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, ) ) ) 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 derives from two sources, the on the defendants’ motions to seal common law and the First filed in Docket Entries 400 and 405.1 Amendment. United States ex rel.

For the reasons set forth below, the Oberg v. Nelnet, Inc., 105 F.4th 161, motion in Docket Entry 400 will be 170–71 (4th Cir. 2024). However, the granted in part and denied in part, right of access is not absolute and can and the motion in Docket Entry 405 be rebutted. Rushford v. New Yorker, will be granted. Mag., Inc., 846 F.2d 249, 253 (4th Cir. 1988). The burden of establishing a right to limit public access is on the I. DISCUSSION party claiming the need for confidentiality. Id. A. Legal Standard

The common law right of access The public has a long-established applies to all judicial records but can right of access to judicial records. be rebutted if “countervailing Nixon v. Warner, Commc’ns, Inc., interests heavily outweigh the public 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978); Va. Dept. of interests in access.” Id. The First State Police v. Wash. Post, 386 F.3d Amendment right of access is 567, 575 (4th Cir. 2004). The right Appended to this order and identifying the documents at issue in memorandum opinion is a chart each motion. narrower and applies only to The motions to seal in Docket Entries particular judicial records and 400 and 405 address materials filed documents. Doe v. Public Citizen, 749 in response to a motion for F.3d 246, 266 (4th Cir. 2014). To preliminary injunction. The public overcome the right of access based on right of access for documents filed in the First Amendment a party must connection with a motion for a show “a compelling governmental preliminary injunction stems from interest” and that the restriction is the First Amendment. See, e.g., “narrowly tailored.” Id. Natera, Inc. v. NeoGenomics Lab’ys, Inc., No. 1:23CV629, 2024 WL Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) 1464744, at *2 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 4, empowers the court to “protect a 2024); RLI Ins. Co. v. Nexus Servs., party from undue burden or expense, Inc., No. 18-CV-66, 2018 WL including by restricting access to 10602398, at *1 (W.D. Va. Oct 30, materials that constitute confidential 2018). Therefore, to seal the materials research, development, or addressed in the instant motions the commercial information.” See Kinetic parties must show a compelling Concepts, Inc. v. Convatec Inc., No. interest that outweighs the right of 1:08CV00918, 2010 WL 1418312, at public access and that there is no less *10 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 2, 2010). In asking restrictive way to protect the interest. the Court to exercise this authority, Doe, 749 F.3d at 266. though, it is insufficient for a party to broadly assert materials contain B. Public Notice confidential or sensitive information without providing “specific Before addressing a motion to seal, a underlying reasons for the district court must give the public notice and court to understand how [a party] a reasonable opportunity to contest reasonably could be affected by the the motion. Doe, 749 F. 3d at 272. The release of such information.” Trs. of duty to provide notice is satisfied Purdue Univ. v. Wolfspeed, Inc., No. when a motion to seal is docketed 1:21CV840, 2023 WL 2776193, at *2 “reasonably in advance of deciding (M.D.N.C. Feb. 28, 203) (quoting Va. the issue.” Stone v. Univ. of Maryland Dep’t of State Police, 386 F.3d at 579). Med. Sys. Corp., 855 F.2d 178, 181 (4th Cir. 1988) (citing In re Knight In weighing a motion to seal, a court Publ’g Co., 743 F.2d 231, 235 (4th Cir. must consider less drastic alternatives 1984)). The most recently filed to sealing and if a motion is allowed, motion at issue was docketed on the court must “state the reasons” and March 11, 2026, see Docket Entry 405, explain reasons for “rejecting and the other motion has been alternatives to sealing.” Va. Dep’t of pending longer. This has provided the State Police, 386 F.3d at 576. public with adequate notice and a reasonable opportunity to intervene, and no objections have been raised.

See, e.g., Hunter v. Town of pages of its Opposition brief. See Mocksville, 961 F. Supp. 2d 803, 806 Docket Entry 398 at 28, 30.2 Voltage (M.D.N.C. 2013) (one month and a asserts the statements contain day satisfied “the ‘public notice’ “confidential information on prerequisite to entry of a sealing Voltage’s sales and business order”). strategies,” the disclosure of which will reveal proprietary information C. Docket Entry 400 and harm its competitive standing.

Docket Entry 401 at 6.

