Nanometrics, Incorporated v. Optical Solutions, Inc., No. 5:2018cv00417 - Document 146 (N.D. Cal. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 138 , 140 , AND 142 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL EXHIBITS TO DEFENDANT NANOMETRICS, INC.S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PLAINTIFF OPTICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 6/21/2023. (mdllc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/21/2023)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Nanometrics, Incorporated v. Optical Solutions, Inc. Doc. 146 Case 5:18-cv-00417-BLF Document 146 Filed 06/21/23 Page 1 of 12 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 NANOMETRICS, INCORPORATED, et al., 7 8 Plaintiffs, 9 v. 10 OPTICAL SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Defendants. 12 OPTICAL SOLUTIONS INCORPORATED, 13 Plaintiff, Lead Case No. 18-cv-00417-BLF Case No. 18-cv-03276-BLF ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL EXHIBITS TO DEFENDANT NANOMETRICS, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PLAINTIFF OPTICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Re: ECF Nos. 138, 140, 142] 14 v. 15 NANOMETRICS INCORPORATED, Defendant. 16 17 18 19 Before the Court are (1) Defendant Nanometrics, Inc.’s (“Nanometrics”) administrative motion to file under seal exhibits in support of its motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 138; 20 (2) Plaintiff Optical Solutions, Inc.’s (“Optical”) administrative motion to consider whether to seal 21 exhibits in support of its opposition to Nanometrics’s motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 22 140; and (3) Nanometrics’s response to Optical’s administrative motion to consider whether to 23 seal exhibits, ECF No. 142.1 Having reviewed the parties’ submissions and applicable sealing 24 law, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the administrative motions. 25 26 27 28 1 Although Nanometrics is the plaintiff and Optical the defendant in the lead case of this consolidated action, the Court refers to Optical as the plaintiff and Nanometrics the defendant in this order because the pending motions to seal relate to the briefing on Nanometrics’s motion for summary judgment on Optical’s operative complaint. Dockets.Justia.com Case 5:18-cv-00417-BLF Document 146 Filed 06/21/23 Page 2 of 12 1 2 I. LEGAL STANDARD “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 3 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 4 5 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 6 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to 7 motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action,” Ctr. for Auto 8 Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016), bear the burden of overcoming 9 10 the presumption with “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 1178–79 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 12 13 14 15 16 17 Compelling reasons justifying the sealing of court records generally exist “when such ‘court files might . . . become a vehicle for improper purposes,’” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598), such as: “to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements,” id.; to “release trade secrets,” id.; or “as sources of business information that might harm a litigant's competitive standing,” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598–99). On the other hand, “[t]he mere fact that the production 18 of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation 19 20 will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning” will 21 not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation 22 omitted). And although a protective order sealing the documents during discovery may reflect a 23 court’s previous determination that good cause—a lower threshold than that required for finding a 24 compelling reason to seal—exists to keep the documents sealed, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179– 25 80, but a blanket protective order that allows the parties to designate confidential documents does 26 not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine whether each particular document should 27 remain sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) (“Reference to a stipulation or protective order that 28 2 Case 5:18-cv-00417-BLF Document 146 Filed 06/21/23 Page 3 of 12 1 allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a 2 document, or portions thereof, are sealable.”). In addition, the Local Rules of this Court require that all requests to seal be “narrowly 3 4 tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(a). That is, the sealing motion 5 must include “a specific statement of the applicable legal standard and the reasons for keeping a 6 document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that 7 warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive 8 alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Id. at 79-5(c)(1). 