Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 160 Filed 01/09/19 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 5068
`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 160 Filed 01/09/19 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 5068
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`CA. No. 16-290-MN
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`) )
`
`) )
`
`) )
`
`) ) )
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`DEFENDANT OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S MOTION FOR REDACTION
`OF TRANSCRIPT OF DECEMBER 7, 2018 DISCOVERY TELECONFERENCE
`
`David E. Moore (#3983)
`Bindu A. Palapura (#53 70)
`Stephanie E. O’Byrne (#4446)
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP Hercules
`Plaza, 6th Floor
`1313 N. Market Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Tel: (302) 984-6000
`
`drnoor§_@potteranderson.com
`
`hm}apura@potteranderson.com
`sobyme@potteranderson.corn
`
`Attorneysfor Defendant Omnz' Vision
`Technologies, Inc.
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`James C. Yoon
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Professional Corporation
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
`Tel: (650) 493—9300
`
`Edward G. Poplawski
`Erik J. Carlson
`Lisa D. Zang
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1550
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Tel: (323) 210—2901
`
`Jose C. Villarreal
`
`Henry Pan
`Diyang Liu
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`
`900 S. Capital of Texas Highway
`Las Cimas IV, 5th Floor
`Austin, TX 78746
`Tel: (512) 338-5400
`
`Dated: January 2, 2019
`Public Version Dated: January 9, 2019
`6038502 / 43303
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 160 Filed 01/09/19 Page 2 of 11 PageID #: 5069
`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 160 Filed 01/09/19 Page 2 of 11 PageID #: 5069
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................. 1
`
`LEGAL STANDARD .......................................................................................................... 2
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................4
`
`Page
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`OmniVision Requests Only Limited Redactions Regarding its
`Confidential and Sensitive Business Practices ........................................................4
`
`There is No Public Interest in Publicly Providing the Information
`Regarding Ornm'Vision’s Confidential Business Practices ...................................... 5
`
`OmniVision Will Be Harmed if the Information Regarding its
`Confidential Business Practices Becomes Publicly Available ................................ 6
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 7
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 160 Filed 01/09/19 Page 3 of 11 PageID #: 5070
`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 160 Filed 01/09/19 Page 3 of 11 PageID #: 5070
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`.
`
`Page
`
`Faulman v. Sec. Mut. Fin. Life Ins. Co.,
`No. 04-5083, 2006 US. Dist. LEXIS 35875 (D.N.J Aug. 28, 2006) .................................. 3
`
`Glenmede Trust Co. v. Thompson,
`56 F.3d 476 (3d Cir. 1995) ............................................................................................... 3—4
`
`Littlejohn v. BIC Corp,
`851 F.2d 673 (3d Cir. 1988) ................................................................................................. 3
`
`Mars, Inc. v. JCMAm. Corp,
`No. 05—3165, 2007 US Dist. LEXIS 9819 (D.N.J. Feb. 13, 2007) .................................... 3
`
`Mosaid Techs. Inc. v. LSI Corp,
`878 F. Supp. 2d 503 (D. Del. 2012) ...................................................................................... 5
`
`Nixon v. Warner Commc ’n, Inc.,
`435 US. 589 (1978) ............................................................................................................. 3
`
`Pansy v. Borough ofStroudsburg,
`23 F.3d 772 (3d Cir. 1994) ...............................................................................................4, 5
`
`Publicker Indus, Inc. v. Cohen,
`733 F.2d 1059 (3d Cir. 1984) ...............................................................................................4
`
`Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co, Ltd,
`529 F. Supp. 866 (ED. Pa. 1981) ........................................................................................4
`
`RULES
`
`D. Del. L.R. 7.1.1 .............................................................................................................................2
`
`Fed. R. CiV. P. 5.2 .................................................................................................................... 1, 2, 3
`
`Fed. R. CiV. P. 6 ...............................................................................................................................2
`
`Fed. R. CiV. P. 26 .....................................................................................................................2, 3, 7
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 160 Filed 01/09/19 Page 4 of 11 PageID #: 5071
`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 160 Filed 01/09/19 Page 4 of 11 PageID #: 5071
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to Rule 5.2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s Policy on
`
`the Electronic Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings, Defendant OmniVision
`
`Technologies, Inc. (“OmniVision”) respectfully moves for an Order redacting very limited,
`
`highly confidential portions of the transcript from the discovery teleconference in this case held
`
`December 7, 2018 (D.I. 150). The proposed redactions are highlighted in the attached Exhibit A,
`
`and a redacted copy the Transcript is attached as Exhibit B.
