4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM Doc # 603 Filed 01/22/16 Pg 1 of 14 Pg ID 51985
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`Case No. 12-cv-11758
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
`GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
`
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`MONA K. MAJZOUB
`
`
`
`EVERLIGHT ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`and EMCORE CORPORATION,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`NICHIA CORPORATION, and
`NICHIA AMERICA CORPORATION
`
`Defendants and
`Counter-Plaintiffs.
`
`v.
`
`EVERLIGHT ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`EMCORE CORPORATION, and
`EVERLIGHT AMERICAS, INC.,
`
`Counter-Defendants.
` /
`
`
`ORDER REGARDING NICHIA’S MOTION CLARIFYING THE PAGES OF THE
`TRIAL EXHIBITS TO REMAIN UNDER SEAL AND SEEKING ENFORCEMENT
`OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR SUCH PAGES
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`
`
`Earlier this year, Nichia Corporation (“Nichia”) filed a Request to Redact Confidential
`
`Trial Testimony from Public Versions of the Phase 2 Trial Transcripts (“Request”). [Dkt. No.
`
`592] As a result of that Request, among other things, the Court ordered Nichia to file another
`
`motion before the Court would rule on the Request (the “Request Order”). [Dkt. No. 597]
`
`Nichia has since filed a Motion Clarifying the Pages of the Trial Exhibits to Remain under Seal
`
`and Seeking Enforcement of the Protective Order for Such Pages (“Motion to Clarify”). [Dkt.
`
`-1-
`
`

`
`4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM Doc # 603 Filed 01/22/16 Pg 2 of 14 Pg ID 51986
`
`No. 598] The parties have fully briefed the Motion to Clarify. For the reasons discussed below,
`
`the Motion to Clarify is granted in part and denied in part.
`
`Pre-Trial Matters
`
`A.
`
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`
`On May 6, 2013, the parties entered into a Stipulated Protective Order (“Protective
`
`Order”) [Dkt. No. 81] meant to govern this case. Additionally, on April 1, 2015, prior to the
`
`commencement of trial in this matter, the parties entered a Sealed Joint Final Pretrial Order
`
`(“Pretrial Order”). [Dkt. No. 457] The Pretrial Order covered the April 2015 jury trial (“Phase
`
`I”) and the bench trial conducted in June 2015 (“Phase II”). Each of these Orders was agreed
`
`upon by the parties and contains information relevant to the instant dispute. For example, the
`
`Protective Order indicated what information would be considered confidential throughout this
`
`dispute and how it would be labeled:
`
`The designation “Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” shall refer to Discovery
`Materials that include non-public proprietary information or information, the
`disclosure of which would cause serious commercial injury to the Disclosing
`Party, including but not limited to, trade secrets, manufacturing processes,
`customer
`lists, costs and pricing of products and/or services,
`technical
`information, business/marketing strategies and plans,
`financial
`records,
`proprietary technical information and specifications, manufacturing techniques,
`research and development information, sales information, cost information,
`pricing information, and other competitively sensitive information. Discovery
`Materials so designated are referred to as “Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only
`Information.”
`
`Dkt. No. 81, at ¶ 1(a). The Pretrial Order specified how the parties would handle confidential
`
`information at trial:
`
`The Parties request that the trial be open to the public and not sealed unless a
`party requests that a particularly sensitive portion be sealed and not open. The
`Parties propose to jointly give the Court by April 3, 2015, a list of non-public
`proprietary documents and topics for testimony that they believe the disclosure of
`which would cause serious commercial injury to themselves, their customers
`and/or their licensees, such that they request that the portion of the trial disclosing
`such documents and/or testimony be sealed and not open. Further, each party
`
`-2-
`
`

