Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02919/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02919-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

NORTEK AIR SOLUTIONS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

DMG CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-02919-BLF 

ORDER REGARDING SEALING 

MOTIONS

[Re: ECF 175, 185, 188, 196]

Before the Court are four administrative motions to file under seal in connection with the 

parties’ Motions for Summary Judgment. ECF 175, 185, 188, 196. For the reasons stated herein, 

the motions are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Unless a particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’” a “strong presumption in 

favor of access” to judicial records “is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 

447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 

1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). A party seeking to seal judicial records relating to a dispositive 

motion bears the burden of overcoming this presumption by articulating “compelling reasons 

supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public 

policies favoring disclosure.” Id. at 1178-79. Motions that are technically nondispositive may 

still require the party to meet the “compelling reasons” standard when the motion is more than

tangentially related to the merits of the case. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 

F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). This standard is invoked “even if the dispositive motion, or its 

attachments, were previously filed under seal or protective order.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 

(citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136). Compelling reasons for sealing court files generally exist when 

Case 5:14-cv-02919-BLF Document 216 Filed 06/06/16 Page 1 of 17
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

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. (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). However, 

“[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, 

incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its 

records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.

In this District, parties seeking to seal judicial records must furthermore follow Civil Local 

Rule 79-5, which requires, inter alia, that a sealing request be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing 

only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b) (emphasis added). Where the submitting party 

seeks to file under seal a document designated confidential by another party, the burden of 

articulating compelling reasons for sealing is placed on the designating party. Id. 79-5(e). 

II. DISCUSSION

The Court has reviewed the parties’ sealing motions and the declarations of the designating 

parties submitted in support. The Court finds the parties have articulated compelling reasons to 

seal certain portions of the submitted documents. The proposed redactions are also narrowly 

tailored. The Court’s rulings on the sealing requests are set forth in the tables below:

A. ECF 175

Identification of Documents 

to be Sealed

Description of Documents Court’s Order

Defendants’ Motion for 

Summary Judgment of 

Invalidity and NonInfringement

Document identifies and 

discusses details for specific 

customers’ facilities, and 

includes technical information 

about the configuration and 

capabilities of specific air 

handling units.

GRANTED

Exhibit 1: Opening Expert 

Report of Albert V. Karvelis 

Defendants’ Confidential 

Information (or that of its 

customers) redacted at: pgs. 

13-18 (customer information), 

and 18, 22-24 (technical 

information)

Document identifies and 

discusses details for specific 

customers’ facilities, and 

includes technical information 

about the configuration and 

capabilities of a specific 

customer’s air handling unit.

GRANTED as to Defendants’ 

Confidential Information (or 

that of its customers) redacted 

at: pgs. 13-18 (customer 

information), and 18, 22-24 

(technical information); 

DENIED as to remainder.

Exhibit 2: Excerpts, Expert Document contains GRANTED as to Defendants’ 

Case 5:14-cv-02919-BLF Document 216 Filed 06/06/16 Page 2 of 17
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

Report of Dr. James Rice 

Regarding Invalidity of U.S. 

Patent Nos. 7,922,442; 

8,414,251; 8,398,365; 

8,562,283; 8,694,175; 

8,727,700; and 8,734,086 

Defendants’ Confidential 

Information (or that of its 

customers) redacted at: pgs. 

50-52, 92-93, 96-98, 186-88, 

307-08 (customer 

information), and 50-52, 92, 

96, 186-87, 307 (technical 

information)

confidential excerpts from 

technical documents detailing 

the design, components, and 

technical features of an Energy 

Labs air-handling unit and its 

customers’ facilities.

Confidential Information (or 

that of its customers) redacted 

at: pgs. 50-52, 92-93, 96-98, 

186-88, 307-08 (customer 

information), and 50-52, 92, 

96, 186-87, 307 (technical 

information); DENIED as to 

remainder.

Exhibit 5: Excerpts, 

Deposition of Reza Irani 

(11/10/2015) 

Defendants’ Confidential 

Information (or that of its 

customers) redacted at: 95:12-

25

Document contains 

confidential discussion 

regarding the capabilities, 

design, and technical features 

of Energy Labs airhandling 

units

GRANTED

Exhibit 7: ELI_GHT00012131 Exhibit 7 is a set of internal 

Nortek (Temtrol brand) 

documents reflecting internal 

project specifications, purchase 

orders, sales documents, and 

technical information relating 

to Nortek products on a 

particular installation. Such 

information is publically 

unavailable and could harm 

Nortek if publically filed.

