Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138, PageID.10080 Filed 05/04/23 Page 1 of 13
`
`
`
`IN RE NEO WIRELESS LLC
`
`PATENT LITIGATION
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE EXHIBITS
`UNDER SEAL
`Plaintiff Neo Wireless, LLC (“Neo”), pursuant to Local Rule 5.3(b), requests
`
`
`
`entry of an order granting leave to file under partial seal three documents that Neo
`
`intends to file as exhibits to its forthcoming Unopposed Motion for Issuance of
`
`Letters of Request for International Judicial Assistance in Procuring Evidence from
`
`Foreign Third Parties (“Motion for Issuance”). The Defendants who are referenced
`
`in the Letters and the Defendants whose suppliers are referenced in these Letters1
`
`have indicated via email that they do not oppose this Motion to Seal.
`
`The documents sought to be sealed are portions of Appendices A–C of the
`
`Motion for Issuance which contain confidential business information produced in
`
`discovery by Defendants & third parties and designated by the producing parties as
`
`
`1 The relevant Defendants, who have stated via email that they do not oppose this
`Motion to Seal or Neo’s Motion for Issuance, are FCA US LLC (“FCA”), Nissan
`North America, Inc. (“NNA”), Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation (“NMAC”),
`and Tesla, Inc. (“Tesla”).
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`IN RE NEO WIRELESS LLC
`
`PATENT LITIGATION
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE EXHIBITS
`UNDER SEAL
`Plaintiff Neo Wireless, LLC (“Neo”), pursuant to Local Rule 5.3(b), requests
`
`
`
`entry of an order granting leave to file under partial seal three documents that Neo
`
`intends to file as exhibits to its forthcoming Unopposed Motion for Issuance of
`
`Letters of Request for International Judicial Assistance in Procuring Evidence from
`
`Foreign Third Parties (“Motion for Issuance”). The Defendants who are referenced
`
`in the Letters and the Defendants whose suppliers are referenced in these Letters1
`
`have indicated via email that they do not oppose this Motion to Seal.
`
`The documents sought to be sealed are portions of Appendices A–C of the
`
`Motion for Issuance which contain confidential business information produced in
`
`discovery by Defendants & third parties and designated by the producing parties as
`
`
`1 The relevant Defendants, who have stated via email that they do not oppose this
`Motion to Seal or Neo’s Motion for Issuance, are FCA US LLC (“FCA”), Nissan
`North America, Inc. (“NNA”), Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation (“NMAC”),
`and Tesla, Inc. (“Tesla”).
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138, PageID.10081 Filed 05/04/23 Page 2 of 13
`
`Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only under the Protective Order entered in
`
`this case. Dkt. 125. Specifically, the proposed Letters of Request evince the existence
`
`of relationships between the entities to whom the Letters are addressed and,
`
`variously, certain Defendants and certain third-party suppliers; the Letters also
`
`disclose the identity of components supplied in the course of those relationships.
`
`
`
`DATED: May 4, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jason D. Cassady
`Jason D. Cassady
`Texas State Bar No. 24045625
`Email: jcassady@caldwellcc.com
`Christopher S. Stewart
`Texas State Bar No. 24079399
`Email: cstewart@caldwellcc.com
`CALDWELL CASSADY CURRY
`P.C.
`2121 N. Pearl St., Suite 1200
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`Telephone: (214) 888-4848
`Facsimile: (214) 888-4849
`
`Jaye Quadrozzi (P71646)
`Email: quadrozzi@youngpc.com
`YOUNG, GARCIA &
`QUADROZZI, PC
`2775 Stansbury Blvd., Suite 125
`Farmington Hills, Michigan 48334
`Telephone: (248) 353-8620
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`NEO WIRELESS LLC
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138, PageID.10082 Filed 05/04/23 Page 3 of 13
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that counsel of record is being served with a copy of the foregoing
`
`document via the Court CM/ECF system on May 4, 2023.
`
`/s/ Jason D. Cassady
`Jason D. Cassady
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138, PageID.10083 Filed 05/04/23 Page 4 of 13
`
`
`
`IN RE NEO WIRELESS LLC
`
`PATENT LITIGATION
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
`LEAVE TO FILE EXHIBITS UNDER SEAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138, PageID.10084 Filed 05/04/23 Page 5 of 13
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE PRESENTED
`Should excerpts of the materials identified in Exhibit A be filed under seal
`
`where the discrete portions Plaintiff asks to be sealed contain Defendant and third-
`party confidential and sensitive information business information produced
`pursuant to the Protective Order?
`
`Plaintiff says: Yes, as to all information identified in Exhibit A.
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138, PageID.10085 Filed 05/04/23 Page 6 of 13
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1
`I.
`II. RELEVANT FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY ........................................ 1
`III. LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................................ 2
`IV. ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138, PageID.10086 Filed 05/04/23 Page 7 of 13
`
`TABLE OF CONTROLLING AUTHORITIES
`
`Kondash v. Kia Motors America, Inc., 767 Fed.Appx. 635 (6th Cir. 2019)
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138, PageID.10087 Filed 05/04/23 Page 8 of 13
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. FTC
` 710 F.2d 1165 (6th Cir. 1983) ................................................................................. 2
`
`In re Gen. Motors Air Cond. Mktg. & Sales Pracs. Litig.
` No. 2:18-md-02818, 2023 WL 319922 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 19, 2023) ...................... 4
`
`Kondash v. Kia Motors America, Inc.
` 767 Fed.Appx. 635 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ....................................................................... 2
`
`Nixon v. Warner Comm’ns., Inc.