`
`4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM Doc # 603 Filed 01/22/16 Pg 3 of 14 Pg ID 51987
`
`requests to be able to make such requests during the trial, subject to objections
`from the opposing party and obtaining the Court’s approval, and for good cause
`shown.
`
`[Dkt. No. 457, at § XIII, ¶ 6]. The Pretrial Order also provided that, in “all such instances where
`
`the trial shall be closed and sealed, the courtroom will be cleared of those individuals not
`
`qualified under the Protective Order entered into this case to be present when such documents
`
`and testimony are disclosed.” Id. The courtroom was not closed during Phase I or Phase II of the
`
`trial.
`
`
`
`On July 30, 2015, after Everlight filed its Opening Post-Trial Brief following Phase II of
`
`the trial, the Court entered an Order directing the Clerk of the Court to seal the following exhibits
`
`until further order of the Court:
`
`Dkt. No. 576-17
`Dkt. No. 576-18
`Dkt. No. 576-19
`Dkt. No. 576-20
`Dkt. No. 576-21
`Dkt. No. 576-22
`Dkt. No. 576-23
`Dkt. No. 576-24
`Dkt. No. 576-4
`Dkt. No. 576-5
`Dkt. No. 576-6
`
`Dkt. No. 585, at PgID 49900. Hereinafter, the exhibits at Dkt. Nos. 576-17, 576-18, 576-19,
`
`576-20, 576-21, 576-22, 576-23 and 576-24 shall be referred to as the “Technical Exhibits,” and
`
`the exhibits at Dkt. Nos. 576-4, 576-5 and 576-6 shall be referred to as the “Transcript Exhibits.”
`
`B.
`
`The Request Order
`
`
`
`In the Request Order, the Court concluded, in part:
`
`To begin, the Court emphasizes the discretion this Court has when
`
`deciding to seal trial records. See In re Knoxville NewsSentinel Co., Inc., 723 F.2d
`at 474. Nichia emphasizes that it minimized disruptions at trial for the benefit of
`the Court, and “certainly did not understand that failure to clear the courtroom
`would mean that a document discussed in part during trial could thereafter be
`
`-3-
`
`

`
`4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM Doc # 603 Filed 01/22/16 Pg 4 of 14 Pg ID 51988
`
`filed in whole publicly.” Dkt. No. 596 at 2-3 (emphasis in original). This being
`the case Nichia argues that “[a]t a minimum, only the portions of these
`documents actually displayed at trial should now be considered public.” Id. at 3.
`The Court agrees; everything not displayed at trial should remain sealed. The
`larger question, however, is whether the Court should allow the redaction to the
`extent requested by Nichia. The Court will not.
`
`Dkt. No. 597, at PgID 50806-07 (emphasis in bold and italics added). The Court also stated:
`
`[T]here is something to be said for Everlight’s contention that some of this
`information that will be redacted does not involve sensitive information. . . .
`Indeed, the entire trial transcript does not contain sensitive information. As
`Nichia impliedly concedes, the trial testimony and “the portions of [] documents
`actually displayed at trial should now be considered public.”
`
`
`Id. at PgID 50807 (emphasis in bold and italics added). Finally, the Court held:
`
`Specifically, the Court will permit the redaction of testimony and
`documents that include (1) actual trade secrets and confidential information
`and (2) things that were not presented at trial. However, the broad swath of
`information that Nichia seeks to exclude contains things like Everlight’s opening
`statement and the trial testimony at large. Such a broad exclusion is unwarranted,
`and the portions of testimony and documents actually displayed at trial that
`don’t constitute trade secrets will ultimately be considered public[.]
`
`This is a broad characterization of what the Court will permit. There still
`remains the issue of specifying exactly what will be redacted. Nichia only stated
`broadly which portions of the trial transcript it wanted to exclude. Rather than
`going through each line of the transcript and attempting to decipher what is
`important, the Court HEREBY ORDERS Nichia to abide by the Court’s Local
`Rules for the sealing of the requested documents.
`
`Id. at PgID 50808 (emphasis in bold and italics added).
`
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Technical Exhibits to be Sealed
`
`
`
`After briefing pursuant to the Request Order, the scope of what Nichia seeks to have
`
`sealed is narrower and more clear than it was at the time Nichia filed the Request. Most
`
`significantly, Nichia has withdrawn its request to have any pages of the trial transcript filed
`
`under seal (i.e., the Transcript Exhibits). In addition, although Nichia generally continues to
`
`-4-
`
`

