1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 UNICORN ENERGY GMBH, Case No. 21-cv-07476-BLF

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS; DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE 10 TESLA INC., MOTIONS; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 11 Defendant. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS

12 [Re: ECF Nos. 374, 375, 376, 403, 405,

13 406, 407, 408, 420, 421, 423] 14 Before the court are eleven administrative motions filed in connection with the parties’ 15 motions for summary judgment: 16 1. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be 17 Sealed. ECF No. 374. 18 2. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be 19 Sealed. ECF No. 375. 20 3. Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Tesla's Motion for Summary Judgment. 21 ECF No. 376. 22 4. Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Exhibit 30 to Its Opposition to Unicorn's 23 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. ECF No. 403. 24 5. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be 25 Sealed. ECF No. 405. 26 6. Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Regarding Plaintiff's Opposition to Tesla's 27 Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 406. 1 Sealed. ECF No. 407. 2 8. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be 3 Sealed. ECF No. 408. 4 9. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be 5 Sealed. ECF No. 420. 6 10. Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Tesla Reply in Support of Its Motion for 7 Summary Judgment and Exhibits 24-27. ECF No. 421. 8 11. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be 9 Sealed. ECF No. 423. 10 For the reasons described below, the Court rules as follows: the administrative motions at 11 ECF Nos. 374, 376, 403, 405, 421 are GRANTED; the administrative motion at ECF No. 408, 420 12 are DENIED; the administrative motion at ECF No. 375, 406, 407, 423 are GRANTED IN PART 13 AND DENIED IN PART. 14 I. LEGAL STANDARD 15 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 16 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. Of 17 Honolulu,

, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435

, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong 19 presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.”

(quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 20 Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to 21 motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden 22 of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of 23 access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp.,

1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. 25 Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits 26 of a case,” however, are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 27 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to 1 unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving to seal 2 the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 3 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This standard 4 requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the 5 information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp.,

, 6 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated 7 by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. 8 Co.,

(9th Cir. 1992). 9 II. DISCUSSION 10 A. ECF No. 374 11 Unicorn filed the Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material 12 Should Be Sealed on February 12, 2024. ECF No. 374. Tesla submitted a declaration and 13 exhibits. ECF Nos. 390, 391. Tesla seeks to seal portions of exhibits. ECF No. 390-1 ¶ 3. Tesla 14 writes that the information should be sealed because “[d]isclosure of this information would also 15 help Tesla’s competitors advance their own technical development and shape their business 16 decisions, thereby harming Tesla’s competitive standing in the energy storage industry.” Id. ¶ 4. 17 Tesla argues that the portions are narrowly tailored. Id. ¶ 5. 18 The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the 19 documents. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG,

, at 20 *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under 21 “compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG, 22

, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential 23 business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons 24 standard.). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored. 25 The Court’s ruling is summarized below: 26 \\ 27 \\ 1 ECF or Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling 2 Exhibit No. ECF 373-8 Excerpts of the Highlighted portions at the Granted, as the highlighted 3 (Ex. 7) Rebuttal Expert following pages: 76, 77, 82, portions of this document reflect Report of Dr. 83, 93, 94, 106, 107, 119-21, specific technical details 4 Christopher D. 127-31, 149, 150, 162-64, regarding Tesla Products. See Rahn (“Exhibit 166, 167. infra ¶ 4. 5 7”) 6 B. ECF No. 375 7 Tesla filed the Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material 8 Should Be Sealed on February 12, 2024. ECF No. 375. Unicorn submitted a declaration and 9 exhibits. ECF Nos. 392, 393. Unicorn seeks to seal selected portions of the brief and its 10 corresponding exhibits. ECF No. 392-1 ¶ 2. Unicorn writes that the information should be sealed 11 because “disclosure of such information would allow Unicorn’s competitors to shape their 12 business decisions to undermine Unicorn’s operational and strategic advantage in the energy 13 storage industry.” Id. ¶ 10; see also id. ¶ 4-9. Unicorn argues that the portions are narrowly 14 tailored. Id. ¶ 2. 15 The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the certain portions of the highlighted 16 portions of the documents. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG,

7911651, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” 18 sealable under “compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17- 19 CV-04810-HSG,

, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found 20 “confidential business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the 21 compelling reasons standard.). Except as otherwise noted below, the Court also finds that the 22 request is narrowly tailored. Where the Court has denied the motion to seal, it is because the 23 document does not appear to contain sensitive or confidential material, or the request is overly 24 broad. See Civ. L.R. 79-5 (“A party must explore all reasonable alternatives to filing documents 25 under seal, minimize the number of documents filed under seal, and avoid wherever possible 26 sealing entire documents”). 27 The Court’s ruling is summarized below: 1 ECF or Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling 2 Exhibit No. 375.01 Tesla’s Motion Portions highlighted for Granted, as the cited portions of 3 for Summary redaction at the following the document reflect specific Judgment page and line numbers: 5:8- details of Unicorn’s sensitive 4 25; 9:15; strategic, financial, and internal 10:7-10; 10:23-24; 10:27- technical information, which has 5 11:6; been designated as 6 13:13-14 “CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED – 7 ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” under the Stipulated 8 Protective Order. 375.05 Exhibit 2 (ZAI Entire document DENIED as overly broad. 9 000001) Furthermore, neither the email 10 nor attachment are marked in such a way to suggest that the 11 information is confidential 375.06 Exhibit 3 (ZAI Entire document DENIED as overly broad. 12 000034) Furthermore, the attachment is 13 not marked in such a way to suggest that the information is 14 confidential 375.07 Exhibit 4 (ZAI Portions highlighted for Granted, as the cited document 15 000751) redaction at the following reflects specific details of page numbers: 2-3 Unicorn’s sensitive strategic and 16 financial information, which has 17 been designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” or 18 “RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” under the 19 Stipulated Protective Order. 375.08 Exhibit 5 (ZAI Portions highlighted for Granted, as the cited document 20 000814) redaction at the following reflects specific details of 21 page numbers: 1, 2, 4 Unicorn’s sensitive strategic and financial information, which has 22 been designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” or 23 “RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ EYES 24 ONLY” under the Stipulated 25 Protective Order. 375.09 Exhibit 6 Portions highlighted for Granted, as the parties dispute 26 (email string redaction on the following whether reflects confidential between pages: 2 settlement communications. 27 Tesla’s counsel Unicorn’s 1 counsel (D. 2 Jonas), dated April 5, 2023 3 to April 13, 2023) 4 375.10 Exhibit 7 Entire excerpt DENIED as overly broad. (excerpts from 5 the deposition 6 transcript of Felix Friedrich) 7 375.13 Exhibit 10 Entire excerpt DENIED as overly broad. (excerpts from 8 the deposition transcript of 9 Christian Zugel) 10 375.14 Exhibit 11 Entire excerpt DENIED as overly broad. (excerpts from 11 Unicorn’s First Supplemental 12 Responses and 13 Objections to Tesla’s Second 14 Set of Interrogatories 15 (Nos. 12 and 14)) 16 375.15 Exhibit 12 Entire excerpt DENIED as overly broad. 17 (excerpts from Furthermore, the information Unicorn’s does not appear to be confidential 18 Second or sensitive. Supplemental 19 Responses and Objections to 20 Tesla’s 21 Interrogatories (Nos. 2, 4 and 22 8)) 375.16 Exhibit 13 Pages highlighted for DENIED as to paragraph 468, and 23 (excerpts from redaction: 217-236 otherwise granted, as the cited the Rebuttal portions of the document reflect 24 Expert Report specific details of Unicorn’s 25 of Dr. sensitive strategic and internal Christopher D. technical information, which has 26 Rahn) been designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” or 27 “RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ ONLY” under the Stipulated 1 Protective Order. 2 3 375.21 Exhibit 18 Portions highlighted for Granted, as the cited portions of 4 (excerpts from redaction at the following the document reflect specific the deposition page and line numbers: details of Unicorn’s sensitive 5 transcript of 17:15-18:14 strategic, financial, and internal 6 Axel technical information, which has Heinemann) been designated as 7 “CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED – 8 ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” under the Stipulated 9 Protective Order. 10 11 C. ECF No. 376 12 Tesla filed the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Tesla's Motion for Summary 13 Judgment on February 13, 2024. ECF No. 376. Tesla seeks to seal selected portions of the brief 14 and its corresponding exhibits.

Tesla writes that the information should be sealed because 15 “public disclosure of this highly confidential information would allow Tesla’s competitors to 16 reverse engineer and achiever similar results in their own products” and “would also help Tesla’s 17 competitors advance their own technical development and shape their business decisions, thereby 18 harming Tesla’s competitive standing in the energy storage industry.” Id. ¶ 4. Tesla argues that 19 the portions are narrowly tailored. Id. ¶ 6. 20 The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the 21 document. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG,

, at *1 22 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under 23 “compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG, 24

, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential 25 business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons 26 standard.). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored. 27 The Court’s ruling is summarized below: 1 ECF or Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling 2 Exhibit No. ECF 375-1 Tesla’s Motion Highlighted portions at the Granted, as the highlighted 3 for Summary following pages and lines: 3:4-5, portions of this document Judgment 3:18-20, 3:22-25, 6:14-16, 15:18, reflect specific technical details 4 (“Tesla’s 15:21-24, 15:26-27, 16:8, 16:10, of Tesla Products. See ECF Motion”) 16:13-14, 16:17, 16:19, 16:25, No. 376-1 ¶ 4. 5 16:27, 17:1-5, 17:9, 17:11-12, 6 17:14-15, 18:2, 18:5, 18:10, 18:12-13, 18:16, 18:18-20, 19:1- 7 4, 20:12-13, 20:16, 20:26, 21:5- 6, 21:9, 21:20-21, 21:26, 22:10. 8 22:23, 23:10, 23:13, 23:15, 23:21-24:4. 9 Ex. 1 Excerpts of Highlighted (with red outline) Granted, as the highlighted 10 Transcript from portions at the following pages portions of this document Deposition of and lines: 188:1-190:25, 231:5- reflect specific technical details 11 Ralf Gomm, 24, 232:2-234:25. of Tesla Products and Tesla’s dated Aug. 18, strategic and operational 12 2023 information. See ECF No. 376- (“Exhibit 1”) 1 ¶¶ 4, 5. 13 Ex. 13 Excerpts of Highlighted portions at the Granted, as the highlighted 14 Rebuttal Expert following pages: 216-17. portions of this document Report of Dr. reflect specific technical details 15 Christopher of Tesla Products. See ECF D. Rahn, dated No. 376-1 ¶ 4. 16 Nov. 22, 2023 17 (“Exhibit 13”) Ex. 16 Third Errata to Highlighted portions at the Granted, as the highlighted 18 the Oct. 17, following pages: 2, 3, 4. portions of this document 2023 Initial reflect specific technical details 19 Expert Report of Tesla Products and Tesla’s of Marc strategic and operational 20 Herniter information. See ECF No. 376- 21 (“Exhibit 16”) 1 ¶¶ 4, 5. Ex. 17 Excerpts of Highlighted (with red outline) Granted, as the highlighted 22 Transcript from portions at the following pages portions of this document Deposition of and lines: 246:4. reflect specific technical details 23 Dr. Marc of Tesla Products. See ECF Herniter, dated No. 376-1 ¶ 4. 24 Dec. 22, 2023 25 (“Exhibit 17”) Ex. 19 Excerpts of Highlighted (with red outline) Granted, as the highlighted 26 Transcript portions at the following pages portions of this document from and lines: 68:2-4, 68:13-19, reflect specific technical details 27 Deposition of 68:25-69:1, 69:12-13, 69:17- of Tesla Products. See ECF Ozbek, dated 76:8-9, 76:19-25, 84:1-85:25, 1 Sep. 7, 2023 86:3-87:10. 2 (“Exhibit 19”) 3 Ex. 20 Excerpts of Highlighted (with red outline) Granted, as the highlighted 4 Transcript portions at the following pages portions of this document from and lines: 159:1-160:7, 160:19- reflect specific technical details 5 Deposition of 161:25, 205:1-207:4, 207:12-13, of Tesla Products. See ECF 6 AJ Booth, 207:22-23, 208:6-25. No. 376-1 ¶ 4. dated Sep. 12, 7 2023 (“Exhibit 20”) 8 D. ECF No. 403 9 Tesla filed the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Exhibit 30 to Its Opposition to 10 Unicorn's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on March 4, 2024. ECF No. 403. Tesla seeks to 11 seal selected portions of the brief and its corresponding exhibits. ECF No. 403-1 ¶ 3. Tesla writes 12 that the information should be sealed because “disclosure of such information would allow Tesla’s 13 competitors to shape their business decisions to undermine Tesla’s operational and strategic 14 advantage in the energy storage industry.” Id. ¶ 4. Tesla argues that the portions are narrowly 15 tailored. Id. ¶ 5. 16 The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the 17 document. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG,

, at *1 18 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under 19 “compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG, 20

, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential 21 business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons 22 standard.). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored. 23 The Court’s ruling is summarized below: 24 ECF or Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling 25 Exhibit No. 26 Ex. 30 Excerpts from 10/17/2023 Highlighted Granted, as the highlighted Expert Report of James E. portions at pages portions of this document reflect 27 Malackowski (“Exhibit 5 and 80. Tesla strategic and operational 1 E. ECF No. 405 2 Unicorn filed the Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material 3 Should Be Sealed on March 4, 2024. ECF No. 405. Tesla submitted a declaration and exhibits. 4 ECF Nos. 414, 415. Tesla seeks to seal selected portions of the brief and its corresponding 5 exhibits. ECF No. 414-1 ¶ 3. Tesla writes that the information should be sealed because “public 6 disclosure of this highly confidential information would allow Tesla’s competitors to reverse 7 engineer and achiever similar results in their own products” and “would also help Tesla’s 8 competitors advance their own technical development and shape their business decisions, thereby 9 harming Tesla’s competitive standing in the energy storage industry.” Id. ¶ 4. Tesla argues that 10 the portions are narrowly tailored. Id. ¶ 5. 11 The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the 12 document. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG,

