Valeo Schalter und Sensoren GmbH v. NVIDIA Corp.
Valeo Schalter und Sensoren GmbH v. NVIDIA Corp.
2025 WL 438682 (N.D. Cal. 2025)
February 9, 2025
DeMarchi, Virginia K., United States Magistrate Judge
Summary
The court granted plaintiff Valeo's motion to seal certain ESI provided by defendant NVIDIA, due to concerns that the information contained confidential business information and details about ongoing and forthcoming projects that could harm NVIDIA's competitive standing and increase the risk of unauthorized access to its technical information.
Additional Decisions
VALEO SCHALTER UND SENSOREN GMBH, Plaintiff,
v.
NVIDIA CORPORATION, Defendant
v.
NVIDIA CORPORATION, Defendant
Case No. 23-cv-05721-EKL (VKD)
United States District Court, N.D. California
Filed February 09, 2025
DeMarchi, Virginia K., United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER SEALING DOCUMENTS
*1 On December 26, 2024, plaintiff Valeo Schalter und Sensoren GMBH (“Valeo”) filed four administrative motions to consider whether NVIDIA Corporation's (“NVIDIA”) materials should be sealed in connection with four discovery dispute letters and attachments filed the same day. Dkt. Nos. 170, 174, 175, 176. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f), defendant NVIDIA filed a declaration in support of Valeo's sealing motions, but indicated that a narrower set of materials requires sealing. Dkt. No. 178.
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 & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (cleaned up). 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 Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). A party seeking to seal documents or information in connection with such a motion must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Id. at 1098-99; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80. The discovery matters at issue here do not address the merits of either party's claims or defenses, so the Court applies the “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c).
NVIDIA asserts that the information it seeks to seal contains confidential business information as well specific details regarding the technical aspects and personnel involved in ongoing and forthcoming projects. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 178 ¶¶ 8-9, 14. NVIDIA states that this information, if revealed, could cause damage to NVIDIA's competitive standing and would increase the risk that “bad actors” could “gain access to NVIDIA's confidential technical information.” Id. ¶¶ 10-11. The Court agrees that good cause exists to seal the information NVIDIA has designated within these documents. The redactions proposed to the public versions of these documents are minimal and narrowly tailored to address the concerns it identifies. See Civil L.R. 79-5(c)(3). The following materials shall be sealed:
Document Discovery Letter Brief to Compel NVIDIA to Produce Custodial ESI (Dkt. No. 169) Discovery Letter Brief re NVIDIA's Failure to Produce Responsive Documents (Dkt. No. 171) Exhibit 3 to Dkt. No. 171 Exhibit 4 to Dkt. No. 171 Discovery Letter Brief to Compel NVIDIA to Produce Financial Documents (Dkt. No. 172) Exhibit 2 to Dkt. No. 172 Discovery Letter Brief re NVIDIA's Failure to Properly Prepare 30(b)(6) Witnesses (Dkt. No. 173) Exhibit 1 to Dkt. No. 173 Exhibit 2 to Dkt. No. 173 Exhibit 3 to Dkt. No. 173 Exhibit 4 to Dkt. No. 173 Portions to be Filed Under Seal Portions of the document as redacted by NVIDIA in Exhibit A (Dkt. No. 178-1) to the Declaration of Michael LaFond (Dkt. No. 178) Portions of the document as redacted by NVIDIA in Exhibit B (Dkt. No. 178-2) to the Declaration of Michael LaFond (Dkt. No. 178) Portions of the document as redacted by NVIDIA in Exhibit C (Dkt. No. 178-3) to the Declaration of Michael LaFond (Dkt. No. 178) Portions of the document as redacted by NVIDIA in Exhibit D (Dkt. No. 178-4) to the Declaration of Michael LaFond (Dkt. No. 178) Portions of the document as redacted by NVIDIA in Exhibit E (Dkt. No. 178-5) to the Declaration of Michael LaFond (Dkt. No. 178) Entire Document Portions of the document as redacted by NVIDIA in Exhibit F (Dkt. No. 178-6) to the Declaration of Michael LaFond (Dkt. No. 178) Portions of the document as redacted by NVIDIA in Exhibit G (Dkt. No. 178-7) to the Declaration of Michael LaFond (Dkt. No. 178) Portions of the document as redacted by NVIDIA in Exhibit H (Dkt. No. 178-8) to the Declaration of Michael LaFond (Dkt. No. 178) Portions of the document as redacted by NVIDIA in Exhibit I (Dkt. No. 178-9) to the Declaration of Michael LaFond (Dkt. No. 178) Portions of the document as redacted by NVIDIA in Exhibit J (Dkt. No. 178-10) to the Declaration of Michael LaFond (Dkt. No. 178)
*2 Redacted versions of these documents are available on the public docket. No further action by the parties is required.
IT IS SO ORDERED.