`
`4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM Doc # 603 Filed 01/22/16 Pg 5 of 14 Pg ID 51989
`
`seek to have Technical Exhibits sealed, Nichia acknowledges that the following items need not
`
`be sealed: (a) Dkt. No. 576-17 (in its entirety), and (b) the pages of the Technical Exhibits
`
`identified below, each of which was actually displayed at trial and/or contained in a public
`
`newspaper article:
`
`Dkt. No. 576-18
`
`Dkt. No. 576-19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Bates Nos. NICH0078473-75
`
`Bates Nos. NICH0083148
`NICH0083149
`NICH0083150
`NICH0083153
`NICH0083154
`NICH0083157
`NICH0083176
`NICH0083182
`
`
`
`
`
`Bates Nos. NICH0084258
`NICH0084263
`NICH0084326
`NICH0084327
`NICH0084332
`NICH0084333
`NICH0084371
`NICH0084383
`NICH0084384
`NICH0084385
`
`Bates Nos. NICH0083584
`NICH0083592
`
`Bates No.
`
`NICH0084786
`
`Dkt. No. 576-20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dkt. No. 576-21
`
`
`Dkt. No. 576-24
`
`
`
`
`
`Based on the parties’ briefs, the parties have different interpretations of the Request
`
`Order, however, the Court finds that their disagreement does not impact the resolution of the
`
`matter before the Court. First, the Protective Order for this case has never been dissolved and
`
`remains in full force and effect. As such, as a general rule, to the extent that information,
`
`documents, etc. subject to the Protective Order (collectively, “Confidential Information”) have
`
`not been made public, such Confidential Information is still protected by the Protective Order
`
`-5-
`
`

`
`4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM Doc # 603 Filed 01/22/16 Pg 6 of 14 Pg ID 51990
`
`and should remain sealed and not made accessible to the public. Second, Nichia’s request to seal
`
`vis a vis the Technical Exhibits is consistent with the parties’ past behavior; specifically, some
`
`exhibits were admitted in a courtroom open to the public during Phase I of the trial but were
`
`sealed by the Court after Phase I of the trial concluded.1 Nichia is seeking to do the same thing
`
`here with respect to the Technical Exhibits admitted in a courtroom open to the public during
`
`Phase II of the trial. In fact, Nichia’s request is consistent with one of the Court’s rulings in the
`
`Request Order. See Dkt. No. 597, at PgID 50807 (immediately after noting Nichia’s contention
`
`that “only the portions of these documents actually displayed at trial should now be considered
`
`public,” the Court ruled: “[t]he Court agrees; everything not displayed at trial should remain
`
`sealed.”).
`
`As the Court made clear in the Request Order, however, the Court will redact only
`
`testimony and documents (or portions thereof) that constituted either “actual trade secrets and
`
`confidential information” or “things that were not presented at trial.” At this point, even Nichia
`
`acknowledges that the Transcript Exhibits, the trial transcript, and items actually displayed at
`
`trial (i.e., those Technical Exhibits or portions thereof identified above) should not be sealed.
`
`Everlight argues, however, that Nichia does not capture the full spectrum of items that should be
`
`unsealed because some items do not constitute trade secrets and/or are already in the public
`
`domain. For example, Everlight correctly argues that two pages in Dkt. No. 576-20 should be
`
`unsealed because one is an article by a third party (NICH0084183) and the other is from
`
`Japanese Patent Publication No. 10-247750 (NICH0084228). In addition, as Everlight notes,
`
`three of the Technical Exhibits (Dkt. Nos. 576-17, 576-18, 576-19) were offered at Phase I of the
`
`
`1 As Nichia said in its original brief: “Nichia’s conduct is consistent with the parties’ past
`behavior. For example, Nichia’s sales exhibits (e.g., D684-693, D834-838) and related testimony
`from Phase 1 were sealed after trial, without objection from Everlight, despite the fact that the
`courtroom was not cleared during this testimony.” Dkt. No. 596, PgId 50801.
`
`-6-
`
`