9 II. United States District Court Northern District of California 10 DISCUSSION The Court has reviewed the sealing motions. The basis of the parties’ requests is that the 11 information has been designated by Nanometrics as either “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes 12 Only” or “Confidential” pursuant to the parties’ protective order. ECF No. 138 at 3; ECF No. 140 13 at 2; ECF No. 142 at 3. Nanometrics seeks to seal information related to its “research and 14 development, technical designs, and performance testing of its tools and their components.” ECF 15 No. 138-1 ¶ 4; ECF No. 142-1 ¶ 4. The documents at issue contain “valuable and sensitive trade 16 secret information,” including technical documentation and internal communications regarding the 17 performance of tools that Nanometrics asserts are not publicly disclosed or are only disclosed to 18 external entities subject to nondisclosure agreements, and in some instances are not disseminated 19 outside of key personnel within Nanometrics. See id. Nanometrics contends that the public 20 disclosure of this information could reveal to competitors information about its research and 21 development, and related strategic business decisions. ECF No. 138 at 4; ECF No. 142 at 3–4. 22 The Court finds that Nanometrics has established compelling reasons to seal information 23 that would reveal its research and development, technical designs, performance testing, and 24 business strategies. See, e.g., In re Elec. Arts, 298 F. App’x. 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding 25 compelling reasons for sealing “business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive 26 strategy”); In re Google Location Hist. Litig., No. 5:18-cv-05062-EJD, 514 F. Supp. 3d 1147, 27 1162 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2021) (“Compelling reasons may exist to seal ‘trade secrets, marketing 28 strategies, product development plans, detailed product-specific financial information, customer 3 Case 5:18-cv-00417-BLF Document 146 Filed 06/21/23 Page 4 of 12 1 information, internal reports[.]’”) (citation omitted); Simpson Strong-Tie Co. Inc. v. MiTek Inc., 2 No. 20-cv-06957-VKD, 2023 WL 350401, at *2–3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2023) (granting sealing 3 request of “confidential business development and internal business strategy documents and 4 intellectual property of MiTek, including internal MiTek research and development information”). 5 However, the Court finds that several of the sealing requests are not narrowly tailored, and grants 6 in part and denies in part those requests. The Court's rulings on the sealing requests are set forth 7 in the table below: 8 9 10 Public ECF No. / (Sealed ECF No.) 139-2 / (138-2) United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 139-2 / (138-3) Document to be Result Sealed Ex. 44 to Smith GRANTED. Declaration in Support of Nanometrics’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Highlighted portions) Reasoning The portions of the document that Nanometrics seeks to seal contain confidential analyses of the performance of a product and a third-party’s optical lens. See ECF No. 138-1 ¶ 4. Public disclosure of this information could cause competitive harm to Nanometrics by giving competitors insight into Nanometrics’s research and development, including proprietary features. See id. ¶¶ 5–6. Ex. 46 to Smith GRANTED Nanometrics states that it seeks to Declaration in Support IN PART seal “technical documentation” in of Nanometrics’s AND Exhibit 46. ECF No. 138-1 ¶ 4. Motion for Summary DENIED IN Upon review, the sealable Judgment (Entire PART. technical documentation begins on document) the second page of the exhibit. See ECF No. 138-3. Nanometrics has not provided support for the sealing of the entire first page, which includes email communications that appear to have contents not suitable for sealing, such as (at the least) email fields and introductory email language. 26 27 28 4 Case 5:18-cv-00417-BLF Document 146 Filed 06/21/23 Page 5 of 12 1 2 Public ECF No. / (Sealed ECF No.) 139-2 / (138-4) 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 139-2 / (138-5) United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 139-3 / (138-6) Document to be Sealed Ex. 47 to Smith Declaration in Support of Nanometrics’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Entire document) Result GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Reasoning Nanometrics states that it seeks to seal “technical documentation” in Exhibit 47. ECF No. 138-1 ¶ 4. Upon review, the sealable technical documentation begins on the second page of the exhibit. See ECF No. 138-4. Nanometrics has not provided support for the sealing of the entire first page, which includes email communications that appear to have contents not suitable for sealing, such as (at the least) email fields and introductory email language. Ex. 49 to Smith GRANTED Nanometrics states that it seeks to Declaration in Support IN PART seal internal communications of Nanometrics’s AND regarding performance analysis of Motion for Summary DENIED