`
`OmniVision’s proposed redactions are narrowly tailored and only apply to confidential
`
`and sensitive information relating to its business practices. There is no public benefit to making
`
`OmniVision’s confidential business practices publicly available, and the detriment
`
`to
`
`OmniVision could be severe. Thus, for the reasons set forth below, OmniVision respectfully
`
`requests that the Court grant OmniVision’s motion to redact the discovery teleconference
`
`transcript with respect to information regarding OmniVision’s confidential business practices.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Early in this case, the parties agreed to a Protective Order, which the Court entered on
`
`January 23, 2018. Di. 52. In the Protective Order, the parties recognized that “[d]isclosure and
`
`discovery activity in this action are likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or
`
`private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any
`
`purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted.” Id. at 1. Further, the parties
`
`acknowledged that this information would encompass “documents, testimony, or information
`
`containing or reflecting confidential, proprietary, trade secret, and/or commercially sensitive
`
`information.” Id. The parties additionally agreed that “a Designating Party may specify, at the
`
`deposition or up to 30 days afterwards if that period is properly invoked, that the entire transcript
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 160 Filed 01/09/19 Page 5 of 11 PageID #: 5072
`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 160 Filed 01/09/19 Page 5 of 11 PageID #: 5072
`
`shall be treated as ‘CONFIDENTIAL[,]’ ‘HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL ~— ATTORNEYS” EYES
`
`ONLY,’ or ‘HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL — SOURCE CODE.”’ Id at 7.
`
`The deposition of OmniVision’s Senior Vice President of System Technologies, John Li,
`
`was taken in this case on October 17, 2018. Declaration of Lisa D. Zang (“Zang Decl.”) 11 2.
`
`Counsel for OmniVision specified at the deposition that the entire transcript was to be treated
`
`“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” Id. Counsel for Plaintiff Godo
`
`Kaisha IP Bridge 1 (“Godo”) never challenged this confidentiality designation. Id; see D.I. 52
`
`at 9-10 (setting forth procedure for challenging confidentiality designations).
`
`A discovery teleconference was held in this case on December 7, 2018. See Exs. A—B.
`
`During the discovery teleconference, counsel for Godo discussed OmniVision’s confidential
`
`business practices based on information that counsel for Godo had learned from the highly
`
`confidential transcript of Mr. Li’s deposition. See EX. A at 1424—13 (“[W]hen I deposed John Li
`
`on October 17th, 2018, he testified that. .
`
`. “), 14:16-19 (“And he testified that.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.”), 1524-5,
`
`2729—16 (“Mr Li testified that. .
`
`. .”), 27:19—20, 27:25, 2823-4.
`
`The official transcript of the discovery teleconference was filed on December 10, 2018,
`
`and the Court set the deadline for submitting redaction requests as December 31, 2018. D.I. 150.
`
`Since December 31, 2018 is a court holiday, the deadline for submitting redaction requests is
`
`January 2, 2019 pursuant to Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. FED. R. CIV. P.
`
`6(a)(1)(C), 6(a)(3)(A). Pursuant to D. Del. L.R. 7.1.1, counsel for OmniVision and Godo met
`
`and conferred regarding this motion on December 28, 2018. Zang Decl. at 11 3. Godo opposes
`
`the motion. Id
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Rule 26(0) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a protective order may
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 160 Filed 01/09/19 Page 6 of 11 PageID #: 5073
`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 160 Filed 01/09/19 Page 6 of 11 PageID #: 5073
`
`be entered for good cause, including “requiring that a trade secret or other confidential research,
`
`development, or commercial information not be revealed.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.”
`
`FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c)(1),
`
`26(c)(1)(G). Likewise, Rule 5.2(e) allows a court to require redaction of additional information
`
`or limit or prohibit a nonparty’s remote electronic access to a document filed with the court.
`
`FED. R. CIV. P. 5.2(e).
`
`Although there is a presumption of public access to judicial proceedings and records,
`
`Littlejohn v. BIC Corp, 851 F.2d 673, 677-78 (3d Cir. 1988), that right is “not absolute,” Nixon
`
`v. Warner Comma ’n, Inc, 435 US. 589, 598 (1978). To this end, “courts have refused to permit
`
`their files to serve as .
`
`.
