Access Optical Networks, Inc. v. Seagate Technology LLC

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION ACCESS OPTICAL NETWORKS, INC., Case No. 24-cv-03745-EKL (VKD) 9 Plaintiff, ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS v. Re: Dkt. Nos. 78, 86, 90, 104, 125 11 SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC, Defendant.

14 Before the Court are the parties’ administrative motions to file under seal in connection with defendant Seagate Technology LLC’s (“Seagate”) motion to compel adequate trade secret disclosures and for sanctions (Dkt. No. 79), a discovery dispute regarding plaintiff Access Optical Networks, Inc.’s (“AON”) responses to Seagate’s Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 12 (Dkt. No. 105), and a joint stipulation requesting an order extending AON’s time to comply with the Court’s September 25, 2025 order regarding Seagate’s Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, and 12 (Dkt. No. 124).

20 See Dkt. Nos. 78, 86, 90, 104, 125.

21 The sealing motions are granted in part and denied in part for the reasons discussed below.

22 I. LEGAL STANDARD 23 As the parties’ sealing motions relate to discovery matters, the good cause standard applies. See Prolifiq Software Inc. v. Veeva Sys. Inc., No. C 13-03644 SI, 2014 WL 2527148, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2014) (noting that “section 2019.210 does not create a procedural device to litigate the ultimate merits of the case” and applying “good cause” standard to sealing of discovery dispute related to trade secret disclosure under this provision) (cleaned up); see also Ctr. for Auto v. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 137 S. Ct. 38 (2016); Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 2 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 2006). The good cause standard requires a “particularized showing,” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180, “that specific prejudice or harm will result” if no protective order is granted, In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Oregon, 661 F.3d 417, 424 (9th Cir. 2011). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). The party who seeks to maintain certain materials under seal has the burden of establishing that sealing is warranted. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80.

9 II. DISCUSSION 10 The Court’s rulings on the sealing motions are set forth below.

11 A. Parties’ Motions to Seal re Seagate’s Motion to Compel Adequate Trade Secret Disclosures and for Sanctions 13 Seagate filed two administrative motions to consider whether another party’s material should be sealed in connection with Seagate’s motion to compel adequate trade secret disclosures and for sanctions. Dkt. Nos. 78, 90. AON filed statements in support of sealing the material at issue. Dkt. Nos. 82, 92. Seagate filed responses to these statements, opposing sealing of information and exhibits that the Court had not already ordered to be sealed. Dkt. Nos. 83, 95; see also Dkt. No. 81. AON separately filed an administrative motion to file portions of its opposition to Seagate’s motion to compel under seal. Dkt. No. 86. Seagate filed an opposition to this administrative motion. Dkt. No. 89.

21 The Court grants AON’s requests to seal material that the Court previously ordered to be sealed in its July 9, 2025 order. See Dkt. No. 81. As to the other material not addressed in the Court’s prior order, AON argues that the material it has identified should be sealed because it concerns “proprietary knowledge, techniques, parameters, and optimized properties related to magnetic data storage operations, media optimization, dopant properties, and near-field optics.”

26 Dkt. No. 82 at 4. AON explains that the information sought to be sealed “reflect[s] specific technical know-how developed through more than a decade of research and significant financial disclosed. Id.; Dkt. No. 92 at 3-4. Seagate’s principal objection to AON’s sealing requests is that AON has not made an adequate evidentiary showing, but relies solely on declarations that do not address any of the new information that AON seeks to seal. Dkt. No. 83 at 1-2; Dkt. No. 89 at 2; Dkt. No. 95 at 2-3.