GRANTED

Exhibit 8: Excerpts, 

Supplemental Expert Report of 

Dr. Rice Regarding Invalidity 

of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,922,442; 

8,414,251; 8,398,365; 

8,562,283;8,694,175; 

8,727,700; and 8,734,086 

These excerpts are from the 

invalidity report of 

Defendants’ expert, Dr. James 

Rice. These excerpts contain, 

use, and analyze Nortek’s 

highly-confidential technical 

information about certain 

Nortek projects (sales of 

products) and could harm 

Nortek if publicly filed. These 

excerpts, for instance, contain 

analysis of detailed graphics 

from Nortek’s old project files, 

none of which is public.

GRANTED

Case 5:14-cv-02919-BLF Document 216 Filed 06/06/16 Page 3 of 17
4

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

Exhibit 9: Excerpts, 

Deposition of John Habel 

(2016-03- 10) 

These excerpts of testimony 

from Mr. John Habel, a Nortek 

witness who testified both in 

his personal capacity and as 

Nortek’s 30(b)(6) witness 

relating to the technical 

features of Nortek’s projects. 

His testimony includes specific 

discussion about the apparatus 

and functionality of Nortek’s 

products, which could harm 

Nortek if publicly filed.

GRANTED

Exhibit 10: Excerpts, 

Supplemental Expert Report of 

Albert V. Karvelis

These excerpts are from the 

supplemental invalidity report 

by Nortek’s technical expert, 

Dr. Albert V. Karvelis. These 

excerpts contain, use, and 

analyze Nortek’s highlyconfidential technical 

information, for instance 

excerpts from non-public 

project submittal documents, 

and could harm Nortek if 

publicly filed and made 

available to competitors

GRANTED

Exhibit 11: Excerpts, 

Deposition of A. Karvelis 

(3/16/2016) 

Defendants’ Confidential 

Information (or that of its 

customers) redacted at: pg. 332 

(customer information);

243, 376, 378, 383, 384, 385 

(technical information)

Document contains 

confidential customer 

information.

GRANTED as to Defendants’ 

Confidential Information (or 

that of its customers) redacted 

at: pg. 332 (customer 

information);

243, 376, 378, 383, 384, 385 

(technical information); 

DENIED as to remainder. 

Exhibit 12: Excerpts, 

Deposition of Albert Karvelis 

(3/17/2016) 

Defendants’ Confidential 

Information (or that of its 

customers) redacted at: 227-

231 (technical information) 

Document contains 

confidential customer 

information.

GRANTED as to Defendants’ 

Confidential Information (or 

that of its customers) redacted 

at: 227-231 (technical 

information); DENIED as to 

remainder.

Exhibit 13: Exhibit 61 to 

Opening Expert Report of 

Albert V. Karvelis 

Defendants’ Confidential 

Document contains 

confidential excerpts from 

technical documents detailing 

the design, components, and 

technical features of an Energy 

GRANTED as to Defendants’ 

Confidential Information (or 

that of its customers) redacted 

at: pgs. 1-56 (customer 

information), and 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 

Case 5:14-cv-02919-BLF Document 216 Filed 06/06/16 Page 4 of 17
5

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

Information (or that of its 

customers) redacted at: pgs. 1-

56 (customer information), and 

2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15-17, 

1925, 30-37, 39, 42-52, and 55 

(technical information) 

Labs air-handling unit and the 

specific capabilities customers’ 

air handling unit.

10, 12, 14, 15-17, 1925, 30-37, 

39, 42-52, and 55 (technical 

information); DENIED as to 

remainder.

Exhibit 14: Excerpts, 

Deposition of Lawrence 

Hopkins (6/15/2015) 

These excerpts are testimony 

from Mr. Lawrence Hopkins, 

the inventor of the patents-insuit, and relate in part to the 

technical features embodied by 

Nortek’s products. 

Nortek does not object to 

transcript pages pp. 226 

through 230 being filed 

publicly. 