`
`. sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive
`
`standing.” Id. Thus, “[c]ourts generally protect materials containing ‘trade secret[s] or other
`
`confidential research, development, or commercial information’ to prevent harm to a litigant’s
`
`standing in the marketplace.” Mars, Inc. v. JCM Am. Corp, No. 05—3165, 2007 US. Dist.
`
`LEXIS 9819 (D.N.J. Feb. 13, 2007) (citing Faulman 1/. Sec. Mut. Fin. Life Ins. C0., No. 04-5083,
`
`2006 US. Dist. LEXIS 35875 (D.N.J Aug. 28, 2006)). Accordingly, courts must balance the
`
`presumption of public access to judicial proceedings and records against such “mitigating
`
`factors” as protection of confidential business information, the release of which could prove
`
`detrimental to business standing. Littlejohn, 851 F.2d at 678; see also id. at 282 (“The existence
`
`of a public right of access to the judicial record in the Littlejohn case must be determined by
`
`weighing the presumption of access and other interests favoring disclosure with those favoring
`
`secrecy”).
`
`To determine whether “good cause” to seal exists, a court may look to a number of
`
`things, including (1) whether disclosure will violate any privacy interests; (2) whether the party
`
`benefiting from the order of confidentiality is a public entity or official; and (3) whether the case
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 160 Filed 01/09/19 Page 7 of 11 PageID #: 5074
`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 160 Filed 01/09/19 Page 7 of 11 PageID #: 5074
`
`involves issues important to the public. Glenmede Trust Co. v. Thompson, 56 F.3d 476, 483 (3d
`
`Cir. 1995). “[I]f a case involves private litigants, and concerns matters of little legitimate public
`
`interest,
`
`that should be a factor weighing in favor of granting or maintaining an order of
`
`confidentiality.” Pansy v. Borough ofStroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 788 (3d Cir. 1994). The Third
`
`Circuit has explained that good cause to seal a transcript “is established on a showing that
`
`disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking closure.” Publicker
`
`Indus,
`
`Inc. v. Cohen, 733 F.2d 1059, 1071 (3d Cir. 1984) (citing Zenith Radio Corp. v.
`
`Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co, Ltd, 529 F. Supp. 866, 890 (ED. Pa. 1981)).
`
`IV.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A. OmniVision Requests Only Limited Redactions Regarding its Confidential
`and Sensitive Business Practices
`
`OmniVision seeks the least restrictive option available to safeguard confidential and
`
`sensitive information relating to its business practices, which was put at issue by Godo during the
`
`December 7, 2018 discovery teleconference. See EX. A at 1425-13, 14:16-19, 15:4—5, 2729—16,
`
`27:19-20, 27:25, 2823-4. This request is narrowly tailored to apply only to the details of
`
`. See id.
`
`Godo never objected to or challenged the designation of this information and the
`
`transcript it originated from in October 2018 as “Highly Confidential — Attorneys’ Eyes Only.”
`
`Zang Decl. fll 2. Though counsel for Godo claimed during the parties’ meet and confer that this
`
`business information is not confidential, counsel for Godo was unable to provide even a single
`
`reason for Godo’s bald claim that the information is not confidential to OmniVision or identify
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 160 Filed 01/09/19 Page 8 of 11 PageID #: 5075
`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 160 Filed 01/09/19 Page 8 of 11 PageID #: 5075
`
`any public sources that this information could be independently derived from.
`
`Id. 1i 5. Godo’s
`
`claims in this regard should be rejected.
`
`Notably, the amount of information the moving party seeks to redact is one consideration
`
`in the Court’s overall discretionary analysis. See Mosaid Techs. Inc. v. LS1 Corp, 878 F. Supp.
`
`2d 503, 506, 509 n.7 (D. Del. 2012). As Exhibit A demonstrates, OmniVision seeks to seal only
`
`short sections of the transcript containing specific details regarding these practices—OmniVision
`
`does not seek to redact anything with respect to the underlying discovery disputes. See generally
`
`EX. A.
`
`B. There is No Public Interest in Publicly Providing the Information Regarding
`OmniVision’s Confidential Business Practices
`
`There is no public interest in publicly providing the information OmniVision requests to
`
`be sealed, let alone any strong public interest.
