Carl Zeiss X-Ray Microscopy, Inc. v. Sigray, Inc. ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 CARL ZEISS X-RAY MICROSCOPY, Case No. 21-cv-01129-EJD (VKD) INC., 9 ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff, ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO 10 CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER v. PARTY’S MATERIAL SHOULD BE 11 SEALED SIGRAY, INC., Re: Dkt. Nos. 134, 143 12 Defendant. 13 14 Plaintiff Carl Zeiss X-Ray Microscopy, Inc. (“Carl Zeiss”) and defendant Sigray, Inc. 15 (“Sigray”) have both filed statements pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f) (Dkt. Nos. 181, 182) 16 asking the Court to seal materials filed in connection with a February 23, 2023 motion for 17 discovery sanctions by Carl Zeiss (Dkt. Nos. 134, 143). Carl Zeiss withdrew its motion on April 18 18, but the sealing motions remained pending until Judge Davila issued an order directing the 19 parties to file responsive statements. See Dkt. Nos. 151, 180. 20 There is a strong presumption in favor of access by the public to judicial records and 21 documents accompanying dispositive motions that can be overcome only by a showing of 22 “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of 23 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (cleaned up). However, the presumption does 24 not apply equally to a motion addressing matters that are only “tangentially related to the merits of 25 a case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). A 26 party seeking to seal documents or information in connection with such a motion must meet the 27 lower “good cause” standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Id. at 1098-99; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1 “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c). 2 A. Carl Zeiss’s Sealing Request: Dkt. No. 134 3 On March 9, 2023, Sigray filed an administrative motion to consider whether another 4 party’s material should be sealed regarding several exhibits to its response to Carl Zeiss’s motion 5 for discovery sanctions. Dkt. No. 134. Carl Zeiss filed a timely response to this motion in the 6 form of a declaration by Daniel Sims, its “General Manager & Head of X-Ray Microscopy.” Dkt. 7 No. 142; Civil L.R. 79-5(f)(3). Mr. Sims asserts that these documents contain “confidential, 8 proprietary, and competitive technical information, which are Zeiss’s trade secrets” and that 9 “Zeiss’s competitors and individuals seeking to exploit such information would gain an unfair 10 competitive advantage in the market, harming Zeiss’s ability to compete” if it were to be made 11 public. Dkt. No. 142 ¶ 3; see also Dkt. No. 181. Carl Zeiss asks that the exhibits in question be 12 sealed in their entirety. Dkt. No. 142 ¶¶ 4-16. 13 The Court agrees that good cause exists to seal the documents identified by Carl Zeiss. 14 “Good cause exists to seal trade secrets,” Skillz Platform Inc. v. Aviagames Inc., No. 21-CV- 15 02436-BLF, 2023 WL 8430402, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2023) (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 16 1179), and the Court has previously granted similar sealing requests by Carl Zeiss in this matter. 17 E.g. Dkt. No. 76. Accordingly, the Court orders that the following documents be sealed: 18 19 Portions to be Dkt. No. Document filed Under Seal 20 134-2 Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Alan G. Laquer in Opposition Entire Document to Plaintiff Carl Zeiss X-Ray Microscopy, Inc.’s Motion 21 for Discovery Sanctions Based On Sigray Inc.’s First 22 Amended Initial Disclosures 23 (Plaintiff Carl Zeiss X-Ray Microscopy, Inc.’s Third Amended Identification of Trade Secrets dated December 24 27, 2021) 25 134-3 Exhibit 3 to Declaration of Alan G. Laquer in Opposition Entire Document to Plaintiff Carl Zeiss X-Ray Microscopy, Inc.’s Motion 26 for Discovery Sanctions Based On Sigray Inc.’s First 27 Amended Initial Disclosures 1 which Zeiss dated March 11, 2022) 134-4 Exhibit 4 to Declaration of Alan G. Laquer in Opposition Entire Document 2 to Plaintiff Carl Zeiss X-Ray Microscopy, Inc.’s Motion for Discovery Sanctions Based On Sigray Inc.’s First 3 Amended Initial Disclosures 4 (Zeiss’s Supplemental Responses to Sigray’s First Set of 5 Interrogatories dated August 12, 2022) 6 134-5 Exhibit 9 to Declaration of Alan G. Laquer in Opposition Entire Document to Plaintiff Carl Zeiss X-Ray Microscopy, Inc.’s