The remaining pages of the 

excerpt include specific 

discussion about confidential 

information belonging to third 

party BasX Solutions 

(“BasX”), Mr. Hopkins’ new 

company. There, Mr. Hopkins 

discusses the apparatus and 

functionality of BasX 

products, which could harm 

BasX if publicly filed. This

DENIED as to pages 226-230, 

GRANTED as to remaining 

excerpts.

Exhibit 15: Exhibit 65 from the 

Deposition of A. Karvelis 

Nortek does not object to 

Exhibit 15 being filed

publicly.

DENIED

Exhibit 17: Excerpts, Rebuttal 

Expert Report of Albert V. 

Karvelis 

These excerpts from the 

rebuttal infringement report of 

Nortek’s technical expert Dr. 

Karvelis contain, use, and 

analyze testimony from both 

Defendants’ and Nortek’s 

expert and fact witnesses that 

contains discussion of 

confidential or highlyconfidential technical 

information, which could harm 

both Defendants and/or Nortek 

if publicly filed.

GRANTED

Exhibit 20: Excerpts, 

Deposition of Lawrence 

Hopkins (10/1/2008)

These excerpts are testimony 

from the inventor of the 

patents-in-suit, Mr. Lawrence 

Hopkins, and relate to the 

GRANTED

Case 5:14-cv-02919-BLF Document 216 Filed 06/06/16 Page 5 of 17
6

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

technical features embodied by 

certain Nortek products (i.e. 

the Intel Ireland project). They 

include specific discussion 

about the apparatus and

functionality of Nortek’s 

products, which could harm 

Nortek if publicly filed.

Exhibit 21: Excerpts, 

Deposition of Joe Naccarello 

(1/13/2013)

These excerpts of testimony 

from Mr. Joe Naccarello, a 

Nortek witness who testified 

both in his personal capacity 

and as Nortek’s 30(b)(6) 

witness for certain sales related 

topics, includes specific 

discussion about Nortek’s 

pricing structure, discount 

model, competitive analysis, 

and internal highlyconfidential business 

information, which could harm 

Nortek—especially if obtained 

by its competitors—if publicly 

filed.

GRANTED

Exhibit 22: Excerpts, 

Deposition of Joe Pipitone 

(11/13/2016) 

Defendants’ Confidential 

Information (or that of its 

customers) redacted at: 86, 87, 

88 

Document contains 

confidential excerpts from and 

opinion regarding technical 

documents detailing the 

design, components, and 

technical features of an Energy 

Labs airhandling unit and its 

customers’ facilities. 

GRANTED

Exhibit 23: Excerpts, 

Deposition of James Hilliard 

(11/12/2016) 

Defendants’ Confidential 

Information (or that of its 

customers) redacted at: 181, 

297 

Document contains 

confidential excerpts from and 

opinion regarding technical 

documents detailing the 

design, components, and 

technical features of an Energy 

Labs airhandling unit and its 

customers’ facilities. 

GRANTED

Exhibit 24: Excerpts, 

Deposition of Lawrence 

Hopkins (10/2/2008) 

These excerpts are testimony 

from the inventor of the 

patents-in-suit and relate to the 

technical features embodied by 

Nortek’s products. Given Mr. 

Hopkins’ relationship and 

experience with Nortek, these 

excerpts include specific 

discussion about the apparatus 

GRANTED

Case 5:14-cv-02919-BLF Document 216 Filed 06/06/16 Page 6 of 17
7

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

and functionality of Nortek’s 

products, which could harm 

Nortek if publicly filed.

Exhibit 25: Exhibit 66 from the 

Deposition of A. Karvelis 

This exhibit contains internal 

Nortek (Temtrol brand) 

documentation, for example, 

internal project specifications, 

purchase orders, sales 

documents, and technical 

information relating to a 

particular Nortek installation, 

none of which is publically 

available.

GRANTED

Exhibit 26: Exhibit 67 to the 

Deposition of A. Karvelis 

Defendants’ Confidential 

Information (or that of its 

customers) redactions at: pgs. 

1-3 (customer information), 

and 2-6 (technical information) 

Document contains 

confidential excerpts from 

technical documents detailing 

the design, components, and 

technical features of an Energy 

Labs air-handling unit and its 

customers’ facilities.

