Shoals Technologies Group, LLC v. Voltage, LLC, and Ningbo Voltage Smart...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA SHOALS TECHNOLOGIES ) GROUP, LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 1:25CV26 ) VOLTAGE, LLC, and NINGBO ) VOLTAGE SMART PRODUCTION ) CO., ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OPINION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE This matter comes before the Court Oberg v. Nelnet, Inc., 105 F.4th 161, on the plaintiff Shoals’ motions to 170–71 (4th Cir. 2024). However, the seal, filed in Docket Entries 302 and right of access is not absolute and can 334, and the defendant Voltage’s be rebutted. Rushford v. New Yorker, motion to seal filed in Docket Entry Mag., Inc., 846 F.2d 249, 253 (4th 372. For the reasons set forth below, Cir. 1988). The party claiming the the Court grants in part and denies need for confidentiality bears the the motions to seal in Docket Entries burden of establishing the right to and 334. The Court denies the seal. Id. motion to seal in Docket Entry 372.

The common law right of access I. DISCUSSION applies to all judicial records but can be rebutted if “countervailing A. Legal Standard interests heavily outweigh the public The public has a long-established interests in access.” Id. The First right of access to judicial records. Amendment right of access is Nixon v. Warner, Commc’ns, Inc., narrower and applies only to 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978); Va. Dept. of particular judicial records and State Police v. Wash. Post, 386 F.3d documents. Doe v. Public Citizen, 749 567, 575 (4th Cir. 2004). The right F.3d 246, 266 (4th Cir. 2014). To derives from two sources, the overcome the right to access based on common law and the First the First Amendment a party must Amendment. United States ex rel. show “a compelling governmental interest” and that the restriction is Med. Sys. Corp., 855 F.2d 178, 181 “narrowly tailored.” Id. (4th Cir. 1988) (citing In re Knight Publ’g Co., 743 F.2d 231, 235 (4th Cir. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) 1984)). The most recently filed empowers the court to “protect a motion at issue was docketed on party from undue burden or expense, March 2, 2026, see Docket Entry 395, including by restricting access to and the other motions have been materials that constitute confidential pending longer. This has provided the research, development, or public with adequate notice and a commercial information.” See Kinetic reasonable opportunity to intervene, Concepts, Inc. v. Convatec Inc., No. and no objections have been raised.

1:08CV00918, 2010 WL 1418312, at See, e.g., Hunter v. Town of *10 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 2, 2010). In asking Mocksville, 961 F. Supp. 2d 803, 806 the Court to exercise this authority, (M.D.N.C. 2013) (one month and a though, it is insufficient for a party to day satisfied “the ‘public notice’ broadly assert materials contain prerequisite to entry of a sealing confidential or sensitive information order”). without providing “specific underlying reasons for the district C. Judicial Records court to understand how [a party] As referenced earlier, the right of reasonably could be affected by the access, whether derived from the release of such information.” Trs. of common law or the First Amendment, Purdue Univ. v. Wolfspeed, Inc., No. only applies to documents that are 1:21CV840, 2023 WL 2776193, at *2 judicial records. See In re United (M.D.N.C. Feb. 28, 203) (quoting Va. States for an Order Pursuant to 18 Dep’t of State Police, 386 F.3d at 579).

U.S.C. § 2703(D), 707 F.3d 283, 290 In weighing a motion to seal, a court (4th Cir. 2013). Therefore, the Court must consider less drastic alternatives must determine whether the to sealing and if a motion is allowed, materials the parties seek to seal are the court must “state the reasons” and judicial records. Documents are explain reasons for “rejecting judicial records “if they play a role in alternatives to sealing.” Va. Dep’t of the adjudicative process, or State Police, 386 F.3d at 576. adjudicate substantive rights” such as with an “objective of obtaining B. Public Notice judicial action or relief.” Id. at 290– Before addressing a motion to seal, a 91. court must give the public notice and In Docket Entries 302 and 334, Shoals a reasonable opportunity to contest moves to seal documents pertaining the motion. Doe, 749 F.3d at 272. The to its Motion for Leave to Take duty to provide notice is satisfied Additional Deposition and its Reply in when a motion to seal is docketed support of that motion. In Docket “reasonably in advance of deciding Entry 372, Voltage moves to seal the issue.” Stone v. Univ. of Maryland documents pertaining to its Opposition to an expedited briefing documents addressed by the motions schedule for Shoals’ Motion for a to seal in Docket Entries 302, 334, Preliminary Injunction. and 372. The parties must only show good cause to justify sealing the The Motion for Leave to Take documents. See Kinetic Concepts, Additional Deposition is a discovery Inc., 2010 WL 1418312, at *10; Fed. R. motion which addresses only the Civ. P. 26(c). timing and scheduling of an expert deposition, purely procedural D. Motions discovery matters. Likewise, the Opposition to expedited briefing 1. Motions: Shoals Seeks Sealing. involves only procedural issues about response times for filing documents. In Docket Entries 302 and 334, Shoals argues that the materials redacted in “The Fourth Circuit has not clarified its memorandum in support of its which right of access, or if any right of Motion for Leave to Take Additional access, attaches to documents filed Deposition, Docket Entry 305, and with non-dispositive pretrial motions, sealed Exhibits 1–17 related thereto, such as documents related to Docket Entries 305-1 through 305-17, discovery motions.” Smithkline contain its confidential business Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Labs., No. information, the disclosure of which 1:15CV360, 2017 WL 11552659, at *3 may cause substantial harm to Shoals (M.D.N.C. Mar. 7, 2017). However, or a third-party. Docket Entry 302, ¶¶ district courts in this Circuit have 10–11; Docket Entry 334, ¶ 10. concluded that documents filed in support of a motion for discovery For Exhibit 18, Docket Entry 336, which involves purely procedural Shoals argues that the material may rather than substantive matters are contain Voltage’s confidential not judicial records and the right of business information. Docket Entry public access does not apply. See, e.g., 334, ¶ 11. In support of its motions, Azima v. Del Rosso, No. 1:20CV954, Shoals submitted the declarations of 2025 WL 2903820, at *1 (M.D.N.C. its attorney who affirms that the July 14, 2025); Lord Corp. v. S & B plaintiff seeks to seal materials that Tech. Prods., Inc., No. 5:09CV205, include or pertain to confidential 2012 WL 895947, at *1 (E.D.N.C. Mar. business information. Docket Entries 15, 2012) (citing Covington v. 302-2, ¶ 5; 334-2, ¶ 5.