` 435 U.S. 589 (1978) ............................................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138, PageID.10088 Filed 05/04/23 Page 9 of 13
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiff Neo Wireless, LLC (“Neo”) seeks to protect confidential
`
`information of certain Defendants and third-party suppliers that has been
`
`designated as “Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only” pursuant to the
`
`Protective Order entered in this case. Dkt. 125.
`
`II. RELEVANT FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`
`Neo is currently seeking discovery from third parties via the procedures of
`
`the Hague Evidence Convention, and intends to shortly file a Motion for Issuance
`
`of Letters of Request to be transmitted according to the Convention.
`
`These Letters of Request, in enumerating the specific discovery sought from
`
`the foreign third parties to whom they are directed, reference specific business
`
`relationships between the foreign third parties and, to varying extents between
`
`Letters, specific Defendants and third-party suppliers of Defendants. These
`
`relationships were disclosed to Neo either through discovery materials marked
`
`“Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only” or otherwise through
`
`communications between counsel for the parties. Under the Protective Order, this
`
`designation indicates that the party making such designation “reasonably and in
`
`good faith believes [that the designated material] contain[s] highly confidential
`
`information that is not publicly available.” Dkt. 125, at *4. As the Letters of
`
`Request must be filed as appendices to Neo’s Motion for Issuance, Neo now seeks
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138, PageID.10089 Filed 05/04/23 Page 10 of 13
`
`to have portions of the Letters filed under seal so as to protect the confidential
`
`information contained therein.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`The presumption of public access to judicial records “is not absolute.” Nixon
`
`v. Warner Comm’ns., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). When considering a motion
`
`to seal, a court balances the privacy interests of the litigant and third parties against
`
`the public interest in having access to judicial records. See Brown & Williamson
`
`Tobacco Corp. v. FTC, 710 F.2d 1165, 1179 (6th Cir. 1983) (“[C]ontent-based
`
`exceptions to the right of access have been developed to protect competing
`
`interests . . . these interests include certain privacy rights of participants or third
`
`parties.”). Accordingly, a party seeking to file materials under seal “must show
`
`three things: (1) a compelling interest in sealing the records; (2) that the interest in
`
`sealing outweighs the public’s interest in accessing the records; and (3) that the
`
`request is narrowly tailored.” Kondash v. Kia Motors America, Inc., 767 Fed.Appx.
`
`635, 637 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citations omitted).
`
`
`
`An index of the materials proposed to be filed under seal, as well as whether
`
`the information therein was designated “confidential” and the designating parties,
`
`is provided at Exhibit A. Redacted versions of the documents to be sealed are
`
`provided as Exhibits 1–3. Unredacted portions of the documents to be filed under
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138, PageID.10090 Filed 05/04/23 Page 11 of 13
`
`seal are provided as Exhibits 4–6, wherein the highlighted portions of those
`
`exhibits correspond to the portions sought to be sealed.
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`The information which Neo wishes to seal from public view is of the same
`
`
`
`character across all three letters in that it consists of the portions of the Letters
`
`which disclose the existence of a supplier relationship between the foreign third
`
`party from whom discovery is sought and, variously, either a Defendant or a third
`
`party that has been subpoenaed in this action; and the portions of the Letters which
`
`identify specific components supplied by the foreign third party pursuant to said
`
`supplier relationships. This information, as indicated in the index at Ex. A, has
`
`been designated by the producing parties as highly confidential and therefore
`
`constituting sensitive information. Disclosure would therefore harm these parties’
`
`interests in maintaining the confidentiality of this designated information, which
`
`pertains to their suppliers and the components purchased for use in Defendants’
`
`products.
`
`
`
`Moreover, the public’s interest in the availability of the information does not
`
`outweigh the interest of the designating parties in keeping the information
`
`confidential. The information is included in the Letters to lead to the discovery of
`
`evidence which itself will go to the merits of the case. Therefore, the proposed
`
`redactions will not ultimately have the effect of impeding the public’s ability to
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138, PageID.10091 Filed 05/04/23 Page 12 of 13
`
`“evaluat[e] the parties’ respective positions” as to the ultimate issues in the case. In
`
`re Gen. Motors Air Cond. Mktg. & Sales Pracs. Litig., No. 2:18-md-02818, 2023
`
`WL 319922, at *5 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 19, 2023).
`
`
`
`Finally, the requested redactions are narrowly tailored to only encompass the
`
`discrete portions of the Letters which contain the specific information at issue; the
`
`vast majority of the discovery requests directed to the foreign third parties are,
`
`indeed, wholly untouched by the proposed redactions. This also ensures the
`
`public’s ability to understand the evidence sought; while the identities of specific
`
`components are redacted, the surrounding context of those specific components
`
`remains available to the public.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138, PageID.10092 Filed 05/04/23 Page 13 of 13
`
`DATED: May 4, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jason D. Cassady
`Jason D. Cassady
`Texas State Bar No. 24045625
`Email: jcassady@caldwellcc.com
`Christopher S. Stewart
`Texas State Bar No. 24079399
`Email: cstewart@caldwellcc.com
`CALDWELL CASSADY CURRY
`P.C.
`2121 N. Pearl St., Suite 1200
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`Telephone: (214) 888-4848
`Facsimile: (214) 888-4849
`
`Jaye Quadrozzi (P71646)
`Email: quadrozzi@youngpc.com
`YOUNG, GARCIA &
`QUADROZZI, PC
`2775 Stansbury Blvd., Suite 125
`Farmington Hills, Michigan 48334
`Telephone: (248) 353-8620
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`NEO WIRELESS LLC
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that counsel of record is being served with a copy of the foregoing
`
`
`
`
`
`document via the Court CM/ECF system on May 4, 2023.
`
`/s/ Jason D. Cassady
`Jason D. Cassady
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