GRANTED as to 

Defendants’ Confidential 

Information (or that of its 

customers) redactions at: pgs. 

1-3 (customer information), 

and 2-6 (technical 

information); DENIED as to 

remainder.

Exhibit 27: Excerpts, Rebuttal 

Expert Report of Dr. James 

Rice Regarding NonInfringement 

Defendants’ Confidential 

Information (or that of its 

customers) redacted at: 41-43, 

77, 78, 79, 84-86, 93-96, 162-

163, 398-401, 407-410, 494-

496, 499, 566-567, 594 

Document contains 

confidential excerpts from and 

opinion regarding technical 

documents detailing the 

design, components, and 

technical features of an Energy 

Labs airhandling unit and its 

customers’ facilities.

GRANTED

Exhibit 29: Rebuttal Expert 

Report of Dr. James Rice, 

Exhibit D 

Defendants’ Confidential 

Information (or that of its 

customers) redacted at: 2-4 

Document contains 

confidential customer 

information.

GRANTED

B. ECF 185

Identification of Documents 

to be Sealed

Description of Documents Court’s Order

Defendants’ Opposition to 

Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment that 

Claims 16 and 25 of U.S. 

Patent No. 7,922,442 are Not 

The proposed redactions cite, 

quote from, or reference 

detailed proprietary technical 

information about products 

belonging to CleanPak 

GRANTED

Case 5:14-cv-02919-BLF Document 216 Filed 06/06/16 Page 7 of 17
8

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

Invalid Based on the CleanPak 

MRPF Technical Bulletin

Redacted at: pgs. 4:13-16, 6:8-

12

International (“Cleanpak”), a 

former third-party company 

which Nortek acquired in 

2006. Such information is

publically unavailable and 

could harm the CleanPak 

brand and, by extension, 

Nortek if publically filed.

Exhibit 2: Excerpts, Expert 

Report of Dr. James Rice

Regarding Invalidity of U.S. 

Patent Nos. 7,922,442;

8,414,251; 8,398,365; 

8,562,283; 8,694,175; 

8,727,700;

and 8,734,086

Nortek does not object to 

Exhibit 2 being filed publicly.

DENIED

Exhibit 3: Excerpts, Rebuttal 

Expert Report of Albert V.

Karvelis

Nortek does not object to 

Exhibit 3 being filed publicly.

DENIED

Exhibit 7: Email, Spradling to 

Benson et al (Dec. 10, 2004)

Nortek does not object to 

Exhibit 7 being filed publicly.

DENIED

Exhibit 8: Facsimile, Spradling 

to Jalai

Exhibit 8 is an internal 

facsimile communication from 

Huntair, a Nortek brand. 

Nortek seeks to seal Exhibit 8 

in its entirety, because the 

document is a confidential 

internal Nortek communication 

that contains proprietary 

technical information about 

Cleanpak and divulges 

internal, competitive-analysis

communications that would 

harm Nortek’s business if 

publically filed.

GRANTED

C. ECF 188

Identification of Documents 

to be Sealed

Description of Documents Court’s Order

Portions of Plaintiff’s 

Opposition to Defendants’ 

Motion for Summary 

Judgment of Invalidity and 

Non- Infringement 

Excerpts contain opinions that 

divulge detailed technical 

information about Nortek’s 

products, one installation in 

particular (the Temtrol 

System). The disclosure of this 

information would be 

particularly harmful to 

Nortek’s business. It also 

contains trade secret 

information about the Temtrol 

GRANTED

Case 5:14-cv-02919-BLF Document 216 Filed 06/06/16 Page 8 of 17
9

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

System, the public release of 

which would be harmful to 

Nortek.

Nortek’s Responsive Separate 

Statement in Opposition to 

Defendants’ Motion for 

Summary Judgment of NonInfringement and Invalidity

The document contains 

proprietary technical 

information, including details 

about one installation in 

particular (the Temtrol 

System), the disclosure of this 

information would be harmful 

to Nortek’s business.

GRANTED

Declaration of Dr. Albert 

Karvelis in Support of 

Nortek’s Opposition to 

Defendants’ Motion for 

Summary Judgment

The proposed redactions 

contain technical information 

about Nortek’s products, one 

installation in particular (“the 

Temtrol System”). The 

disclosure of this information 

would be particularly harmful 

to Nortek’s business. 