`
`4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM Doc # 603 Filed 01/22/16 Pg 7 of 14 Pg ID 51991
`
`trial. When neither Everlight nor Nichia asked to seal those three Technical Exhibits following
`
`Phase I of the trial, those three Technical Exhibits became part of the public record on or about
`
`May 18, 2015, i.e., two months before Phase II of the trial. For that reason, the Court concludes
`
`that it would not be appropriate to, and the Court will not, continue to seal those three exhibits.2
`
`Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court concludes that the following Transcript
`
`Exhibits and Technical Exhibits (or portions thereof) shall not continue to be sealed; instead,
`
`they shall be unsealed and made accessible on the public record:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dkt. No. 576-4
`
`Dkt. No. 576-5
`
`Dkt. No. 576-6
`
`Dkt. No. 576-17
`
`Dkt. No. 576-18
`
`Dkt. No. 576-19
`
`Dkt. No. 576-20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Bates Nos. NICH0084183
`NICH0084228
`NICH0084258
`NICH0084263
`NICH0084326
`NICH0084327
`NICH0084332
`NICH0084333
`NICH0084371
`NICH0084383
`NICH0084384
`
`
`
`
`2 Everlight also argues that Dkt. Nos. 576-21, 576-22, 576-23 and 576-24 should be unsealed
`because “Mr. Sakano was questioned about the entire content of these documents, and in
`particular, about what they do not contain, i.e., evidence that he or anyone else at Nichia actually
`conducted the experiments described in Examples 8 and 12.” The Court is not persuaded,
`however, that being questioned about those documents, in itself, demonstrated that they were
`“actually displayed” at Phase II of the trial. As none of the trial transcript from Phase II of the
`trial is being sealed, all of the questions Mr.Sakano was asked, and his answers, will be
`accessible on the public record. Accordingly, the Court will not unseal Dkt. Nos. 576-21, 576-
`22, 576-23 and 576-24 in their entirety.
`
`-7-
`
`

`
`4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM Doc # 603 Filed 01/22/16 Pg 8 of 14 Pg ID 51992
`
`Dkt. No. 576-21
`
`
`
`NICH0084385
`
`Bates Nos. NICH0083584
`NICH0083592
`
`
`Dkt. No. 576-24
`
`Accordingly, the Court will order that only the following portions of the Technical Exhibits shall
`
`Bates No.
`
`NICH0084786
`
`
`
`remain sealed:
`
`Dkt. No. 576-20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dkt. No. 576-21
`
`
`Dkt. No. 576-22
`
`Dkt. No. 576-23
`
`Dkt. No. 576-24
`
`Bates Nos. NICH0084130-182
`
`
`NICH0084184-227
`
`
`NICH0084229-257
`NICH0084259-62
`NICH0084264-325
`NICH0084328-31
`NICH0084334-70
`NICH0084372-82
`NICH0084386-400
`
`Bates Nos. NICH0083562-83
`NICH0083585-91
`NICH0083593-660
`
`
`
`
`
`Bates Nos. NICH0054278-79
`NICH0054281
`NICH0054282
`NICH0078535
`NICH0078553
`NICH0084764-65
`NICH0084773-74
`NICH0084785
`NICH0084807-08
`NICH0084853-54
`
`B. Compliance with the Protective Order
`
`
`
`
`
`Although not a subject of the Request or the Request Order, Nichia includes as part of its
`
`Motion to Clarify a request that the Court order Everlight to comply with the Paragraphs
`
`-8-
`
`

`
`4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM Doc # 603 Filed 01/22/16 Pg 9 of 14 Pg ID 51993
`
`4(a)(3)(c) and 9(c) of the Protective Order. Nichia is concerned that certain pages of the
`
`Technical Exhibits are being disclosed to persons not permitted to have access to Confidential-
`
`Attorneys’ Eyes Only (“AEO”) information, namely the pages of the Technical Exhibits the
`
`Court has ordered herein shall remain under seal. Generally speaking, this part of the Motion to
`
`Clarify appears to be based on Everlight’s refusal to: (1) acknowledge that Everlight will comply
`
`with Paragraph 4(a)(3)(c) of the Protective Order, and (2) comply with Paragraph 9(c) of the
`
`Protective Order. Paragraph 4(a)(3)(c) of the Protective Order provides: “All Discovery
`
`Materials produced in this case shall be designated ‘Confidential-Attorneys’ Eyes Only, shall be
`
`used solely for purposes of this Action and for no other purpose.” Paragraph 9(c) of the
`
`Protective Order provides:
`
`Should any Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only Information be disclosed by the
`Receiving Party, through inadvertence or otherwise, to any person or party not
`authorized under this Order, then the Receiving Party shall use its best efforts to
`bind such person to the terms of this Order; and the Receiving Party shall (a)
`promptly inform such person of all the provisions of this Order; (b) identify such
`person immediately to the Designating Party; and (c) request such person to sign
`the agreement in the form attached as Exhibit A. The executed agreement shall
`promptly be served upon the Designating Party. The Court may, upon noticed
`motion, order such further and additional relief as it deems necessary and just.
`
`Nichia asserts that it asked Everlight on numerous occasions to: (a) ascertain and identify
`
`any persons to whom Technical Exhibits have been distributed who are not permitted access to
`
`AEO information and to retrieve such AEO information from those people, and (b) acknowledge
`
`that Everlight will not use any of the sealed pages of the Technical Exhibits in any other
`
`proceeding or litigation. According to Nichia, Everlight has refused to: (1) provide any of the
`
`information regarding persons to whom the Technical Exhibits was provided who were not
`
`permitted to access the AEO information, or (2) acknowledge that Everlight will not use any
`
`sealed pages of the Technical Exhibits in any other proceeding or litigation. For that reason,
`
`-9-
`
`

