CelLink Corp. v. Manaflex LLC

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CELLINK CORP.,
Plaintiff,
v.
MANAFLEX LLC,
Defendant.
Case No. 23-cv-04231-HSG
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
MANAFLEX LLC’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER
PARTY’S MATERIAL SHOULD BE
SEALED
Re: Dkt. No. 140
Pending before the Court is Defendant Manaflex LLC’s Administrative Motion to
Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed. Dkt. No. 140. Plaintiff CelLink,
Corp. filed a declaration in support of sealing the materials. Dkt. 145. For the following reasons,
the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal
documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010). “This standard
derives from the common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including
judicial records and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d
1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “[A] strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.”
Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this strong presumption, the
party seeking to seal a document attached to a dispositive motion must “articulate compelling
reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the
public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial
process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations omitted). “In general,
‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing
Case 4:23-cv-04231-HSG Document 188 Filed 11/13/25 Page 1 of 3

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’
such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous
statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435
U.S. 589, 598 (1978)).
However, documents attached to non-dispositive motions are not subject to the same
strong presumption of access. See id. at 1179. Because such records “are often unrelated, or only
tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,” parties moving to seal must meet the lower
“good cause” standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Id. at 1179–80 (quotations
omitted). This requires only a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will
result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307
F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm,
unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus.,
Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotations omitted).
II. DISCUSSION
Defendant’s motion concerns a limited portion of its opposition to plaintiff’s declaration in
support of plaintiff’s renewed administrative motion for leave to file under seal portions of the
SAC. Dkt. Nos. 141, 140-3. Plaintiff designated the material referenced in Defendant’s
opposition and the SAC as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY.”
Defendant attached the unredacted SAC to its opposition, and now submits portions of paragraphs
14–16, 22, 128, 136, and 144–145 for a determination as to whether that material qualifies for
sealing. Dkt Nos. 138-3, 140-4. Plaintiff’s counsel Andrea Levinson then submitted a declaration
that explained that those materials disclose “information regarding CelLink’s confidential and
trade secret manufacturing processes for flexible circuits.” Dkt No. 145 at 2. Ms. Levenson
declares that the public disclosure of this material would cause irreparable damage to CelLink as
competitors could gain an unfair advantage from accessing this information. She also describes
that CelLink takes efforts to ensure that this material is not publicly disclosed and protects its
unauthorized use. Id. at 3-5.
After Defendant filed its motion, the Court decided Plaintiff’s motion seal the relevant
Case 4:23-cv-04231-HSG Document 188 Filed 11/13/25 Page 2 of 3

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
portions of the SAC. Dkt No. 146. The same reasoning applies here. For the benefit of a clear
record, “[b]ecause the complaint is the pleading on which this action is based, the Court applies
the ‘compelling reasons’ standard to the motion.” Dkt. No. 137 at 2. In its motion to seal portions
of the SAC, Plaintiff argued that certain paragraphs provide narrative descriptions and context for
a reader that go beyond “merely parrot[ing] sections of published documents.” Dkt. No. 138 at 4.
According to Plaintiff, “[t]his identification of Plaintiff’s most valuable secrets, not excerpts from
a public document, is what Plaintiff seeks to file under seal here.” Id.
The Court found—and finds again—that Plaintiff has satisfied the compelling reasons
standard. Plaintiff seeks to protect its trade secrets, which Defendants allegedly misappropriated
and disclosed in public documents, from further disclosure. Plaintiff has shown that the targeted
sections of Paragraphs 14-16, 22, 128, 136, and 144–145 of the SAC reflect Plaintiff’s
confidential and trade secret information, which satisfies the compelling reasons standard and
outweighs the public’s interest in viewing the documents.
Defendant’s opposition to the administrative motion to file documents under seal (Dkt. No.
141) was not filed in connection with a dispositive motion and thus only must meet the “good
cause” standard for sealing. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80. The material on Lines 13–19 of
page 2 in the Defendant’s opposition brief similarly contains sensitive trade secret information that
Plaintiff has sought to protect and would cause Plaintiff economic harm if publicly disclosed.
Plaintiff’s declaration satisfies the good cause standard.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion (Dkt. No. 140).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 13, 2025
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
Case 4:23-cv-04231-HSG Document 188 Filed 11/13/25 Page 3 of 3