The proposed redactions also 

contain confidential excerpts 

from technical documents 

detailing the design, 

components, and technical 

features of specific Energy 

Labs air-handling unit and its 

customers’ facilities, and 

private third party customer 

information, including the 

layout and structure of 

customers’ facilities and 

various other sensitive details 

regarding the customer’s 

internal ventilation systems. 

The information proposed for 

redaction reflects a significant 

investment of financial and 

technical resources by both 

Defendants and third party 

customers.

GRANTED

Declaration of Mr. John Habel 

in Support of Nortek’s 

Opposition to Defendants’ 

Motion for Summary 

Judgment

The proposed redactions 

contain technical information 

about Nortek’s products, one 

installation in particular (the 

Temtrol System). The 

disclosure of this information 

would be particularly harmful 

GRANTED

Case 5:14-cv-02919-BLF Document 216 Filed 06/06/16 Page 9 of 17
10

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

to Nortek’s business.

Ex. D: Excerpts, 11/10/15 

Deposition of Mr. Ray Irani

The language proposed for 

redaction contains confidential 

excerpts from technical 

documents detailing the 

design, components, and 

technical features of specific 

Energy Labs air-handling unit 

and its customers’ facilities, 

and private third party 

customer information, 

including the characteristics of 

customers’ facilities and 

various other sensitive details 

regarding the customer’s 

internal ventilation systems.

GRANTED as to 6:7 and 21; 

209:2-3, 14-15, 18-21, and 24 

(customer information); 201:9-

10 and 12- 25; 204:11-12, 14, 

20, and 23; 205:16-19; 211:8, 

14-15, and 21-25; 212:6-9 

(technical information); and 

293:1-12 and 293:20- 294:11 

(business plans); DENIED as 

to remainder.

Ex. E: Excerpts, 11/13/15 

Deposition of Mr. James O. 

Domholt

The language proposed for 

redaction contains confidential 

excerpts from technical 

documents detailing the 

design, components, and 

technical features of specific 

Energy Labs air-handling unit 

and its customers’ facilities, 

and private third party 

customer information, 

including the characteristics of 

customers’ facilities and 

various other sensitive details 

regarding the customer’s 

internal ventilation systems. 

The information proposed for 

redaction reflects a significant 

investment of financial and 

technical resources by both 

Defendants and third party 

customers.

GRANTED as to 4:17 and 19-

20; 273:22; 275:8-9 (customer 

information); 271:12-14 and 

17; 272:4, 8, and 22-24 

(technical information); 

DENIED as to remainder.

Ex. G: Excerpts, 03/15/16 

Deposition of Dr. James Rice 

deposition

Defendants do not object to it

being filed publicly.

DENIED

Exhibit H: Excerpts, 03/14/16 

Deposition of Dr. James Rice 

The proposed redactions 

contain technical information 

about Nortek’s products, one 

installation in particular (“the 

Temtrol System”). The 

disclosure of this information 

would be particularly harmful 

to Nortek’s business. The 

proposed redactions also 

contain confidential customer 

information.

GRANTED

Ex. J: Rebuttal Expert Report 

of Dr. James Rice, Ex. E (CFD 

Defendants do not object to 

Exhibit J being filed publicly.

DENIED

Case 5:14-cv-02919-BLF Document 216 Filed 06/06/16 Page 10 of 17
11

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

Model)

Ex. K: Excerpts, 11/13/15 

Deposition of Mr. Joe Pipitone

The language proposed for 

redaction contains confidential 

excerpts from technical 

documents detailing the 

design, components, and 

technical features of specific 

Energy Labs air-handling unit 

and its customers’ facilities, 

and private third party 

customer information, 

including the characteristics of 

customers’ facilities and 

various other sensitive details 

regarding the customer’s 

internal ventilation systems. 

The information proposed for 

redaction reflects a significant 

investment of financial and 

technical resources by both 

Defendants and third party 

customers.