`
`4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM Doc # 603 Filed 01/22/16 Pg 10 of 14 Pg ID 51994
`
`Nichia contends Everlight has refused to meet its obligations under Paragraphs 4(a)(3)(c) and
`
`9(c) of the Protective Order.
`
`Everlight responds that it has not violated the Protective Order because: (1) only
`
`members of its IP Group had access to any of the Technical Exhibits, (2) the members of the IP
`
`Group who had access to the Technical Exhibits reviewed only those portions of the Technical
`
`Exhibits that were discussed at trial, (3) the documents were not forwarded to any person outside
`
`the IP Group, and (4) Everlight has not used any of the Technical Exhibits in any other
`
`proceeding. Everlight suggests that Nichia’s request regarding the Protective Order is simply an
`
`attempt to burden Everlight with onerous restrictions. Everlight does not, however, explain how
`
`making persons “sign a special undertaking” (presumably, the agreement attached as Exhibit A
`
`to the Protective Order) is onerous or unduly burdensome. Likewise, the Court is not persuaded
`
`that there is any basis for Everlight’s concern that Nichia could successfully accuse Everlight of
`
`violating the Protective Order if “Everlight’s employees were ever to use any public
`
`information.” In fact, if Nichia were to allege that Everlight has improperly used information in
`
`violation of the Protective Order when that information is actually public information, the Court
`
`would not only find such accusations meritless, Nichia would also be subject to sanction by the
`
`Court.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Nichia’s request that the Court order
`
`Everlight to comply with the Paragraphs 4(a)(3)(c) and 9(c) of the Protective Order is reasonable
`
`due to Everlight’s unwarranted lack of compliance on this issue. Simply put, pursuant to the
`
`terms of the Protective Order (a document Everlighted stipulated to), Everlight is required to
`
`comply with all terms of the Protective Order. As set forth therein, to the extent that Everlight
`
`has provided or does provide AEO information to any person at Everlight or any other person,
`
`-10-
`
`

`
`4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM Doc # 603 Filed 01/22/16 Pg 11 of 14 Pg ID 51995
`
`Everlight must comply with the terms of the Protective Order, including Paragraphs 4(a)(3)(c)
`
`and 9(c). Therefore, as Everlight has been reticent in responding to Nichia regarding Everlight’s
`
`disclosure of AEO information and has refused to acknowledge that Everlight will not use the
`
`sealed portions of the Technical Exhibits in conjunction with other proceedings, both of which
`
`were reasonably requested by Nichia, the Court will order Everlight to:
`
`(1)
`
`(2)
`(3)
`(4)
`
`(5)
`
`(6)
`
`use its best efforts to cause persons not authorized to access AEO
`information to be bound by the terms of the Protective Order;
`promptly inform such persons of the terms of the Protective Order;
`identify such persons to Nichia;
`cause such persons to sign the agreement attached as Exhibit A to the
`Protective Order;
`promptly serve on Nichia the executed agreement attached as Exhibit A to
`the Protective Order; and
`retrieve any documents containing the AEO information from persons not
`authorized to receive such AEO information.
`
`
`Finally, the Court advises the parties that, in the event Everlight has failed (or in the
`
`future fails) to comply with the terms of the Protective Order, the Court will impose significant
`
`monetary and equitable sanctions against Everlight and any persons associated with Everlight
`
`who are responsible for any failure by Everlight to comply with the Protective Order. Likewise,
`
`in the event Nichia has failed (or in the future fails) to comply with the terms of the Protective
`
`Order, the Court will impose significant monetary and equitable sanctions against Nichia and any
`
`persons associated with Nichia who are responsible for any failure by Nichia to comply with the
`
`Protective Order.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`For the reasons stated above, the Court ORDERS that Nichia’s Motion to Clarify [Dkt.
`
`No. 598] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
`
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following Technical Exhibits, or portions thereof,
`
`shall remain sealed:
`
`-11-
`
`