In Docket Entry 400, Voltage moves to redact its Opposition to Shoals’ The interest in preserving the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, confidentiality of sensitive business Docket Entry 398, and moves to seal information such as “proprietary and Exhibits 1-5 and 7-18 attached to the trade-secret” information may Opposition, Docket Entries 398-1 outweigh the right of access under the through 398-5, and 398-6 through First Amendment. Doe, 749 F.3d at 398-17. For some of these materials 269. However, as noted above, any Voltage moves to protect its own efforts to seal must be narrowly confidential information, but for tailored. Va. Dep’t of State Police, 386 other materials Voltage moves F.3d at 576. pursuant to its duty under the governing Protective Order, see Voltage’s proposed redactions are Docket Entry 46, for materials limited in nature and focus on marked confidential by an opposing manufacturing and shipment times, party and/or third party. the disclosure of which could harm Voltage’s competitive standing. Thus, 1. Materials: Voltage Asserts Voltage has demonstrated a Confidentiality compelling interest in protecting the information it seeks to redact and has Voltage asserts that statements in its narrowly tailored its request. The Opposition (Docket Entry 398) and Court grants the motion to seal with Exhibits 1, 7-9, and 14-18 (Docket respect to the proposed redactions in Entries 398-1, 398-6 through 398-8, Docket Entry 398. Furthermore, as and 398-13 through 398-17) contain Shoals has not asserted the need to its confidential business information seal any additional information in the and therefore should be sealed. Opposition brief, the document may Docket Entries 401 at 5-6, 9; 400-1 at otherwise be unsealed. Voltage is 2-3. First, Voltage moves to redact directed to file in the record a publicly several lines of information on two available copy of the Opposition with All citations in this Memorandum located at the bottom right-hand corner Opinion and Order to documents filed of the documents as they appear in with the Court refer to the page numbers CM/ECF. the redactions as reflected in Docket strategies.” Docket Entries 401 at 7; Entry 398. 400-1 at 2.

For the exhibits, Voltage has moved to Docket Entry 398-8 (Exhibit 9) is an seal the materials in their entirety and excerpt from a hearing transcript of asserts it “is not aware of any less the testimony of Ryan Herring in the drastic means for protecting this ITC case, addressing Voltage’s sensitive information from public inventory practices and addressing disclosure.” Docket Entry 401 at 9. the Shoals’ expert opinion regarding the satisfaction of the economic prong Specifically, for Docket Entries 398-1 of the domestic industry requirement. and 7 (Exhibits 1 and 8), Voltage Docket Entry 398-16 (Exhibit 17) is an states that the documents contain excerpt from Mr. Herrington’s “internal layouts and configurations Rebuttal Expert Report in the ITC of its alternative designs.” Docket case. While some of the information Entries 400 at 3; 400-1 at 2-3. in these exhibits may be confidential, the documents also contain non- Docket Entry 398-1 (Exhibit 1) is confidential information throughout.

Shoals’ Petition for Commission Review of the 1438 Investigation in Docket Entry 398-13 (Exhibit 14) is an the ITC case. Docket Entry 398-7 excerpt of the deposition of Abran (Exhibit 8) is an excerpt from Daniel Olson, a corporate representative of Codd’s expert report. Docket Entry Voltage. A substantial portion of the 398-1 appears to contain proprietary 14-page excerpt is introductory design information but also contains information or otherwise non- non-confidential information confidential material. throughout the 30-page exhibit, including excerpts from a press Docket Entry 398-15 (Exhibit 16) is a release, legal standards, and Shoals’ transcript of the July 9, 2025, arguments. Likewise, Docket Entry deposition of Jurgen Krehnke, a 398-7 contains design specifics, but former Voltage employee. The also contains numerous pages of non- transcript addresses details of confidential information such as Voltage’s U.S. inventory practices and introductory information and production time for its LYNX background information on Dr. Codd. products. Id. While it may contain confidential information, the For Docket Entries 398-8, 398-13, document also includes information 398-15, and 398-16 (Exhibits 9, 14, 16, and 17, respectively), Voltage asserts the materials should be sealed because the exhibits contain “confidential information on Voltage’s sales and business already publicly available in other and 398-16, in their entirety. documents.3 However, Voltage will be given an opportunity to more narrowly tailor Consequently, for each of the exhibits the request to seal these exhibits in Docket Entries 398-1, 398-7, 398- within 14 days of the entry of this 8, 398-13, 398-15, and 398-16, while Order. In the interim, Docket Entries the documents may contain 398-1, 398-7, 398-8, 398-13, 398-15, confidential information, they also and 398-16 will remain sealed. contain information which does not warrant sealing, in some cases Docket Entries 398-6 and 398-14 substantial amounts. In its motion, (Exhibits 7 and 15) are unofficial Voltage has not precisely identified transcripts of the bench trial the information it deems sensitive proceedings. Because those and confidential or explained why transcripts remain under seal, the such information cannot be redacted. Court will grant the motion to seal Instead, Voltage rests on its blanket with respect to Docket Entries 398-6 assertion that there is no way to more and 398-14. narrowly tailor its request to seal.