GRANTED as to 123:21; 

124:4 and 6; 138:20-21; 

139:23; 184:11 and 19; 186:7 

(customer information); and 

173:20; 174:11; 175:1-2, 4, 7-

10, and 17-19; 180:17 and 20; 

181:23; 182:2-3, 6, 17-18, and 

22-24; 183:4; 184:3; 187:25; 

188:4, 9, 12-13, and 15; and 

271: 6- 8 (technical 

information); DENIED as to 

remainder.

Ex. L: Excerpts, 11/03/15 

Deposition of Mr. Ron Sweet

The language proposed for 

redaction contains confidential 

excerpts from technical 

documents detailing the 

design, components, and 

technical features of specific 

Energy Labs air-handling unit 

and its customers’ facilities, 

and private third party 

customer information, 

including the characteristics of 

customers’ facilities and 

various other sensitive details 

regarding the customer’s 

internal ventilation systems.

GRANTED as to 251:9 

(customer information); 246:9, 

20-21; 247:5, 10, 17-19, and 

22-23; 248:8, 15-16; and 250:9 

(technical information); 

DENIED as to remainder. 

Ex. M: Excerpts, 11/02/15 

Deposition of Mr. Victor 

Murphy

The language proposed for 

redaction contains confidential 

excerpts from technical 

documents detailing the 

design, components, and 

technical features of specific 

Energy Labs air-handling unit 

and its customers’ facilities, 

and private third party 

customer information, 

including the characteristics of 

customers’ facilities and 

various other sensitive details 

regarding the customer’s 

internal ventilation systems. 

The information proposed for 

redaction reflects a significant 

investment of financial and 

technical resources by both 

GRANTED as to 181:18-19; 

255:24-25 (customer 

information); and 285:14-15, 

20, and 22-23; 286:7-10 and 

17; 290:4, 8, 11, and 19 

(technical information); 

DENIED as to remainder.

Case 5:14-cv-02919-BLF Document 216 Filed 06/06/16 Page 11 of 17
12

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

Defendants and third party 

customers.

Exhibit O: Excerpts, 03/16/16 

Deposition of Dr. Albert 

Karvelis

Excerpts contain opinions that 

divulge detailed technical 

information about Nortek’s 

products, one installation in 

particular (the Temtrol 

System). The disclosure of this 

information would be 

particularly harmful to 

Nortek’s business. Excerpts 

also contain confidential 

excerpts from technical 

documents detailing the 

design, components, and 

technical features of specific 

Energy Labs air-handling unit 

and its customers’ facilities, 

and private third party 

customer information, 

including the layout and 

structure of customers’ 

facilities and various other 

sensitive details regarding the 

customer’s internal ventilation 

systems.

GRANTED

Ex. P: Excerpts, 11/12/15 

Deposition of Mr. James 

Hilliard

The language proposed for 

redaction contains confidential 

customer information.

GRANTED as to 32:16 and 

18; DENIED as to remainder.

Ex. R: Energy Labs Air 

Handler Unit Field Start-Up 

Report (DMGC00007778)

The language proposed for 

redaction contains confidential 

excerpts from technical 

documents that purport to 

describe the design, 

components, and technical 

features of customer 

components and facilities. This 

includes private third party 

customer information, along 

with the capabilities and 

technical specifications of 

customers’ facilities and 

various other sensitive details 

regarding the customer’s 

internal ventilation systems. 

The document also includes, at 

pages .004, .005, .006, .007, 

.008, .009, .011, .012, .013, 

and .014, information that 

purports to describe 

capabilities of a specific 

component of a customers’ 

GRANTED as to 

DMGC00007778.001, .002, 

.004, .005, .006, .007, .008, 

.009, .011, .012, .013, and 

.014; DENIED as to 

remainder.

Case 5:14-cv-02919-BLF Document 216 Filed 06/06/16 Page 12 of 17
13

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

ventilation system.

Ex. T: Excerpts, Energy Labs 

Project documents 

(ELI01568363)

The language proposed for 

redaction contains confidential 

excerpts from technical 

documents detailing the 

design, components, and 

technical features of specific 

Energy Labs air-handling unit 

and its customers’ facilities, 

and private third party 

customer information, 

including the layout and 

structure of customers’ 

facilities and various other 

sensitive details regarding the 

customer’s internal ventilation 

systems. The information 

proposed for redaction reflects 

a significant investment of 

financial and technical 

resources by both Defendants 

and third party customers.

