Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 166 Filed 02/05/19 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 5191
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 16-290-MN
`
`
`
`
`
`)))))))))
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`DEFENDANT OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S
`REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPT
`OF DECEMBER 7, 2018 DISCOVERY TELECONFERENCE
`
`David E. Moore (#3983)
`Bindu A. Palapura (#5370)
`Stephanie E. O’Byrne (#4446)
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor
`1313 N. Market Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Tel: (302) 984-6000
`dmoore@potteranderson.com
`bpalapura@potteranderson.com
`sobyrne@potteranderson.com
`
`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) 338-5400
`
`Dated: January 23, 2019
`6064796 / 43303
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Public Version Dated: February 5, 2019
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 166 Filed 02/05/19 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 5192
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Good Cause to Redact OmniVision’s Confidential Business Information
`Outweighs the Presumption of Public Access .........................................................1
`
`The Information That OmniVision Seeks to Redact is Confidential .......................3
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................4
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 166 Filed 02/05/19 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 5193
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Page
`
`Littlejohn v. BIC Corp.,
`851 F.2d 673 (3d Cir. 1988).................................................................................................1
`
`Nixon v. Warner Commc’n, Inc.,
`435 U.S. 589 (1978) .............................................................................................................1
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 166 Filed 02/05/19 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 5194
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Godo makes numerous unsupported and generalized claims regarding the confidentiality
`
`of OmniVision’s business information and the harm that would result from its disclosure. This
`
`falls far short of rebutting the good cause that exists to redact very limited portions of the
`
`December 7, 2018 discovery teleconference transcript that would otherwise disclose portions of
`
`a deposition transcript properly designated as highly confidential by OmniVision. As attested to
`
`by OmniVision’s Vice President of Sales of North America, if those limited redactions of the
`
`transcript are not maintained, OmniVision would be harmed by public disclosure of its
`
`confidential information. Moreover, the proposed redactions are narrow-tailored and the
`
`transcript leaves intact the public’s unfettered ability to understand all proceedings and orders
`
`issued during the discovery teleconference. This is particularly so given that the information that
`
`OmniVision seeks to redact played no role in the Court’s rulings. Accordingly, OmniVision’s
`
`motion for redactions should be granted.
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A. Good Cause to Redact OmniVision’s Confidential Business Information
`Outweighs the Presumption of Public Access
`
`Godo claims that OmniVision has failed to rebut the presumption of public access to the
`
`transcript of the December 7, 2018 discovery teleconference. D.I. 2-3. As discussed at length in
`
`OmniVision’s opening brief, however, the presumption of public access to judicial proceedings
`
`and records is “not absolute” but rather is outweighed here, where good cause exists to seal those
`
`portions of the transcript relating to OmniVision’s confidential business practices. See Nixon v.
`
`Warner Commc’n, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978); Littlejohn v. BIC Corp., 851 F.2d 673, 678
`
`(3d Cir. 1988).
`
`OmniVision’s proposed redactions touch upon fewer than 30 lines, i.e., approximately
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 166 Filed 02/05/19 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 5195
`
`3.3%, of the discovery teleconference transcript. Good cause exists to seal these limited portions
`
`because OmniVision may suffer serious competitive harm if its confidential business information
`
`is disclosed. As attested to by OmniVision’s Vice President of Sales of North America, Michelle
`
`Milunovic, the information regarding OmniVision’s confidential business practices that would
`
`otherwise be made public includes the identity, location, and business role of an OmniVision
`
`customer support representative; the identity of one of OmniVision’s customers; and
`
`OmniVision’s internal reporting practices regarding its associated customer support services.
`
`Declaration of Michelle Milunovic (“Milunovic Decl.”), ¶ 4. OmniVision would be harmed and
`
`put at a significant competitive disadvantage if its competitors were provided insight into how it
`
`provides customer support, staffs its customer support team, and internally manages customer
`
`support reports. Milunovic Decl. ¶ 5. For example, a competitor that receives information
`
`regarding customer support representative Don Boe’s identity, location, and assignment to
`
`Motorola could then search for publicly available information regarding Mr. Boe’s credentials.