, at *1 13 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under 14 “compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG, 15

, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential 16 business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons 17 standard.). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored. 18 The Court’s ruling is summarized below:

19 ECF or Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling 20 Exhibit No. ECF 404 Unicorn’s Highlighted portions with Granted, as the highlighted 21 Opposition to red borders at the following portions of this document reflect Tesla’s Motion pages and lines: 15:11-15, specific technical details of Tesla 22 for Summary 15:17-28, 16:2-3, 16:5, 16:7- Products. See ECF No. 414-1 ¶ 4. Judgment 11, 16:14-24, 16:26-17:1, 23 (“Unicorn’s 17:3, 17:11-21, 18:1-8, 18:10- 24 Opposition”) 14, 18:16-19, 18:22-23, 18:25-26, 19:5-6, 19:10-11, 25 19:13-14, 19:16-18, 19:25, 19:27, 20:4-5, 20:8, 20:12-15, 26 20:24, 20:28, 21:2-4, 21:6, 21:10, 21:17, 21:24-22:1, 27 22:3-20, 22:24-26, 22:28- 15, 25:3-12, 25:14, 25:18. 1 2 3 Ex. 6 Excerpts from Highlighted portions with Granted, as the highlighted 4 the Initial red borders at the following portions of this document reflect Expert Report pages: 20-21, 25-26, 216- specific technical details of Tesla 5 of Marc 217, 320, 324, 342-344, 376, Products. See ECF No. 414-1 ¶ 4. 6 Herniter 395-397, 401, 437-439, 473. Regarding 7 Infringement of U.S. 8 Patent No. 10,008,869 9 (“Exhibit 6”) 10 Ex. 9 Excerpts from Highlighted portions with Granted, as the highlighted the deposition red borders at the following portions of this document reflect 11 transcript of pages and lines: 148:2-5, specific technical details of Tesla Ralf Gomm, 148:6-149:25, 242:1-11, Products. See ECF No. 414-1 ¶ 4. 12 Ph.D., dated 242:13-18, 242:20-244:25. August 18, 13 2023 14 (“Exhibit 9”) Ex. 10 Excerpts Highlighted portions with red Granted, as the highlighted 15 from the borders at the following page portions of this document reflect deposition and lines: 244:1-25. specific technical details of Tesla 16 transcript Products. See ECF No. 414-1 ¶ 4. 17 of AJ Booth, 18 dated September 19 12, 2023 (“Exhibit 10”) 20 Ex. 12 Excerpts from Highlighted portions with Granted, as the highlighted 21 Tesla, Inc.’s red borders at the following portions of this document reflect First pages and lines: 2:28-3:1, specific technical details of Tesla 22 Supplemental 3:3-6, 3:8-11, 3:13-18, 3:21- Products. See ECF No. 414-1 ¶ 4. Responses to 4:4, 4:8, 4:10-11, 4:13-19, 23 Unicorn 4:21-27, 5:8-18, 5:21-22, Energy AG’s 5:24, 5:27-28. 24 Fifth Set of 25 Interrogatories (Nos. 16, 18), 26 dated September 14, 27 2023 Ex. 13 Excerpts from Highlighted portions at with Granted, as the highlighted 1 the deposition red borders at the following portions of this document reflect 2 transcript of pages and lines: 61:1-3, specific technical details of Tesla Yuval Joseph, 61:5, 61:7-10, 61:13-15, Products. See ECF No. 414-1 ¶ 4. 3 dated October 61:17-23, 62:1, 62:3-17, 11, 2023 62:20-22, 62:24-63:10, 63:13- 4 (“Exhibit 13”) 14, 63:16-19, 63:21-22, 63:24-25, 94:2-6, 94:9-10, 5 94:12-95:8, 95:13-14, 95:25, 6 127:3, 127:5-7, 127:10, 127:12-17, 127:20, 127:22- 7 128:13, 128:15-19, 128:22, 128:24-129:14, 129:17, 8 129:19-23, 130:1-3, 130:5-8, 130:10-14, 130:19-25. 9 Ex. 14 Excerpts from Highlighted portions with Granted, as the highlighted 10 the deposition red borders at the following portions of this document reflect transcript of pages and lines: 143:1-3, specific technical details of Tesla 11 Marc Herniter, 143:6-12, 143:14-16, 143:18- Products. See ECF No. 414-1 ¶ 4. dated 20, 143:22-25, 198:2-9, 12 December 22, 198:11-12. 2023 13 (“Exhibit 14”) 14 Ex. 15 Excerpts from Highlighted portions with red Granted, as the highlighted the Rebuttal borders at the following portions of this document reflect 15 Expert Report pages: 80, 125, 160. specific technical details of Tesla of Dr. Products. See ECF No. 414-1 ¶ 4. 16 Christopher D. 17 Rahn, dated November 22, 18 2023 (“Exhibit 15”) 19 Ex. 16 Excerpts from Highlighted portions with Granted, as the highlighted the deposition red borders at the following portions of this document reflect 20 transcript of pages and lines: 451:9-11, specific technical details of Tesla 21 Christopher D. 451:14-452:1. Products. See ECF No. 414-1 ¶ 4. Rahn, dated 22 December 16, 2023 23 (“Exhibit 16”) 24 F. ECF No. 406 25 Unicorn filed the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Regarding Plaintiff's 26 Opposition to Tesla's Motion for Summary Judgment on March 4, 2024. ECF No. 406. Unicorn 27 seeks to seal selected portions of the brief and its corresponding exhibits. ECF No. 406-1 ¶ 3. 1 information about Unicorn Energy’s products, business assets, and its business and financial 2 strategy. Thus, public disclosure of such information may lead to competitive harm to Unicorn as 3 its competitors could use these details to gain a competitive advantage in the marketplace.”