GRANTED as to 

ELI01568363.001, .004, .006, 

.026, .027, .029, .030, and 

.031; DENIED as to 

remainder.

Exhibit V: Excerpts, 03/17/16 

Deposition of Dr. Albert 

Karvelis

Excerpts contain opinions that 

divulge detailed technical 

information about Nortek’s 

products, one installation in 

particular (the Temtrol 

System). The disclosure of this 

information would be 

particularly harmful to 

Nortek’s business.

GRANTED

Ex. W: Excerpts, Energy Labs 

Project documents 

(ELI00782884)

The language proposed for 

redaction contains confidential 

excerpts from technical 

documents detailing the 

design, components, and 

technical features of specific 

Energy Labs air-handling unit 

and its customers’ facilities, 

and private third party 

customer information, 

including the layout and 

structure of customers’ 

facilities and various other 

sensitive details regarding the 

customer’s internal ventilation 

systems. The information 

proposed for redaction reflects 

a significant investment of 

financial and technical 

resources by both Defendants 

and third party customers.

GRANTED as to 

ELI00782884.001, .035, .036, 

.037, .038, .039, .040, .041, 

.042, .043, .044, .045, and 

.046; DENIED as to 

remainder.

Ex. X: Excerpts, Energy Labs 

Project documents 

The language proposed for 

redaction contains confidential 

GRANTED as to 

ELI00782721.001, .002, .046, 

Case 5:14-cv-02919-BLF Document 216 Filed 06/06/16 Page 13 of 17
14

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

(ELI00782721) excerpts from technical 

documents detailing the 

design, components, and 

technical features of specific 

Energy Labs air-handling unit 

and its customers’ facilities, 

and private third party 

customer information, 

including the layout and 

structure of customers’ 

facilities and various other 

sensitive details regarding the 

customer’s internal ventilation 

systems. The information 

proposed for redaction reflects 

a significant investment of 

financial and technical 

resources by both Defendants 

and third party customers.

.047, .048, .049, .273, and 

.354; DENIED as to 

remainder.

Ex. Y: Excerpts, Energy Labs 

Operation & Maintenance 

Manual (DMGN00002857)

The language proposed for 

redaction contains confidential 

excerpts from technical 

documents detailing the 

design, components, and 

technical features of specific 

Energy Labs air-handling unit 

and its customers’ facilities, 

and private third party 

customer information, 

including the layout and 

structure of customers’ 

facilities and various other 

sensitive details regarding the 

customer’s internal ventilation 

systems. The information 

proposed for redaction reflects 

a significant investment of 

financial and technical 

resources by both Defendants 

and third party customers.

GRANTED as to 

DMGN00002857.001, .002, 

.027, .028, .029, .220, and 

.527; DENIED as to 

remainder. 

Ex. Z: Energy Labs Start-Up 

Report (DMGC00011181.001)

The language proposed for 

redaction contains confidential 

excerpts from technical 

documents detailing the 

design, components, and 

technical features of specific 

Energy Labs air-handling unit 

and its customers’ facilities,

and private third party 

customer information, 

including the capabilities and 

technical specifications of 

customers’ facilities and 

various other sensitive details 

regarding the customer’s 

internal ventilation systems.

GRANTED as to 

DMGC00011181.001, .002,

.004, .005, .006, .007, .008, 

.010, .011, .012; DENIED as 

to remainder.

Case 5:14-cv-02919-BLF Document 216 Filed 06/06/16 Page 14 of 17
15

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

Ex. AA: Excerpts, Energy 

Labs Project documents

(DMGC00011180)

The language proposed for 

redaction contains confidential 

excerpts from technical 

documents detailing the 

design, components, and 

technical features of specific 

Energy Labs air-handling unit 

and its customers’ facilities, 

and private third party 

customer information, 

including the capabilities and 

technical specifications of 

customers’ facilities and 

various other sensitive details 

regarding the customer’s 

internal ventilation systems.

GRANTED as to 

DMGC00011180.001, .002, 

.004, .005, .006, .007, .008, 

.010, .011, .012; DENIED as 

to remainder.

Exhibit AC: Excerpts, 

03/10/16 Deposition of Mr. 