5 Having considered the parties’ arguments, the Court agrees that good cause exists to seal the material that it previously determined should be sealed, as well as additional new material that includes the text of AON’s alleged trade secrets and non-generic technical terminology. However, the Court concludes that AON has not shown good cause to seal generic technical terms and other commonly used phrases when such terms and phrases appear separately in text, and not in the context of an alleged trade secret. Accordingly, the Court grants, in part, and denies, in part, AON’s requests to seal as follows: 12 Document Portion for Which Sealing Is Sought and Ruling Dkt. No. 79 (Seagate’s Passages on pages: Motion to Compel • 4:8 DENIED 14 Adequate Trade Secret • 5:9-17 GRANTED, 24 DENIED, 25-28 GRANTED Disclosures and for • 6:2-4 GRANTED, 9 DENIED, 22-28 GRANTED (except as 15 Sanctions) to “seek leave” and “unilaterally try and amend”) • 7:1-11 GRANTED, 13-14 DENIED • 8:9-17 GRANTED 17 • 11:6-7 DENIED, 17-20 GRANTED (except as to “Optical Components”), 22-23 DENIED, 25-27 GRANTED (except as 18 to “Optical Components”) • 12:6-10 GRANTED, 13 DENIED, 15 GRANTED, 20 DENIED, 23-28 GRANTED (except as to “Optical 20 Components”) • 13:1-6 GRANTED (except as to “Optical Components”), 8-10 21 GRANTED, 12-14 GRANTED (except as to “Optical Components”), 17 DENIED, 24 DENIED • 14:21-28 GRANTED 23 • 15:1-7 GRANTED, 13-14 DENIED • 16:11-16, 19-20, 24-25, 28 GRANTED 24 • 17:3, 7, 9-11, 13-15, 25-27 GRANTED • 18:15-23 GRANTED, 26 DENIED • 19:4 GRANTED, 16 DENIED, 22-23 DENIED 26 • 20:15-16 DENIED, 22-23 GRANTED (except as to “Optical Components”) 27 • 21:2-3 GRANTED (except as to “recording medium”), 6 GRANTED, 27-28 DENIED • 23:5-7 DENIED, 9-10 DENIED, 14-15 GRANTED (except 2 as to “recording media”), 17-18 GRANTED, 20-21 GRANTED (except as to “light source”), 23 DENIED, 25-27 3 DENIED • 24:1-3 GRANTED (except as to “light or light sources”), 5 4 GRANTED, 10 GRANTED (except as to “recording media, light source”), 15-16 DENIED, 20-21 DENIED, 26-27 DENIED Dkt. No. 79-1 Portions of ¶ 6 GRANTED (except as to “Optical Components”) (Declaration of Lauren Linderman in Support of Seagate’s Motion to Compel “Linderman Decl.”)

Dkt. No. 79-2 (Exhibit Entire Exhibit GRANTED 10 A to Linderman Decl.; AON’s February 7, 11 2025 Section 2019.210 Trade Secret Disclosure) 13 Dkt. No. 79-3 (Exhibit Entire Exhibit GRANTED B to Linderman Decl.; 14 AON’s March 11, 2025 Section 15 2019.210 Trade Secret Disclosure) Dkt. No. 79-4 (Exhibit Entire Exhibit GRANTED (except as to preamble; 2 n.2 “In 17 C to Linderman Decl.; accordance with the Court’s Order (Dkt. 69), AON clarifies that this AON’s June 6, 2025 trade secret is distinguishable from public references because the 18 Section 2019.210 public references”; 8 n.3 “In accordance with the Court’s Order dated Trade Secret May 27, 2025 (Dkt. 69), AON clarifies that this trade secret is Disclosure) distinguishable from public references”; 12 n.4 “In accordance with 20 the Court’s Order dated May 27, 2025 (Dkt. 69), AON clarifies that its trade secret is distinguishable from public references because the 21 public references”; 12 n.5 “In accordance with the Court’s Order dated May 27, 2025 (Dkt. 69), AON clarifies that its trade secret is 22 distinguishable from public references”; “Optical Components”) Dkt. No. 79-5 (Exhibit Passages on pages: D to Linderman Decl.; • 1 GRANTED (except as to “Optical Components”) 24 Seagate’s June 9, 2025 • 2 GRANTED (except as to “Optical Components,” Letter to AON) “components that may be used to achieve a result,” 25 “clarify[y],” “distinguishable from public references,” and “independent, self-contained, and severable trade secrets”) • 3 GRANTED (except as to “Optical Components”) 27 Dkt. No. 79-6 (Exhibit Entire Exhibit GRANTED (except as to preamble; 2 n.2 “In E to Linderman Decl.; accordance with the Court’s Order (Dkt. 69), AON clarifies that this 2019.210 Trade Secret public references”; 8 n.3 “In accordance with the Court’s Order dated Disclosure) May 27, 2025 (Dkt. 69), AON clarifies that this trade secret is 2 distinguishable from public references”; 11 n.4 “In accordance with the Court’s Order dated May 27, 2025 (Dkt. 69), AON clarifies that its 3 trade secret is distinguishable from public references because the public references”; 12 n.5 “In accordance with the Court’s Order dated 4 May 27, 2025 (Dkt. 69), AON clarifies that its trade secret is distinguishable from public references”; “Optical Components”) Dkt. No. 87 (AON’s Passages on pages: Opposition to • 2:9–11 DENIED Seagate’s Motion to • 11:13–14, 16–20, 23–24, 27 GRANTED (except as to “Optical Compel) Components”) • 12:1–2 GRANTED, 14–16 GRANTED (except as to “the particular optical components”), 18–22 GRANTED (except as 9 to “four functions”), 25–27 GRANTED • 13:1 GRANTED, 4–6 GRANTED (except as to “Optical 10 Components”), 21–26 GRANTED • 14:8–11, 13–14, 17–22, 24–27 GRANTED • 15:1 GRANTED 12 • 16:1–7 GRANTED, 11–13 GRANTED, 27 DENIED • 17:2–3 GRANTED (except as to “recording media”), 7 13 GRANTED, 9–19 GRANTED (except as to “Optical Components”), 26–27 DENIED • 18:1–3, 6–7, 11, 15 DENIED 15 Dkt. No. 91 (Seagate’s Passages on pages: Reply in Support of Its • i:8, 15, 16 DENIED 16 Motion to Compel) • 1:6 DENIED • 3:2-4, 14-19, 23 DENIED • 4:4-5 GRANTED, 9-12 GRANTED (except as to “recording 18 medium” and “Optical Components”), 14 GRANTED, 16-18 GRANTED (except as to “Optical Components”), 21-23 19 GRANTED • 5:5-6 DENIED • 7:4 DENIED, 5 DENIED, 9-10 GRANTED (except as to 21 “Optical Components”), 15-21 GRANTED • 8:1-2 DENIED, 7-9 GRANTED (except as to “Optical 22 Components”), 12-14 DENIED, 21-24 GRANTED, 27-28 DENIED 23 • 10:9-10, 21-22, 27-28 DENIED • 11:2-3, 5, 11-14, 27-28 DENIED • 14:5-6 GRANTED (except as to “recording media,” 25 “recording medium,” and “light output”), 8 GRANTED (except as to “recording media, light source”), 17-18 26 GRANTED (except as to “recording medium”), 20 DENIED, GRANTED, 25 GRANTED (except as to “light source”) • 15:2-3 GRANTED (except as to “light output”), 5-13 1 B. Seagate’s Motion to Seal re Joint Discovery Dispute Letter 2 Seagate filed an administrative motion to consider whether another party’s material should be sealed in connection with a discovery dispute regarding AON’s responses to Seagate’s Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 12. Dkt. No. 104. AON filed a statement in support of sealing the material at issue, stating that the information identified “contain[s] sensitive descriptions of AON’s core trade secrets” and “proprietary knowledge, techniques, parameters, and optimized properties related to magnetic data storage operations, media optimization, dopant properties, and near-field optics.” Dkt. No. 109 at 2. Seagate filed a response to this statement, opposing sealing of generic words, Seagate’s interrogatory requests to AON, and certain interrogatory responses by AON. Dkt. No. 110 at 2-3.