¶ 4 9. Unicorn argues that the portions are narrowly tailored. ECF No. 406 at 4. 5 The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the certain portions of the highlighted 6 portions of the documents. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG,

7911651, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” 8 sealable under “compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17- 9 CV-04810-HSG,

, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found 10 “confidential business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the 11 compelling reasons standard.). Except as otherwise noted below, the Court also finds that the 12 request is narrowly tailored. Where the Court has denied the motion to seal, it is because the 13 document does not appear to contain sensitive or confidential material, or the request is overly 14 broad. See Civ. L.R. 79-5 (“A party must explore all reasonable alternatives to filing documents 15 under seal, minimize the number of documents filed under seal, and avoid wherever possible 16 sealing entire documents”). 17 The Court’s ruling is summarized below:

18 ECF or Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling 19 Exhibit No. 403.1 Unicorn’s Portions highlighted at the Granted, as the cited portions 20 Opposition to following page numbers: of the document reflect specific Tesla’s Motion 1:2-8, 5:2-6, details of Unicorn’s sensitive 21 for Summary 5:7, 5:9-10, strategic business and financial Judgment 6:8-10, 8:15, information, which has been 22 8:17-18, 8:20, designated as 23 8:23, 10:4, “CONFIDENTIAL” or 10:6-9, 10:14- “RESTRICTED – 24 20, 10:24-26, ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” 10:28-11:6, under the 25 11:26-28, Stipulated Protective Order. See 12:9-13, Jonas Declaration ISO MFUS ¶4. 26 12:25-26, 27 13:3-4, 13:14- 19 403.2 Tesla, Inc.’s Portions highlighted for Granted, as the cited portions 1 First Set of redaction at the following of the document reflect specific 2 Requests for page and line details of Unicorn’s sensitive Admission to numbers: 6:15-7:18 strategic business and financial 3 Unicorn information, which has been Energy AG designated as 4 (Nos. 1-75), “CONFIDENTIAL” or dated “RESTRICTED – 5 August 15, 2023 ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” 6 (“Exhibit 1”) under the Stipulated Protective Order. See 7 Jonas Declaration ISO MFUS ¶5. 403.3 Excerpts from Portion highlighted for Granted, as these transcript 8 the deposition redaction at the following excerpts reflect specific details transcript of pages: 5:19-22; 165:1-25 of Unicorn’s sensitive strategic, 9 Thomas Weis, financial, and technical 10 dated August information, which has been 31, designated as “RESTRICTED 11 2023 (“Exhibit – CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE 3”) CODE” under 12 the Stipulated Protective Order. These transcript excerpts also 13 reflect confidential, non-public 14 personal information implicating witness or employee privacy. See 15 Jonas Declaration ISO MFUS ¶6- 7. 16 403.4 Excerpts from Portion highlighted for Granted, as these transcript 17 the deposition redaction at the following excerpts reflect specific details transcript of pages: 209:3- of Unicorn’s sensitive strategic, 18 Felix 25; 212:1-25 financial, and technical Friederich, information, which has been 19 dated designated as September 5, “CONFIDENTIAL” or 20 2023 “RESTRICTED – 21 (Exhibit 4”) ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” under the Stipulated 22 Protective Order. See Jonas Declaration ISO MFUS ¶8. 23 403.5 Plaintiff Portion highlighted for Granted, as the cited portions Unicorn redaction at the following of the document reflect specific 24 Energy AG’s pages: 9:18- details of Unicorn’s sensitive 25 First 10:8 strategic business and financial Supplemental information, which has been 26 Responses and designated as Objections to “CONFIDENTIAL” or 27 Defendant “RESTRICTED – Second Set of under the 1 Interrogatories Stipulated Protective Order. See 2 (Nos 12 and Jonas Declaration ISO MFUS ¶8. 