John Habel 

Excerpts contain opinions that 

divulge detailed technical 

information about Nortek’s 

products, one installation in 

particular (the Temtrol 

System). The disclosure of this 

information would be 

particularly harmful to 

Nortek’s business.

GRANTED

Ex. AE: Excerpts, Energy Labs

Project documents 

(ELI01416191)

The language proposed for 

redaction contains confidential 

excerpts from technical 

documents detailing the 

design, components, and 

technical features of specific 

Energy Labs air-handling unit 

and its customers’ facilities, 

and private third party 

customer information, 

including the layout and 

structure of customers’ 

facilities and various other 

sensitive details regarding the 

customer’s internal ventilation 

systems. The information 

proposed for redaction reflects 

a significant investment of 

financial and technical 

resources by both Defendants 

and third party customers.

GRANTED as to 

ELI01416191.001, .012, and 

.013; DENIED as to 

remainder.

D. ECF 196

Identification of Documents 

to be Sealed

Description of Documents Court’s Order

Defendants’ Reply in Support 

of Their Motion for Summary 

Judgment of Invalidity and 

The language proposed for 

redaction contains confidential 

excerpts from technical 

GRANTED as to 2:21, 3:20; 

7:8-9; 8: 2,7; 10:8-9; 10:28; 13: 

15,18, 20, 22, 26; 14: 6, 13, 25; 

15: 1, 5, 14, 15, 18,

Case 5:14-cv-02919-BLF Document 216 Filed 06/06/16 Page 15 of 17
16

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

Non-Infringement 

Defendants’ Confidential 

Information (or that of its 

customers) redacted at: pgs. 

2:21 and 7:8-9 (financial 

information); 10:8-9 (technical 

information); and 10:28 

(customer information)

documents detailing the 

design, components, and 

technical features of specific 

Energy Labs air-handling unit; 

financial information regarding 

Energy Labs’ offerings and 

product sales; and information 

regarding its customers’ 

facilities. This information 

reflects a significant 

investment of financial and 

technical resources by both 

Defendants and third party 

customers.

19, 27.

Exhibit 37: Rebuttal Expert 

Report of Albert V. Karvelis, 

Ph.D. (Feb. 18. 2016)

Nortek does not object to Ex. 

37 being publically filed.

DENIED

Exhibit 38: Opening Expert 

Report of Albert V. Karvelis, 

Ph.D. (Jan. 15, 2015)

Nortek does not object to Ex. 

38 being publically filed.

DENIED

Exhibit 40: Excerpts, 

Deposition of James Rice, 

Ph.D. (March 14, 2016)

The proposed redactions 

comprise portions of Dr. 

Rice’s testimony that relate to 

documents containing 

proprietary technical 

information related to Nortek’s 

products, including the 

Temtrol DHS installation and 

CleanPak (now a Nortek 

brand) projects, and his 

specific opinions detailing this 

proprietary information. This 

information is publically 

unavailable and could harm 

Nortek if publically filed.

GRANTED

Exhibit 41: Excerpts, 

Deposition of Albert V. 

Karvelis, Ph.D. Volume II 

(March 16, 2016)

Nortek does not object to Ex. 

41 being publically filed.

DENIED

Exhibit 42: Excerpts, 

Deposition of Albert V. 

Karvelis, Ph.D., Volume III 

(March 17, 2016)

The proposed redactions 

comprise portions of Dr. 

Karvelis’ testimony that relate 

to documents containing 

proprietary technical 

information related to 

Nortek’s products, namely the 

Temtrol DHS installation, and 

his specific opinions detailing 

GRANTED

Case 5:14-cv-02919-BLF Document 216 Filed 06/06/16 Page 16 of 17
17

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

this proprietary information. 

This information is publically 

unavailable and could harm 

Nortek if publically filed.

III. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motions at ECF 175, 185, 188, and 196 are 

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Under Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(2), for any 

request that has been denied because the party designating a document as confidential or subject to 

a protective order has not provided sufficient reasons to seal, the submitting party must file the 

unredacted (or lesser redacted) documents into the public record no earlier than 4 days and no later 

than 10 days form the filing of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 6, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-02919-BLF Document 216 Filed 06/06/16 Page 17 of 17