Semones, Civ. Act. No. 7:06CV614, Voltage has responded to the motions, 2007 WL 1170644, at *2 (W.D. Va. agreeing that Docket Entries 305-2, Apr. 17, 2007)); Kinetic Concepts, Inc. 305-3, 305-6, 305-7, 305-11, 305-12, v. Convatec Inc, No.1:08CV918, 2010 305-13, and 336 (Exhibits 2-3, 6-7, 11- WL 1418312, at *9-10 (M.D.N.C. Apr.

13, and 18) contain Voltage’s 2, 2010). confidential business information and Accordingly, the Court finds there is providing redacted versions of the no public right of access to the documents. See Docket Entry 379 at 1; Docket Entry 389 at 1. Voltage has respect to Docket Entries 305, 305-1, attached declarations from counsel 305-8, 305-9 and 305-10. explaining that disclosure of the Docket Entries 305-2 through 305-7, information would harm Voltage’s and 305-12, 305-13, and 305-17 competitive standing by giving (Exhibits 2 through 7, 12, 13, 17) are competitors “information to develop excerpts of expert reports prepared by competing designs and products.”

Dr. Cameron, Dr. Glancey, Dr. Codd Docket Entries 379-1, ¶ 8; 389-1, ¶ 8. or Dr. Kiaehl as part of the ITC case or Otherwise, Voltage challenges this case. Docket Entries 305-14 whether the remaining materials through 305-16 (Exhibits 14 through sealed by Shoals contain confidential 16) are excerpts from transcripts of business information. Docket Entry depositions from experts Dr. Codd at 4–5. and Dr. Glancey. Docket Entry 305-11 Despite Shoals’ assertion that the (Exhibit 11) is an unredacted excerpt materials all involve confidential from the February 6, 2026 Initial business information, some of the Determination by the ALJ. Docket exhibits clearly do not. Specifically, Entry 336 (Exhibit 18) is an excerpt of Docket Entries 305-1, 305-8, 305-9 the deposition transcript of Dr. James and 305-10 (Exhibits 1, 8, 9, and 10) Glancey. are emails between opposing counsel For each of these exhibits, either one about the length and scheduling of or both of the parties have indicated depositions, and the timing of some of the documents contain some the expert report deadlines. The confidential information and a review emails are routine communications of the materials indicates sensitive between counsel and do not contain information contained therein. Given confidential or privileged that there is no public right of access information. and the confidential nature of some Further, Shoals has also redacted information contained in these portions of its memorandum, Docket exhibits, the parties have Entry 305, citing language from the demonstrated good cause to allow the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) materials in Docket Entries 305-2 Initial Determination in the through 305-7, 305-11 through 305- International United States 17, and 336 (Exhibits 2 through 7 and International Trade Commission 11 through 18) to remain sealed. Thus, (ITC) case. See Docket Entry 305 at the motion to seal will be granted to 16. But the redacted language is now that extent. available in the public version of the 2. Motions: Voltage Seeks Initial Determination in the ITC case.

Sealing.

Therefore, there is no good cause to redact or seal these materials. The In Docket Entry 372, Voltage moves to motion to seal will be denied with seal its Opposition to Shoals’ Motion for Expedited Briefing on its Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Docket 379-3 through 379-8 and 379-12 Entry 371, pursuant to its duty under through 379-15. the governing Protective Order, see Docket Entry 46, to so designate materials marked confidential by an opposing party and/or third party.

Shoals has now responded with its JoAnna Gibsor’¥McFadden position, agreeing that Voltage’s United States Magistrate Judge Opposition in Docket Entry 371 may be unsealed. Docket Entry 440 at 1-2. April 13, 2026 Accordingly, the Motion to Seal in Durham, NC Docket Entry 372 will be denied and Docket Entry 371 will be unsealed.

II. CONCLUSION IT IS HEREBY ORDRED that the motions to seal in Docket Entries 302 and 334 are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART and the motion to seal in Docket Entry 372 is DENIED.

The Clerk of Court is directed to unseal the memorandum in Docket Entry 305 and the exhibits in Docket Entries 305-1, 305-8, 305-9, 305-10 and 371.

In providing its redacted versions of the exhibits in its responses to Shoals’s motions, beyond redacting its confidential business information, Voltage failed to seal the materials at Docket Entry 379. In keeping with the Court’s ruling on these motions to seal, the Clerk is directed to correct this oversight and seal Docket Entries