IN certain products. ECF No. 138-1 ¶ Judgment PART. 4. Although the sealing requests (Highlighted portions) as to this document are for the most part narrowly tailored, the proposed redactions include an entire page of redacted material that includes information, such as email fields, that Nanometrics has not shown to be sealable and that is inconsistent with other sealing requests within the document. See ECF No. 138-5 at 6 (NANO_000472308). Ex. 50 to Smith GRANTED. The document that Nanometrics Declaration in Support seeks to seal contains a of Nanometrics’s confidential internal analysis of the Motion for Summary performance of a product. See, Judgment (Entire ECF No. 138-1 ¶ 4. Public document) disclosure of this information could cause competitive harm to Nanometrics by giving competitors insight into Nanometrics’s research and development, including proprietary features. See id. ¶¶ 5–6. 27 28 5 Case 5:18-cv-00417-BLF Document 146 Filed 06/21/23 Page 6 of 12 1 2 Public ECF No. / (Sealed ECF No.) 139-3 / (138-7) 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 139-3 / (138-8) 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 141-3 / (140-3, 142-2) Document to be Result Sealed Ex. 54 to Smith GRANTED. Declaration in Support of Nanometrics’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Entire document) Reasoning The document that Nanometrics seeks to seal contains a confidential internal analysis of the performance of a product. See ECF No. 138-1 ¶ 4. Public disclosure of this information could cause competitive harm to Nanometrics by giving competitors insight into Nanometrics’s research and development, including proprietary features. See id. ¶¶ 5–6. Ex. 56 to A. Smith GRANTED. The portions of the document that Declaration in Support Nanometrics seeks to seal contain of Nanometrics’s confidential analyses of the Motion for Summary performance of a product and a Judgment third-party’s optical lens. See ECF (Highlighted portions) No. 138-1 ¶ 4. Public disclosure of this information could cause competitive harm to Nanometrics by giving competitors insight into Nanometrics’s research and development, including proprietary features. See id. ¶¶ 5–6. Ex. A to M. Johnson GRANTED Nanometrics states that it seeks to Declaration in Support IN PART seal “technical documentation” in of Optical’s AND Exhibit A. ECF No. 142-1 ¶ 5. Opposition to DENIED IN Upon review, the sealable Nanometrics’s Motion PART. technical documentation begins on for Summary the second page of the exhibit. See Judgment (Entire ECF Nos. 140-3, 142-2. document) Nanometrics has not provided support for the sealing of the entire first page, which includes email communications that appear to have contents not suitable for sealing, such as (at the least) email fields and introductory email language. 25 26 27 28 6 Case 5:18-cv-00417-BLF Document 146 Filed 06/21/23 Page 7 of 12 1 2 Public ECF No. / (Sealed ECF No.) 141-4 / (140-4, 142-3) Document to be Result Sealed Ex. B to M. Johnson GRANTED. Declaration in Support of Optical’s Opposition to Nanometrics’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Entire document) 141-5 / (140-5, 142-5) Ex. C to M. Johnson Declaration in Support of Optical’s Opposition to Nanometrics’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Highlighted portions) 141-12 / (140-6) Ex. J to M. Johnson DENIED. Declaration in Support of Optical’s Opposition to Nanometrics’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Entire document) 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 GRANTED as to portions highlighted in ECF No. 142-5. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 Reasoning The document that Nanometrics seeks to seal consists of excerpts of a presentation regarding a confidential internal analysis of the performance of a product. See ECF No. 142-1 ¶ 5. Public disclosure of this information could cause competitive harm to Nanometrics by giving competitors insight into Nanometrics’s research and development, including proprietary features. See id. ¶¶ 6, 10. The portions of the document that Nanometrics seeks to seal contain highly sensitive and detailed deposition testimony regarding Nanometrics’s technical trade secrets and commercially sensitive business opportunities. See ECF No. 142-1 ¶ 8. Public disclosure of this information could cause competitive harm to Nanometrics by giving competitors insight into Nanometrics’s research and development, as well as strategic business decisions. See id. ¶ 10. Optical lodged this document provisionally under seal as containing information designated confidential by Nanometrics. See ECF No. 140-6. Nanometrics responds that the document does not require sealing. See ECF No. 142 at 1–2, 5. Case 5:18-cv-00417-BLF Document 146 Filed 06/21/23 Page 8 of 12 1 2 Public ECF No. / (Sealed ECF No.) 141-16 / (140-7, 142-6) 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 141-17 / (140-8, 142-7) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 141-18 / (140-9, 142-9) Document to be Result Sealed Ex. N