11 The Court agrees with Seagate that good cause does not exist to seal generic words and certain interrogatory requests and responses. The Court grants, in part, and denies, in part, AON’s requests to seal as follows: 14 Document Portion for Which Sealing Is Sought and Ruling Dkt. No. 105-1 Passages on pages: (Exhibit A to the • 9:9-10, 15-16 GRANTED 16 Parties’ Joint • 11:22-12:4 DENIED Discovery Dispute • 14:11-13 GRANTED (except as to “creating a uniform thermal 17 Letter) spot size on a recording medium by manipulating optical properties of the recording light”), 15-16 GRANTED • 15:6-7, 11-12 DENIED 19 • 16:15-17:11 DENIED • 37:5-11, 13-14, 19-21, 23-28 DENIED 20 • 38:1, 8-10, 18-28 DENIED C. AON’s Motion to Seal re Stipulation to Enlarge Time for AON to Comply With Court’s September 25, 2025 Order re August 22, 2025 Discovery Dispute In connection with the parties’ stipulated request to enlarge time for AON to comply with the Court’s September 25, 2025 order regarding an August 22, 2025 discovery dispute, AON filed an administrative motion to seal certain portions of the declaration accompanying the stipulated request. Dkt. No. 125. AON contends that the identified portions should be sealed because they individual at AON.” Id. at 1. AON reports that Seagate does not oppose this sealing request. Id. 2 The Court concludes there is good cause to seal the requested information. Accordingly, the Court grants AON’s motion to seal in connection with the parties’ stipulated request.

4 || 1. CONCLUSION 5 Where the Court has denied a party’s request to seal, in whole or in part, that party shall || file a revised public version of the document at issue, with appropriate redactions, in accordance with the determinations above, by October 22, 2025.

8 IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 Dated: October 8, 2025 . 28 □ 1 Vuraguic®, Qu □□□□□□□ Virginia K. DeMarchi 12 United States Magistrate Judge

= 17 Zz 18