Motion 7 for Discovery Sanctions Based On Sigray Inc.’s First Amended Initial Disclosures 8 9 (Zeiss’s First Supplemental Response to Sigray’s Third Set of Interrogatories dated February 3, 2023) 10 134-6 Exhibit 10 to Declaration of Alan G. Laquer in Opposition Entire Document to Plaintiff Carl Zeiss X-Ray Microscopy, Inc.’s Motion 11 for Discovery Sanctions Based On Sigray Inc.’s First 12 Amended Initial Disclosures 13 (Zeiss’s production documents ZEISS_NDCA00056628- 32) 14 134-7 Exhibit 11 to Declaration of Alan G. Laquer in Opposition Entire Document 15 to Plaintiff Carl Zeiss X-Ray Microscopy, Inc.’s Motion for Discovery Sanctions Based On Sigray Inc.’s First 16 Amended Initial Disclosures 17 (Email from A. Laquer to D. Whitley dated February 7, 18 2023) 134-8 Exhibit 12 to Declaration of Alan G. Laquer in Opposition Entire Document 19 to Plaintiff Carl Zeiss X-Ray Microscopy, Inc.’s Motion 20 for Discovery Sanctions Based On Sigray Inc.’s First Amended Initial Disclosures 21 (Attachment to email from A. Laquer to D. Whitley dated 22 February 7, 2023 created by A. Laquer of highlighted Ex. 23 9) 134-9 Exhibit 13 to Declaration of Alan G. Laquer in Opposition Entire Document 24 to Plaintiff Carl Zeiss X-Ray Microscopy, Inc.’s Motion 25 for Discovery Sanctions Based On Sigray Inc.’s First Amended Initial Disclosures 26 (Email from A. Laquer to D. Whitley dated February 9, 27 2023) 1 to Plaintiff Carl Zeiss X-Ray Microscopy, Inc.’s Motion for Discovery Sanctions Based On Sigray Inc.’s First 2 Amended Initial Disclosures 3 (Excerpts from the deposition of Dr. Wenbing Yun dated February 23, 2023) 4 134-11 Exhibit 15 to Declaration of Alan G. Laquer in Opposition Entire Document 5 to Plaintiff Carl Zeiss X-Ray Microscopy, Inc.’s Motion for Discovery Sanctions Based On Sigray Inc.’s First 6 Amended Initial Disclosures 7 (Exhibit 112 to the deposition of Dr. Wenbing Yun) 8 134-12 Exhibit 16 to Declaration of Alan G. Laquer in Opposition Entire Document 9 to Plaintiff Carl Zeiss X-Ray Microscopy, Inc.’s Motion for Discovery Sanctions Based On Sigray Inc.’s First 10 Amended Initial Disclosures 11 (Excerpts from the deposition of Andrew Chu, dated February 28, 2023) 12 13 B. Sigray’s Sealing Request: Dkt. No. 143 14 On March 16, 2023, Carl Zeiss filed an administrative motion to consider whether another 15 party’s material should be sealed regarding several exhibits to the reply to its motion for discovery 16 sanctions. Dkt. No. 143. Sigray did not file a timely response to Carl Zeiss’s motion. However, it 17 submitted a statement by counsel requesting that one of the exhibits in question remain sealed. 18 Dkt. No. 182. As to that document (Dkt. No. 143-1), Sigray claims that it contains “highly 19 confidential corporate personnel information.” Id. at 2. It asks that the document be sealed in its 20 entirety. Id. 21 Despite Sigray’s tardy response, the Court agrees that good cause exists to seal the 22 document it identifies. This document contains information about Sigray employees which could 23 cause “annoyance, embarrassment, [or] oppression” if released to the public. Kamakana, 447 F.3d 24 at 1180 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)). Accordingly, the Court orders that the following 25 documents be sealed: 26 // 27 1 Portions to be Dkt. No. Document filed Under Seal 2 143-1 Exhibit C to Declaration of Declaration of Dexter S. Entire Document 3 Whitley In Support Of Plaintiff's Reply To The Motion For Discovery Sanctions Based On Sigray Inc.’s First 4 Amended Initial Disclosures 5 143-2 Exhibit D to Declaration of Declaration of Dexter S. None Whitley In Support Of Plaintiff's Reply To The Motion 6 For Discovery Sanctions Based On Sigray Inc.’s First Amended Initial Disclosures) 7 143-3 Exhibit E to Declaration of Declaration of Dexter S. None 8 Whitley In Support Of Plaintiff's Reply To The Motion For Discovery Sanctions Based On Sigray Inc.’s First 9 Amended Initial Disclosures 10 11 Because Sigray does not request that the other exhibits to Carl Zeiss’s reply be sealed, it a 12 shall file Dkt. Nos. 143-2 and 143-3 on the public docket by December 14, 2023. 13 This order terminates Dkt. Nos. 134 and 143. v 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 || Dated: December 7, 2023 16 e «68 Vurauic B®, Qu □□□□□□□ VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI 18 United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28