`
`4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM Doc # 603 Filed 01/22/16 Pg 12 of 14 Pg ID 51996
`
`Dkt. No. 576-203
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dkt. No. 576-21
`
`Bates Nos. NICH0084130-182
`
`
`NICH0084184-227
`
`
`NICH0084229-257
`NICH0084259-62
`NICH0084264-325
`NICH0084328-31
`NICH0084334-70
`NICH0084372-82
`NICH0084386-400
`
`Bates Nos. NICH0083562-83
`NICH0083585-91
`NICH0083593-660
`
`
`Dkt. No. 576-22
`
`Dkt. No. 576-23
`
`Dkt. No. 576-24
`
`
`
`
`
`Bates Nos. NICH0054278-79
`NICH0054281
`NICH0054282
`NICH0078535
`NICH0078553
`NICH0084764-65
`NICH0084773-74
`NICH0084785
`NICH0084807-08
`NICH0084853-54
`
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Transcript Exhibits and the following Technical
`
`Exhibits shall not continue to be sealed; instead, they shall be unsealed and made accessible on
`
`the public record:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dkt. No. 576-4
`
`Dkt. No. 576-5
`
`Dkt. No. 576-6
`
`Dkt. No. 576-17
`
`
`3 The Court’s Case Management and Electronic Filing System cannot unseal portions of exhibits.
`Accordingly, the Court will require Everlight to resubmit Dkt. Nos. 576-20, 576-21 and 576-24
`and make redactions consistent with the instant Order.
`
`-12-
`
`

`
`4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM Doc # 603 Filed 01/22/16 Pg 13 of 14 Pg ID 51997
`
`
`
`Dkt. No. 576-18
`
`Dkt. No. 576-19
`
`
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Everlight resubmit the Technical Exhibits filed as Dkt.
`
`
`
`
`
`Nos. 576-20, 576-21 and 576-24 and make the requisite redactions so that only the following
`
`portions are available on the public record:
`
`
`
`
`
`Bates Nos. NICH0084183
`NICH0084228
`NICH0084258
`NICH0084263
`NICH0084326
`NICH0084327
`NICH0084332
`NICH0084333
`NICH0084371
`NICH0084383
`NICH0084384
`NICH0084385
`
`Bates Nos. NICH0083584
`NICH0083592
`
`Bates No.
`
`NICH0084786
`
`
`Dkt. No. 576-20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dkt. No. 576-21
`
`
`Dkt. No. 576-24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Everlight shall, within 30 days of the date of this
`
`Order:
`
`(1)
`
`(2)
`(3)
`(4)
`
`(5)
`
`(6)
`
`
`
`use its best efforts to cause persons not authorized to access AEO
`information to be bound by the terms of the Protective Order;
`promptly inform such persons of the terms of the Protective Order;
`identify such persons to Nichia;
`cause such persons to sign the agreement attached as Exhibit A to the
`Protective Order;
`promptly serve on Nichia the executed agreement attached as Exhibit A to
`the Protective Order; and
`retrieve any documents containing the AEO information from persons not
`authorized to receive such AEO information.
`
`-13-
`
`

`
`4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM Doc # 603 Filed 01/22/16 Pg 14 of 14 Pg ID 51998
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: January 22, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Gershwin A. Drain
`HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
`United States District Court Judge
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record by electronic and/or
`ordinary mail.
`
`/s/ Felicia Moses for Tanya Bankston
`Case Manager
`
`
`
`
`
`-14-