to M. Johnson GRANTED. Declaration in Support of Optical’s Opposition to Nanometrics’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Entire document) Reasoning The document that Nanometrics seeks to seal contains only technical documentation, including diagrams and handwritten annotations, disclosed to Optical pursuant to a nondisclosure agreement between the parties. See ECF Nos. 142-1 ¶¶ 5, 10; 1426. Public disclosure of this information could cause competitive harm to Nanometrics by giving competitors insight into Nanometrics’s research and development, including proprietary features. See id. ¶¶ 6, 10. Ex. O to M. Johnson GRANTED. The document that Nanometrics Declaration in Support seeks to seal contains only of Optical’s technical documentation, including Opposition to diagrams and handwritten Nanometrics’s Motion annotations, disclosed to Optical for Summary pursuant to a nondisclosure Judgment (Entire agreement between the parties. document) See ECF Nos. 142-1 ¶¶ 5, 10; 1427. Public disclosure of this information could cause competitive harm to Nanometrics by giving competitors insight into Nanometrics’s research and development, including proprietary features. See id. ¶¶ 6, 10. Ex. P to M. Johnson GRANTED The portion of the document that Declaration in Support as to portion Nanometrics seeks to seal contains of Optical’s highlighted highly sensitive information Opposition to in ECF No. related to discussions between Nanometrics’s Motion 142-9. Optical and Nanometrics regarding for Summary technical details and product Judgment adjustments contemplated during (Highlighted portions) product development. See ECF No. 142-1 ¶¶ 5, 10. Public disclosure of this information could cause competitive harm to Nanometrics by giving competitors insight into Nanometrics’s research and development, as well as strategic business decisions. See id. ¶¶ 6, 10. 8 Case 5:18-cv-00417-BLF Document 146 Filed 06/21/23 Page 9 of 12 1 2 Public ECF No. / (Sealed ECF No.) 141-20 / (140-10, 142-11) 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 141-23 / (140-11, 142-12) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 141-25 / (140-12, 142-13) Document to be Sealed Ex. R to M. Johnson Declaration in Support of Optical’s Opposition to Nanometrics’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Highlighted portions) Result GRANTED as to portions highlighted in ECF No. 142-11. Reasoning The portion of the document that Nanometrics seeks to seal contains highly sensitive information related to discussions between Optical and Nanometrics regarding technical details and product adjustments contemplated during product development. See ECF No. 142-1 ¶¶ 5, 10. Public disclosure of this information could cause competitive harm to Nanometrics by giving competitors insight into Nanometrics’s research and development, as well as strategic business decisions. See id. ¶¶ 6, 10. Ex. U to M. Johnson GRANTED Nanometrics states that it seeks to Declaration in Support IN PART seal “highly sensitive information of Optical’s AND related to discussions between Opposition to DENIED IN [Optical] and Nanometrics Nanometrics’s Motion PART. regarding technical details and for Summary adjustments” contained in Judgment (Entire “[p]ortions” of Exhibit U. ECF document) No. 142-1 ¶ 5. Upon review, every page of the document contains some information, such as email fields and introductory email language, that Nanometrics has not shown to require sealing, and the request to seal is denied as to those portions of the document. Ex. W to M. Johnson GRANTED. The document that Nanometrics Declaration in Support seeks to seal consists of excerpts of of Optical’s a presentation regarding a Opposition to confidential internal analysis of the Nanometrics’s Motion performance of a product. See for Summary ECF No. 142-1 ¶ 5. Public Judgment (Entire disclosure of this information document) could cause competitive harm to Nanometrics by giving competitors insight into Nanometrics’s research and development, including proprietary features. See id. ¶¶ 6, 10. 28 9 Case 5:18-cv-00417-BLF Document 146 Filed 06/21/23 Page 10 of 12 1 2 Public ECF No. / (Sealed ECF No.) 141-26 / (140-13, 142-14) Document to be Result Sealed Ex. X to M. Johnson GRANTED. Declaration in Support of Optical’s Opposition to Nanometrics’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Entire document) 141-27 / (140-14, 142-16) Ex. Y to M. Johnson Declaration in Support of Optical’s Opposition to Nanometrics’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Highlighted portions) GRANTED as to portions highlighted in ECF No. 142-16. 141-28 / (140-15, 142-18) Ex. Z to M. Johnson Declaration in Support of Optical’s Opposition to Nanometrics’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Highlighted portions) GRANTED as to portions highlighted in ECF No. 142-18. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10 Reasoning The document that Nanometrics seeks to seal consists of excerpts of a presentation regarding a confidential internal analysis of the performance of a product. See ECF No. 142-1 ¶ 5. Public disclosure of this information could cause competitive harm to Nanometrics by giving competitors insight into Nanometrics’s research and development, including proprietary features. See id. ¶¶ 6, 10. The portions of the document that Nanometrics seeks to seal contain highly sensitive and detailed deposition testimony regarding Nanometrics’s technical trade secrets and commercially sensitive business opportunities. See ECF No. 142-1 ¶ 8. Public disclosure of this information could cause competitive harm to Nanometrics by giving competitors insight into Nanometrics’s research and development, as well as strategic business decisions. See id. ¶ 10. The portions of the document that Nanometrics seeks to seal contain commercially sensitive descriptions of Nanometrics’s internal strategy and business practices, including its business partnerships with suppliers and certain practices to achieve a competitive advantage in the market. See ECF No. 142-1 ¶ 7. Public disclosure of this information could cause competitive harm to Nanometrics’s business negotiations and reveal strategic business decisions. See id. ¶¶ 7, 10. Case 5:18-cv-00417-BLF Document 146 Filed 06/21/23 Page 11 of 12 1 2 Public ECF No. / (Sealed ECF No.) 141-34 / (140-16, 142-19) 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 141-36 / (140-17, 142-20) 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 141-39 / (140-18, 142-21) Document to be Result Sealed Ex. FF to M. Johnson GRANTED. Declaration in Support of Optical’s Opposition to Nanometrics’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Entire document) Reasoning The document Nanometrics seeks to seal constitutes sensitive trade secret information, including specifications for a third-party vendor’s product. See ECF No. 142-1 ¶ 5. Public disclosure of this information could cause competitive harm to Nanometrics by jeopardizing its trade secret information and revealing strategic decision-making processes. Id. ¶¶ 6, 10. Ex. HH to M. Johnson GRANTED Nanometrics states that it seeks to Declaration in Support IN PART seal “commercially sensitive of Optical’s AND information including . . . Opposition to DENIED IN descriptions of business Nanometrics’s Motion PART. partnerships with various suppliers for Summary and Nanometrics’ business Judgment (Entire practices to achieve a competitive document) advantage.” ECF No. 142-1 ¶ 7. Upon review, the document contains some information, such as email fields and introductory email language, that Nanometrics has not shown to require sealing. The request to seal is denied as to those portions. Ex. KK to M. Johnson GRANTED. The document that Nanometrics Declaration in Support seeks to seal consists of technical of Optical’s documentation and performance Opposition to analyses of its products. See ECF Nanometrics’s Motion No. 142-1 ¶ 9. Public disclosure for Summary of this information could cause Judgment (Entire competitive harm to Nanometrics document) by giving competitors insight into Nanometrics’s research and development and strategic business decisions. See id. ¶ 10. 24 25 26 27 28 11 Case 5:18-cv-00417-BLF Document 146 Filed 06/21/23 Page 12 of 12 1 2 Public ECF No. / (Sealed ECF No.) 141-44 / (140-19, 142-23) 3 4 5 6 Document to be Sealed Ex. PP to M. Johnson Declaration in Support of Optical’s Opposition to Nanometrics’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Highlighted portions) Result Reasoning GRANTED as to portions highlighted in ECF No. 142-23. The portions of the document that Nanometrics seeks to seal contain highly sensitive and detailed deposition testimony regarding Nanometrics’s technical trade secrets and commercially sensitive business opportunities. See ECF No. 142-1 ¶ 8. Public disclosure of this information could cause competitive harm to Nanometrics by giving competitors insight into Nanometrics’s research and development, as well as strategic business decisions. See id. ¶ 10. 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 III. ORDER For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 1. Within seven days of the entry of this order, Nanometrics SHALL refile Exhibits 46, 47, and 49 to its Motion for Summary Judgment, redacted in accordance with the guidance provided for each of the three exhibits; 2. Within seven days of the entry of this order, Nanometrics SHALL provide Optical 16 with copies of Exhibits A, C, J, P, R, U, Y, Z, HH, and PP to Optical’s Opposition 17 to Nanometrics’s Motion for Summary Judgment, having redacted those exhibits in 18 19 20 21 accordance with this order; and 3. Within five days of Optical’s receipt from Nanometrics of the redacted versions of Exhibits A, C, J, P, R, U, Y, Z, HH, and PP, Optical SHALL refile those exhibits to its Opposition to Nanometrics’s Motion for Summary Judgment. 22 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 21, 2023 25 26 BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 27 28 12
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