Docket Entry 401 at 9. However, Docket Entry 398-17 (Exhibit 18) is a Voltage has failed to demonstrate a three-page chart reflecting specific compelling interest that warrants shipping time frames for the LYNX sealing the exhibits in their entirety. product. Voltage asserts that this is Nor is it incumbent upon the Court to confidential information abouts its sort through the documents to sales process, the disclosure of which identify information that may be will harm its competitive standing. sealed. See Sacks Holdings, Inc. v. Docket Entries 400 at 3; 401 at 6.

Grin Nat. USA Ltd., No. 1:23CV1058, Thus, Voltage has shown a compelling 2025 WL 2718967, at *2 (M.D.N.C. interest in keeping this information Sept. 24, 2025) (“While a court will private and that there is no less sometimes sort through an overbroad restrictive way to protect the motion to seal if it is not too information. The Court will grant the complicated, it has no duty to do so.”). motion to seal with respect to Docket Entry 398-17.

Accordingly, the motion to seal is denied as overly broad insofar as Voltage moves to seal Docket Entries 398-1, 398-7, 398-8, 398-13, 398-15, For example, the fact that Voltage does the Initial Determination by the ALJ in not maintain an inventory of LYNX in the the ITC case. See Re: Certain United States is information already Photovoltaic Trunk Bus Cable openly available in the public version of Assemblies and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1438.

2. Materials: Shoals Asserts 25. Shoals has not filed a response to Confidentiality support sealing any of the documents and the time for doing so has expired.

With respect to Docket Entries 398-2 through 398-5 and 398-9 through However, the district court recently 398-12 (Exhibits 2-5 and 10-13), placed Docket Entries 398-2, 398-3, Voltage has moved to seal materials 398-4, and 398-5 (Exhibits 2-5) marked confidential by Shoals or a under seal, at least temporarily, at the third-party pursuant its duty under bench trial. Therefore, the Court will the Protective Order. See Docket grant the motion to seal with respect Entries 46; 400 at 4. Voltage is not to Docket Entries 398-2, 398-3, 398- asserting confidentiality on its behalf 4, and 398-5.4 for these documents, and in fact disputes the confidentiality of these Docket Entries 398-9 through 398-12 materials. Docket Entry 400 at 4. (Exhibits 10-13) are excerpts from various depositions.5 Voltage disputes Where the filing party is not the party the confidentiality of the materials in claiming confidentiality, the party these exhibits, see Docket Entry 400 claiming confidentiality must file a at 4, and Shoals has not responded to response within 14 days to show why address the need, if any, to seal these sealing is necessary, provide redacted exhibits. Without Shoals’ response, versions of documents that do not the information before the Court is need to be fully sealed, and provide insufficient to demonstrate a unredacted versions of documents if compelling interest that outweighs no sealing is required. See LR 5.4; the right to public access for Exhibits Parties’ Rule 5.5 Report, Docket Entry 10-13. Accordingly, the Court will Exhibit 2 is a copy of February 21, 2024, products from Voltage’s products. notes by Paul Johnson entered as Exhibit Exhibit 11, Docket Entry 398-10, is an DTX 411 at the bench trial. Exhibits 3 and excerpt of the transcript from the June are December 17, 2024 emails between 13, 2025, deposition of Mr. Bardos in the Paul Johnson and Eric Maschoff entered ITC case discussing different solar as exhibits DTX-417 and 418 at the bench assembly technology solutions and some trial. Id. at 129-30; 132-33. Exhibit 5 is a of the project bids that Shoals lost.

Maschoff Brennan billing invoice. The Exhibit 12, Docket Entry 398-11, is an Maschoff Brennan invoices were sealed excerpt of the May 30, 2025, deposition as Exhibits DTX 160-165 at the bench of Karen Bazela in the ITC case trial. Id. at 102-03. discussing Shoals’ competitors and their differing technology. Exhibit 13, Docket Exhibit 10, Docket Entry 398-9, is an Entry 398-12, is an excerpt from a excerpt of the transcript from the December 10, 2025, deposition of Ms. December 30, 2025, deposition of Arpad Bazela in this case addressing lost project Dominic Bardos addressing Shoals’ bids and alternative technology solutions marketing efforts to differentiate its for projects. deny the motion to seal Docket review of the exhibit indicates that the Entries 398-9, 398-10, 398-11, and confidential information is peppered 398-12. substantially throughout, and a redacted version of the document D. Docket Entry 405 would not be practical or useful.

