Unicorn Energy AG v. Tesla, Inc. ( 2023 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 UNICORN ENERGY GMBH, Case No. 21-cv-07476-BLF 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL 10 TESLA INC., [Re: ECF No. 309] 11 Defendant. 12 Before the Court is Tesla’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Order Denying 13 Unicorns Motion for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge Dkt. 307. 14 ECF No. 309 (“Motion”). For the reasons discussed below the Motion is GRANTED. 15 I. LEGAL STANDARD 16 “Because a motion to amend infringement or invalidity contentions is a non-dispositive 17 motion” for sealing purposes, “the ‘good cause’ standard applies.” Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa 18 Diagnostics, Inc., No. C 12-05501 SI, 2014 WL 12642225 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2014). The Ninth 19 Circuit has held that the presumption of access to judicial records does not apply where the 20 documents at issue, as here, are being filed in connection with a non-dispositive motion. See In re 21 Midland Nat’l Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Practices Litig., 686 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2012). 22 Where, as here, the appropriate legal standard is “good cause,” the Court may issue “any order 23 which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or 24 undue burden or expense.” See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th 25 Cir. 2006) (“A ‘good cause’ showing will suffice to seal documents produced in discovery.”) 26 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)). A party seeking to file materials under seal must make a 27 “particularized showing of good cause” with respect to each individual sealing request. Foltz v. 1 Il. DISCUSSION 2 The document at issue is the Court’s order regarding the Plaintiff’s motion for relief, which 3 |} concerns amendment to infringement contentions. Since it is a non-dispositive order, for sealing 4 || purposes, “the ‘good cause’ standard applies.” Verinata Health, 2014 WL 12642225, at *1. 5 Tesla seeks to seal highlighted portions of the Court’s Order that contain specific technical 6 || details regarding Tesla’s Powerwall, Powerpack, and Megapack products (“Tesla Products”) 7 because the materials sought to be sealed include specific technical details about Tesla’s Products. 8 || Motion at 2. Tesla further seeks to seal highlighted portions of the Court’s Order that contain 9 || Tesla’s strategic and operational information about Tesla’s commercial activities because the 10 || materials sought to be sealed include specific information about future products. /d. at 3; ECF No 11 309-1 (“Smith Decl.”) | 6. a 12 The Court finds that good cause exists to seal the highlighted portions of the document. 13 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. Furthermore, the Court finds that Tesla has made a “particularized v 14 || showing of good cause” with respect to each individual sealing request. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. 15 || Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1138 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court’s ruling is summarized below: 16 || LECENo. Portion(s) to Seal ECF No. 307 | Order Denying Highlighted portions at Granted, as the highlighted 18 Unicorn’s Motion 1:27, 3:5-7, 3:14, 3:16- portions of this document for Relief from 17, 3:19, 4:1, 4:4, 4:13- reflect specific technical 19 Nondispositive 14, 5:5, 6:9, 6:12-14, details and Tesla’s strategic Pretrial Order of 6:18-20, 6:23-25, 6:27, and operational information. 20 Magistrate Judge 7:12-14, 7:16-19, 7:21, Smith Decl. Jf 5-6. (“Court’s Order’) 7:25, 7:28-8:5, 8:9, 8:15- 16, 8:18-19, 9:3-4, 9:6-7. 22 23 I. ORDER 24 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Tesla’s Motion at ECF No. 25 || 309 is GRANTED. 26 Dated: December 20, 2023 BETH LABSON FREEMAN 28 United States District Judge