Case 5:16-cv-06371-BLF Document 252 Filed 06/04/19 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ON SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION,
`et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.16-cv-06371-BLF (VKD)
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING
`ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
`UNDER SEAL POWER
`INTEGRATIONS’ MOTION TO
`COMPEL A KNOWLEDGEABLE
`30(B)(6) WITNESS AND LEGIBLE
`SCHEMATICS
`
`Re: Dkt. No. 213
`
`
`Plaintiff Power Integrations, Inc. (“PI”) filed an administrative motion to seal portions of
`
`its motion to compel further Rule 30(b)(6) deposition testimony and legible schematics, and to
`
`seal certain exhibits accompanying the motion.1 Dkt. No. 213. Defendants support the request to
`
`seal. Dkt. No. 216.
`
` There is a strong presumption in favor of access by the public to judicial records and
`
`documents accompanying dispositive motions that can be overcome only by a showing of
`
`“compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of
`
`Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
`
`However, the presumption does not apply equally to a motion addressing matters that are only
`
`“tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d
`
`
`1 The Court denied PI’s motion without prejudice and ordered the parties to resubmit their dispute
`in accordance with the discovery dispute procedure outlined in the undersigned’s Standing Order
`for Civil Cases. Dkt. No. 215. The parties’ joint discovery letter brief concerning defendants’
`30(b)(6) witness and schematics relies on and cites to exhibits submitted in support of PI’s original
`motion to compel. Dkt. No. 217.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-06371-BLF Document 252 Filed 06/04/19 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied sub nom. FCA U.S. LLC v. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 137 S. Ct.
`
`38 (2016). A litigant seeking to seal documents or information in connection with such a motion
`
`must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`Id. at 1098–99; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80.
`
`PI’s motion to seal concerns materials submitted in connection with a discovery dispute.
`
`PI asks the Court to seal portions of its motion to compel, excerpts from the transcript of
`
`defendants’ Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, and excerpts from PI’s second amended infringement
`
`contentions. The underlying discovery dispute do not address the merits of the parties’ claims or
`
`defenses, but rather whether defendants should be required to produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness for
`
`further deposition and to produce additional schematics. The material to be sealed is only
`
`tangentially related to the merits of the case. The Court therefore applies the “good cause”
`
`standard of Rule 26(c).
`
`Most of the material proposed to be filed under seal concerns technical information
`
`concerning the accused products at issue in this action. Defendants represent that much of this
`
`material is confidential or highly confidential information that, if disclosed to the public, would
`
`cause competitive harm to defendants. Dkt. No. 216. On this basis, the Court concludes that PI
`
`has shown good cause to seal the materials identified in its administrative motion.
`
`Accordingly, the Court grants PI’s administrative motion and finds that the following
`
`materials may be filed under seal:
`
`
`
`Document
`
`Portion to be Filed Under Seal
`
`
`Power Integrations’ Motion to Compel a
`Knowledgeable 30(b)(6) Witness and Legible
`Schematics (Dkt. No. 214)
`
`Page 8, lines 26, 27
`Page 9, lines 3-13, 15-16
`Page 10, lines 1-16
`Page 12, lines 22-28
`Page 13
`Page 14, lines 1-5, 15-17, 21-22, 24-27
`Page 15, lines 1-3, 10-13, 15-18, 20-25, 27-28
`Page 16, lines 1-5, 7-8, 10-12, 14-24
`Page 17, lines 25-28
`Page 18, lines 1-4, 6-9, 14-19, 21-23, 24-26,
`27-28
`Page 19, lines 1-2, 4-5, 7-12, 14-15, 18-21, 23-
`
`2
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-06371-BLF Document 252 Filed 06/04/19 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`Declaration of Michael Headley in Support of
`Power Integrations’ Motion to Compel a
`Knowledgeable 30(b)(6) Witness and Legible
`Schematics (Dkt. No. 214-1)
`
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: June 4, 2019
`
`
`
`26
`Page 20, lines 3-11, 13-17, 19-25, 27-28
`Page 21, lines 1-8, 10-12, 14-20, 22-24
`Page 22, lines 1-2, 16-28
`Page 23, lines 1-7, 10-13, 16-20, 22-28
`Page 24, lines 1-3, 5-9
`
`Exhibits 3-8
`
`
`
`
`
`VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI
`United States Magistrate Judge
`
`3
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`