14), dated 3 September 14, 2023, with 4 Verification of Interrogatory 5 Answers, dated 6 September 15, 2023 7 (“Exhibit 5”) 403.2 Tesla, Inc.’s Portions highlighted for Granted, as the cited portions 8 First Set of redaction at the following of the document reflect specific Requests for page and line details of Unicorn’s sensitive 9 Admission to numbers: 6:15-7:18 strategic business and financial 10 Unicorn information, which has been Energy AG designated as 11 (Nos. 1-75), “CONFIDENTIAL” or dated “RESTRICTED – 12 August 15, 2023 ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” (“Exhibit 1”) under the 13 Stipulated Protective Order. See 14 Jonas Declaration ISO MFUS ¶5. 403.6 Excerpts from Portions highlighted for Granted, as the cited portions 15 the Initial redaction at the following of the document reflect specific Expert Report page numbers: 470-473 details of Unicorn’s sensitive 16 of Marc (¶¶ 1126-34) technical information, which 17 Herniter has been designated as Regarding “CONFIDENTIAL” or 18 Infringement “RESTRICTED – (“Exhibit 6”) ATTORNEYS’ EYES 19 ONLY” under the Stipulated Protective Order. See Jonas 20 Declaration ISO MFUS ¶6. 21 403.7 Excerpts from Entire Excerpt DENIED as overly broad. Plaintiff 22 Unicorn Energy AG’s 23 Second Supplemental 24 Responses and 25 Objections to Defendant 26 Tesla, Inc.’s First Set of 27 Interrogatories 8) and Third 1 Supplemental 2 Response and Objections to 3 Interrogatory No. 5, dated 4 September 14, 2023, with 5 Verification of 6 Interrogatory Answers, dated 7 September 15, 2023 8 (“Exhibit 7”) 403.10 Excerpts Entire Excerpt DENIED as overly broad. 9 from the 10 deposition transcript of 11 Axel Heinemann, 12 dated October 3, 13 2023 14 (“Exhibit 8”) 403.13 Excerpts from Portion highlighted for Granted, as these transcript 15 the deposition redaction at the following excerpts reflect confidential, non- transcript of pages: 5:6-9 public personal information 16 Marc Herniter, implicating witness or employee 17 dated privacy. See Jonas Declaration December 22, ISO MFUS ¶7. 18 2023 (“Exhibit 14”) 19 20 G. ECF No. 407 21 Tesla filed the Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material 22 Should Be Sealed on March 4, 2024. ECF No. 407. Unicorn submitted a declaration and exhibits. 23 ECF Nos. 411, 412. Unicorn seeks to seal selected portions of the brief and its corresponding 24 exhibits. ECF No. 411-1 ¶ 2. Unicorn writes that the information should be sealed because 25 “[p]ublic disclosure of such information would allow Unicorn’s competitors to shape their 26 business decisions to undermine Unicorn’s operational and strategic advantage in the energy 27 storage industry.” Id. ¶ 7. Unicorn argues that the portions are narrowly tailored. Id. ¶ 8. 1 portions of the documents. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG,

7911651, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” 3 sealable under “compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17- 4 CV-04810-HSG,

, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found 5 “confidential business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the 6 compelling reasons standard.). Except as otherwise noted below, the Court also finds that the 7 request is narrowly tailored. Where the Court has denied the motion to seal, it is because the 8 document does not appear to contain sensitive or confidential material, or the request is overly 9 broad. See Civ. L.R. 79-5 (“A party must explore all reasonable alternatives to filing documents 10 under seal, minimize the number of documents filed under seal, and avoid wherever possible 11 sealing entire documents”). 12 The Court’s ruling is summarized below:

13 ECF or Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling 14 Exhibit No. 407.01 Tesla’s Portions Granted, as the cited portions of the 15 Opposition highlighted in document reflect specific details of Unicorn’s to Unicorn darker yellow sensitive strategic and financial information, 16 Energy’s for redaction at which has been designated as Motion for the following “CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED – 17 Partial page and line ATTORNEYS’ EYES 18 Summary numbers: vii:7- ONLY” under the Stipulated Protective Order. Judgment 16; 25:14-24 See ECF No. 411-1 ¶ 3. 19 407.02 Exhibit 24 Entire document DENIED as overly broad. Furthermore, this document does not appear to contain 20 “sensitive business strategy and financial decisions, and internal technical information” 21 as claim by Unicorn. See ECF No. 411-1 ¶ 4. 22 407.03 Exhibit 25 Entire document DENIED as overly broad. Furthermore, this document does not appear to contain 23 “sensitive business strategy and financial decisions, and internal technical information” 24 as claim by Unicorn. See ECF No. 411-1 ¶ 4. 25 407.04 Exhibit 26 Entire document Granted, as the cited document reflects specific details of Unicorn’s internal technical 26 information, which has been designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED – 27 ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” under the See ECF No. 411-1 ¶ 4. 1 2 3 407.05 Exhibit 27 Entire document DENIED as overly broad. Furthermore, 4 Unicorn has supplied no basis (confidentiality clause, NDA, etc.) to justify sealing portions 5 of this document. 6 407.06 Exhibit 28 Entire document DENIED as overly broad. Furthermore, 7 Unicorn has supplied no basis (confidentiality clause, NDA, etc.) to justify sealing portions 8 of this document. 9 407.07 Exhibit 29 Entire document DENIED as overly broad. Furthermore, 10 Unicorn has supplied no basis (confidentiality clause, NDA, etc.) to justify sealing portions 11 of this document. 12 407.08 Exhibit 30 Portions Granted, as the excerpted portions of this 13 (Expert Report highlighted on expert report reflect specific details of of James E. page 5 and 81 Unicorn’s sensitive strategic and financial 14 Malackowski) information, which has been designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED – 15 ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” under the Stipulated Protective Order. See ECF No. 16 411-1 ¶ 6. 17 H. ECF No. 408 18 Tesla filed the Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material 19 Should Be Sealed on March 4, 2024. ECF No. 408. The documents at issues “have been 20 designated, or rely on documents that have been designated, ‘Confidential’ or ‘Restricted – 21 Attorneys’ Eyes Only’ by third-party Mr. Greg Tremelling.”

Mr. Tremelling is not a party to 22 this case, Tesla has not filed proof of service, and Mr. Tremelling has not filed a declaration. As 23 such, the motion is denied. 24 I. ECF No. 420. 25 Unicorn filed the Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material 26 Should Be Sealed on March 21, 2024. ECF No. 420. Tesla indicated that the materials identified 27 do not contain Tesla’s confidential information. As such, the motion is denied. 1 J. ECF No. 421. 2 Tesla filed the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Tesla Reply in Support of Its 3 Motion for Summary Judgment and Exhibits 24-27 on March 21, 2024. ECF No. 421. Tesla 4 seeks to seal selected portions of the brief and its corresponding exhibits. ECF No. 421-1 ¶ 3. 5 Tesla writes that the information should be sealed because “public disclosure of this highly 6 confidential information would allow Tesla’s competitors to reverse engineer and achiever similar 7 results in their own products” and “would also help Tesla’s competitors advance their own 8 technical development and shape their business decisions, thereby harming Tesla’s competitive 9 standing in the energy storage industry.” Id. ¶ 4. Tesla argues that the portions are narrowly 10 tailored. Id. ¶ 5. 11 The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the 12 document. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG,

, at *1 13 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under 14 “compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG, 15

, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential 16 business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons 17 standard.). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored. 18 The Court’s ruling is summarized below:

19 ECF or Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling 20 Exhibit No. ECF 418 Tesla’s Reply in Highlighted portions at the Granted, as the 21 Support of Motion for following pages and lines: highlighted portions of Summary 1:10, 9:23-25, 9:28, 10:4, this document reflect 22 Judgment (“Tesla’s 10:6-11, 10:13, 10:17, 10:22- specific technical details Reply”) 24, 10:28-11:3, 11:5, 11:7-9, of Tesla Products. See 23 11:16, 11:18, 11:24, 11:26, infra ¶ 4. 24 12:2-3, 12:5-9, 12:11, 12:14- 15, 12:17-20, 13:8, 13:12-15, 25 13:23-24, 13:26-27, 14:4, 15:3-7, 15:9-10, 15:14-18, 26 15:21-23. 27 Ex. 24 Megapack Operation Entirety of document. Granted, as the entirety of 1 and Maintenance this document reflects 2 Manual specific technical details (“Exhibit 24”) of Tesla Products. See 3 infra ¶ 4. Furthermore, the document is marked 4 “SHARED UNDER NDA ONLY.” 5 Ex. 25 Excerpt of Transcript Highlighted portions with Granted, as the 6 of red boarders at the following highlighted portions of 12/22/2023 Deposition pages and lines: 137:1-2, this document reflect 7 of Marc Herniter 137:4-6, 137:9-11, 137:13, specific technical details (“Exhibit 25”) 137:15-17, 137:19-138:5, of Tesla Products. See 8 138:8-11, 138:13-15, 138:17- infra ¶ 4. 20, 138:22-139:5, 139:9-10, 9 139:12, 139:14-140:2, 140:5- 10 6, 140:8-10, 140:12-16. Ex. 26 May 31, 2022 Letter Highlighted portions with red Granted, as the 11 from Tesla’s counsel (J. borders at the following highlighted portions of Smith) to Unicorn pages: 4, 5, 7-11, 13-16. this document reflect 12 Regarding Deficiencies specific technical details 13 in Unicorn’s of Tesla Products. See Infringement infra ¶ 4. 14 Contentions (“Exhibit 26”) 15 Ex. 27 June 8, 2022 Letter Highlighted portions with red Granted, as the from Unicorn’s borders at the following highlighted portions of 16 Counsel (D. Jonas) to page: 4. this document reflect 17 Tesla Regarding specific technical details Unicorn’s Infringement of Tesla Products. See 18 Contentions (“Exhibit infra ¶ 4. 27”) 19 20 K. ECF No. 423. 21 Tesla filed the Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material 22 Should Be Sealed on March 21, 2024. ECF No. 423. Unicorn submitted a declaration and 23 exhibits. ECF Nos. 425, 426. Unicorn seeks to seal selected portions of the brief and its 24 corresponding exhibits. ECF No. 425-1 ¶ 2. Unicorn writes that the information should be sealed 25 because “[p]ublic disclosure of such information would allow Unicorn’s competitors to shape their 26 business decisions to undermine Unicorn’s operational and strategic advantage in the energy 27 storage industry.” Id. ¶ 5. Unicorn argues that the portions are narrowly tailored. Id. ¶ 6. 1 portions of the documents. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG,

7911651, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” 3 sealable under “compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17- 4 CV-04810-HSG,

, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found 5 “confidential business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the 6 compelling reasons standard.). Except as otherwise noted below, the Court also finds that the 7 request is narrowly tailored. Where the Court has denied the motion to seal, it is because the 8 document does not appear to contain sensitive or confidential material, or the request is overly 9 broad. See Civ. L.R. 79-5 (“A party must explore all reasonable alternatives to filing documents 10 under seal, minimize the number of documents filed under seal, and avoid wherever possible 11 sealing entire documents”). 12 The Court’s ruling is summarized below:

13 ECF or Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling 14 Exhibit No. 418 Tesla’s Reply Portions highlighted in Granted, as the cited portions reflect 15 in Support of darker yellow for specific details of Unicorn’s sensitive its Motion for redaction at the following strategic and financial information, 16 Summary page and line numbers: and internal technical information, Judgment i:9- 11; 1:3; 1:14; 1:16- which has been designated as 17 17; 1:20-22; 3:21-26; “CONFIDENTIAL” or 18 4:10; 4:13-15; 4:19-23; “RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ 4:25-27; 5:1; 5:6-9; 5:12- EYES ONLY” under the 19 13; 5:27-6:14; 6:18-19; Stipulated Protective Order. See Jonas 7:6-23; 8:1-11; 8:28 Declaration ISO MFUS ¶ 3. 20 423.01 Exhibit 22 Entire excerpt DENIED as overly broad. (portions of 21 deposition 22 transcript of Mr. Felix 23 Friederich) 423.02 Exhibit 23 Entire excerpt DENIED as overly broad. 24 (portions of 25 deposition transcript of 26 Mr. Axel Heinemman) 27 1 I. ORDER 2 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. ECF No. 374 is GRANTED. 4 2. ECF No. 375 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 5 3. ECF No. 376 is GRANTED. 6 4. ECF No. 403 is GRANTED. 7 5. ECF No. 405 is GRANTED. 8 6. ECF No. 406 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 9 7. ECF No. 407 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 10 8. ECF No. 408 is DENIED. 11 9. ECF No. 420 is DENIED. 12 10. ECF No. 421 is GRANTED. 5 13 11. ECF No. 423 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 14 All denials ace WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Any refiled administrative motion SHALL be 3 15 filed no later than May 1, 2024. The Court will deny any future administrative motion with a 16 highlighting where various shades of the same color purport to have different meaning. See, e.g., 17 || BCFNos. 425-1, 426. 18 19 || Dated: April 10, 2024 _foilufredian _ BETH LABSON FREEMAN 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28