`
`This information would thus disclose how OmniVision locates customer support representatives
`
`in relation to its customers as part of its marketing and support strategies. In addition, this
`
`information regarding the types of individuals that OmniVision employs and the credentials that
`
`they have would make OmniVision’s employees (here, Mr. Boe) potential targets for recruitment
`
`by its competitors. As another example, a competitor that gains insight into OmniVision’s
`
`internal customer support reporting practices might be able to ascertain at least some of the
`
`methods by which OmniVision achieves success in the competitive market for image sensors.
`
`Milunovic Decl. ¶ 5.
`
` Accordingly, confidential and sensitive information regarding
`
`OmniVision’s business practices should remain under seal.
`
`Moreover, the information that Godo seeks to make public originates from the transcript
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 166 Filed 02/05/19 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 5196
`
`of the October 17, 2018 deposition of John Li, which was properly designated as “Highly
`
`Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the Protective Order in this case. See Declaration of
`
`Lisa D. Zang in Support of Reply (“Zang Reply Decl.”), Ex. 1 at 35:2-3. Neither at that time nor
`
`during the remainder of the litigation has Godo ever invoked the provisions to challenge this
`
`confidentiality designation pursuant to the Court’s Protective Order. See D.I. 156 at ¶ 2; D.I. 52
`
`(Protective Order) at ¶ 6. Godo then unnecessarily disclosed confidential portions of this
`
`deposition transcript during the hearing. Now, after the case has been dismissed, Godo is
`
`attempting to circumvent the established Protective Order provisions by arguing that the
`
`presumption of public access overrides OmniVision’s proper confidentiality designation of this
`
`confidential deposition transcript. Godo’s conduct should not be rewarded.
`
`Other factors giving rise to the good cause at hand include the minimal nature of
`
`OmniVision’s proposed redactions; the unfettered ability of the public to discern all proceedings
`
`that occurred during the discovery teleconference and understand the entire bases of this Court’s
`
`orders therein from the unredacted remainder of the discovery teleconference transcript,
`
`particularly given that the information that OmniVision seeks to redact played no role in the
`
`Court’s discovery rulings; the status of the litigants in this case as private parties and not public
`
`figures; the lack of issues in this case relating to public health, public safety, and other matters of
`
`public interest; and the lack of prejudice to Godo, given that this case was dismissed weeks ago.
`
`See D.I. 155 at 4-7; D.I. 158 (Order of Dismissal with Prejudice). These factors all conclusively
`
`weigh in favor of maintaining confidentiality. Godo, on the other hand, has identified no strong
`
`public interest or even any public interest that could justify the public disclosure of
`
`OmniVision’s confidential business information.
`
`B. The Information That OmniVision Seeks to Redact is Confidential
`
`It is indisputable that information regarding the identity, location, and business role of
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 166 Filed 02/05/19 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 5197
`
`OmniVision’s customer support representative, Don Boe, and his work with certain OmniVision
`
`customers (here, Motorola) and OmniVision’s internal reporting practices regarding its customer
`
`support services is confidential to OmniVision. Milunovic Decl., ¶ 4. Tellingly, counsel for
`
`Godo is still unable to provide any bases for Godo’s false claim that this information is not
`
`confidential to OmniVision or to identify any public sources that this information could be
`
`independently derived from. See D.I. 156 at ¶ 5; see generally D.I. 161.
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons set forth in OmniVision’s opening brief and above, OmniVision
`
`respectfully requests that its motion to redact certain confidential information regarding its
`
`business practices be granted.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 166 Filed 02/05/19 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 5198
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`
`By: /s/ David E. Moore
`David E. Moore (#3983)
`Bindu A. Palapura (#5370)
`Stephanie E. O’Byrne (#4446)
`Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor
`1313 N. Market Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Tel: (302) 984-6000
`dmoore@potteranderson.com
`bpalapura@potteranderson.com
`sobyrne@potteranderson.com
`
`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) 338-5400
`
`Dated: January 23, 2019
`6064796 / 43303
`
`5
`
`Public Version Dated: February 5, 2019
`
`