Accordingly, the Court grants the In Docket Entry 405, Voltage moves motion to seal Docket Entry 404-1. to redact its Reply to Shoals’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Docket II. CONCLUSION Entry 404, and moves to seal Exhibit to the Declaration of Philip Ou, This Order provides Voltage with the Docket Entry 404-1.6 opportunity to modify overly broad attempts to seal certain exhibits. This With respect to the Reply, the is the last such dispensation. The redactions are limited to several lines standard for sealing is well-settled of text and quotes from emails and going forward there will be no entered into evidence under seal at further second chances to more the bench trial. Accordingly, the Court narrowly tailor a request to seal or will grant the motion to seal and provide the Court with additional permit the filing of the redacted information necessary to make a version of the Reply reflected in reasoned determination prior to Docket Entry 404. unsealing.

Docket Entry 404-1 (Exhibit 3) is an IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: excerpt from Kimberly Cameron’s Rebuttal Expert Report. Voltage The Motion to Seal, Docket Entry asserts that the excerpt “contains 400, is GRANTED IN PART AND confidential information regarding DENIED IN PART. The Clerk shall Voltage’s internal layouts, unseal Docket Entries 398-9, 398-10, configurations and manufacturing 398-11, and 398-12. process of its products and alternative designs,” the disclosure of which The Motion to Seal, Docket Entry 405, could harm its competitive standing. is GRANTED.

Docket Entry 405-2. Voltage has thus established a compelling interest in IT IS ORDERED that, on or before protecting this proprietary design fourteen days from the entry of this information which outweighs the Order, Voltage is directed to file in the right of public access. Further, a record a publicly available copy of the In the Motion to Seal, Docket Entry 405, Entries 403 and 404, and the document Voltage refers to the document as a itself is titled a Supplemental Opposition Reply, but the docket entry refers to the to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary document as a Response, see Docket Injunction.

Opposition brief with the redactions as reflected in Docket Entry 398.

IT IS ORDERED that, on or before fourteen days from the entry of this Order, to the extent Voltage still asserts Docket Entries 398-1, 398-7, 398-8, 398-13, 398-15, and 398-16 (Exhibits 1, 8, 9, 14, 16, and 17) contain confidential information, Voltage is directed to make a renewed showing in support of its request to seal with narrowly tailored redactions of confidential information along with an explanation for the court to understand how disclosure of the redacted material would harm the party or why the request to seal cannot be more narrowly tailored. If Voltage fails to file documents and a renewed showing withing the time allowed, the exhibits will be unsealed.

J bh a cFadden United States Magistrate Judge May 11, 2026 Durham, NC APPENDIX A Docket Entry 400 Voltage’s Opposition to Shoals’ Motion DE 398 for Preliminary Injunction, redactions at pages 28, 307 Exh. 1, Shoals’ Petition for DE 398-1 Commission Review in the ITC case Exh. 2, Feb. 21, 2024, notes of P. DE 398-2 Johnson Exh. 3, Dec. 2024, Maschoff Brennan DE 398-3 emails (375 Patent) Exh. 4, Dec. 2024, Maschoff Brennan DE 398-4 emails (376 Patent) Exh. 5, Maschoff Brennan invoice DE 398-5 Exh. 7, Unofficial Tr., Day 3 of Bench DE 398-6 Trial Exh. 8, Excerpt from Daniel Codd DE 398-7 Expert Report Exh. 9, Excerpt from Tr. from ITC DE 398-8 hearing Exh. 10, Excerpt from Dominic Bardos DE 398-9 Deposition in this case Exh. 11, Excerpt from Dominic Bardos DE 398-10 Deposition in ITC case Exh. 12, Excerpt from Karen Bazela DE 398-11 Deposition in this case Exh. 13, Excerpt from Karen Bazela DE 398-12 Deposition in ITC case Exh. 14, Excerpt from Abe Olson DE 398-13 Deposition in ITC case Exh. 15, Unofficial Tr., Day 1 of Bench DE 398-14 Trial Exh. 16, Excerpt from Jurgen Krehnke DE 398-15 Deposition in ITC case Exh. 17, Excerpt from Ryan DE 398-16 Herrington Rebuttal Report in ITC case Exh. 18, Record of LYNX Shipments DE 398-17 Page citations refer to the page numbers located at the bottom right-hand corner of the document as they appear on CM/ECF.

Docket Entry 405 Response/Reply, redactions at pages DE 404 7-8 Exhibit 3, Excerpt from Rebuttal DE 404-1 Report of Dr. Cameron prepared for this case