal the currently redacted version on 25 the docket (Dkt. No. 219-2). 26 3. Exhibit 3 to Dkt. No. 213 (Dkt. No. 213-3): Valeo shall file on the public docket 27 a redacted version of this document that reflects the redactions at Dkt. No. 119-3 in 1 4. Exhibit A to Dkt. No. 213 (Dkt. No. 213-5): NVIDIA shall file on the public 2 docket a proposed redacted version of this document consistent with the Court’s 3 prior sealing orders. See Dkt. Nos. 136, 145. 4 5. Exhibit B to Dkt. No. 213 (Dkt. No. 213-6): Valeo shall file on the public docket 5 a redacted version of this document reflecting those portions of the document 6 already made public at Dkt. No. 119-3. The remainder of the document shall be 7 filed under seal. 8 6. Exhibit C to Dkt. No. 213 (Dkt. No. 213-7): Valeo shall file on the public docket 9 a redacted version of this document that reflects its proposed redactions at Dkt. No. 10 215-6 in compliance with this Court’s order. ll 7. Exhibit D to Dkt. No. 213 (Dkt. No. 213-8): Both parties have indicated that they 12 do not seek sealing as to Exhibit D. Accordingly, the Court orders Valeo to file a 13 public unredacted version of Exhibit D on the docket. 14 8. These filings shall be made no later than April 18, 2025. 3 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. a 16 || Dated: April 7, 2025
Virginia K. DeMarchi 19 United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28