`
`Importantly, this case involves private litigants
`
`and not public figures, which weighs in favor of maintaining confidentiality. Pansy, 23 F.3d at
`
`788. Likewise, this case does not involve issues important to the public. There is no benefit to
`
`tho public in knowing about_
`
`—. Further, Omnivooioo’o oonfioooool
`
`information has nothing to do with public health or safetwaactors that might otherwise weigh in
`
`favor of public accessibility but do not apply here.
`
`Godo’s only professed reason for opposing this motion is that there is a presumption of
`
`public access to judicial proceedings and records, and that the confidential information regarding
`
`OmniVision’s business practices must be made available to the public because it was allegedly
`
`taken into account by the Court in ordering the production of summary foreign sales data. Zang
`
`Decl. ii 4. This is simply not true. Although counsel for Godo raised this information during the
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 160 Filed 01/09/19 Page 9 of 11 PageID #: 5076
`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 160 Filed 01/09/19 Page 9 of 11 PageID #: 5076
`
`teleconference in attempting to obtain foreign sales discovery predating the filing of the
`
`complaint, this Court rejected these arguments.
`
`In actuality, this Court ordered that summary
`
`foreign sales data begin on March 28, 2016, as opposed to the April 22, 2016 filing of the
`
`complaint, based on the allegations in the complaint regarding pre-suit damages—not anything
`
`relating to_- See
`
`Ex. A at 26:12-18, 28:13-16 (Godo’s counsel: “[W]e request that we would be make it six years
`
`back, because that information is relevant to intent related to inducement.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.”), 29:23-30:1
`
`(Court: “the complaint was filed in April of 2016 whereas this talks about March 28, so I will
`
`amend my order on the global sales to say that from March 28th, 2016 is the date on which I’m
`
`ordering that”). Godo’s arguments in this regard should be rejected.
`
`C. OmniVision Will Be Harmed if the Information Regarding its Confidential
`Business Practices Becomes Publicly Available
`
`OmniVision may suffer serious competitive harm if its confidential business information
`
`is disclosed. As Exhibit A demonstrates, the information regarding OmniVision’s confidential
`
`business practices that will be made available includes_
`
`OmniVision would be put at a significant competitive disadvantage if its competitors were
`
`provided insight into_
`
`As a result, confidential and sensitive information regarding OmniVision’s business practices
`
`should remain under seal. This is particularly true in light of the competitive market for image
`
`sensors. Because OmniVision may be harmed by the disclosure of its confidential information,
`
`its request should be granted.
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 160 Filed 01/09/19 Page 10 of 11 PageID #: 5077
`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 160 Filed 01/09/19 Page 10 of 11 PageID #: 5077
`
`OmniVision has made every attempt to keep its proposed redactions limited to only its
`
`confidential and sensitive business information. OmniVision’s proposed redactions do not
`
`prejudice Godo, especially given that the parties have reached a settlement agreement and will be
`
`filing dismissal papers. Nor do OmniVision’s proposed redactions obscure any of the underlying
`
`discovery arguments from the public. OmniVision therefore submits that it has shown the
`
`requisite “good cause” under Rule 26(0) for sealing those portions of the transcript relating to
`
`OmniVision’s confidential business practices.
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons set forth above, OmniVision respectfully requests that its motion to redact
`
`certain confidential information regarding its business practices be granted.
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 160 Filed 01/09/19 Page 11 of 11 PageID #: 5078
`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 160 Filed 01/09/19 Page 11 of 11 PageID #: 5078
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`
`By:
`
`
`/s/Bindu A. Palaflra
`David E. Moore (#3983)
`Bindu A. Palapura (#53 70)
`Stephanie E. O’Byrne (#4446)
`Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor
`1313 N. Market Street
`
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Tel: (302) 984—6000
`
`dmoore@fl)tteranderson.com
`
`bpalama@potteranderson.corn
`
`sobyme@p0tteranders0n.corn
`
`Attorneys for Defendant OmniVision
`Technologies, Inc.
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`James C. Yoon
`
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`
`Professional Corporation
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304—1050
`Tel: (650) 493—9300
`
`Edward G. Poplawski
`Erik J. Carlson
`
`Lisa D. Zang
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`
`633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1550
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Tel: (323) 210-2901
`
`Jose C. Villarreal
`
`Henry Pan
`Diyang Liu
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`
`900 S. Capital of Texas Highway
`Las Cimas IV, 5th Floor
`Austin, TX 78746
`Tel: (512) 33 8-5400
`
`Dated: January 2, 2019
`Public Version Dated: January 9, 2019
`6038502 / 43303
`
`