Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01728/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01728-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PNY TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

MILLER, KAPLAN, ARASE & CO, LLP,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-01728-MMC 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART, 

DENYING IN PART, AND DEFERRING 

RULING IN PART ON PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION TO SEAL; DIRECTIONS TO 

PLAINTIFF

Before the Court is plaintiff's "Administrative Motion to File Under Seal," filed 

August 5, 2016, by which plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal certain documents 

designated as confidential by itself, by defendant Miller, Kaplan, Arase & Co., LLP ("Miller 

Kaplan"), or by non-party SanDisk Corporation ("SanDisk"). Neither Miller Kaplan nor 

SanDisk has filed a response thereto. Having read and considered the papers filed in 

support of the motion, the Court rules as follows:

1. To the extent plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal the entirety or any portion of 

Exhibits 34 and 39 to the Supplemental Declaration of Drew A. Robinson, the motion is 

hereby DENIED, as neither Miller Kaplan nor SanDisk, each of whom is a designating 

party, has asserted that any portion of either such exhibit comprises confidential material.

2. To the extent plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal the entirety or any portion of 

Exhibits 35, 36 and 37 to the Supplemental Declaration of Drew A. Robinson, the motion 

is hereby DENIED, as Miller Kaplan, the designating party, has not asserted that any 

portion of such exhibits comprises confidential material.

3. To the extent plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal the entirety or any portion of 

Exhibit 38 to the Supplemental Declaration of Drew A. Robinson, the motion is hereby 

Case 3:15-cv-01728-MMC Document 157 Filed 08/12/16 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

DENIED, as SanDisk, the designating party, has not asserted that any portion of such 

exhibit comprises confidential material.

4. To the extent plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal the unredacted version of 

its "Opposition to Defendant's [Second] Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the 

Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment" ("Opposition") the motion is hereby DENIED, as 

the portions plaintiff seeks to redact do not discuss or reference material either Miller 

Kaplan or SanDisk, the designating parties, have asserted to be confidential. 

5. Plaintiff is hereby DIRECTED to file in the public record Exhibits 34, 35, 36, 37, 

38 and 39 to the Supplemental Declaration of Drew A. Robinson, as well as the 

unredacted version of its Opposition, no earlier than 4 days, and no later than 10 days

from today's date. See Civil L.R. 79-5(e)(2).

6. To the extent plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal Exhibits 46, 49, 50 and 51 

to the Supplemental Declaration of Drew A. Robinson, the motion is hereby GRANTED, 

plaintiff having shown said exhibits comprise confidential material.

7. To the extent plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal pages 2, 6-7, 38, 86 and 

139 of Exhibit 53 to the Supplemental Declaration of Drew A. Robinson, the motion is 

hereby GRANTED, plaintiff having shown said pages comprise confidential material.

8. To the extent plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal Exhibit 40 to the 

Supplemental Declaration of Drew A. Robinson, the Court DEFERS ruling thereon. 

Assuming, arguendo, some portions of said exhibit, an expert report, contain confidential 

material, it is readily apparent that large portions thereof do not. (See, e.g., Robinson 

Supp. Decl. Ex. 40 at ¶¶ 37-57 (discussion of "professional standards" assertedly 

applicable to Miller Kaplan); id. ¶¶ 78, 101 (discussion of findings assertedly made by jury 

in another proceeding).)1 Rather than direct plaintiff to file Exhibit 40 in the public record 

at this time, however, the Court will afford plaintiff leave to file, no later than August 19, 

2016, a supplemental declaration to identify with specificity any portions of said exhibit 

 

1

The cited paragraphs are illustrative.

Case 3:15-cv-01728-MMC Document 157 Filed 08/12/16 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

that contain confidential material. See Civil L. R. 79-5(b) (providing "request [to file 

document under seal] must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable 

material").

9. To the extent plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal Exhibits 41 and 45 to the 

Supplemental Declaration of Drew A. Robinson, as well as pages 235, 240, and 349-365 

of Exhibit 53 to the Supplemental Declaration of Drew A. Robinson, which exhibits and 

pages are audits, or portions thereof, prepared by Miller Kaplan, the Court DEFERS 

ruling thereon. Given that plaintiff previously filed in the public record certain portions of 

those documents (compare, e.g., Compl. Ex. A Tr. Ex. 2286, with Robinson Supp. Decl. 

Ex. 41 MK 028827), and its complaint explicitly identifies certain findings made by Miller 

Kaplan during the audit process (see Compl. ¶¶ 18, 23, 25, 31, 32), the Court declines to 

find on the present record that the entirety of Exhibits 41 and 45, as well as the entirety of 

the above-identified pages in Exhibit 53, are properly filed under seal. Moreover, other 

portions of the exhibits likewise do not appear to consist of material that could be 

considered confidential. (See, e.g., Robinson Supp. Decl. Ex. 41, page 3, third

paragraph (discussion of information Miller Kaplan located on plaintiff's "website").) 

Nevertheless, as it appears that said exhibits and pages may contain some confidential 

material, the Court, rather than directing plaintiff to file the documents in the public record 

at this time, will afford plaintiff leave to file a supplemental declaration to identify with 

specificity the portions of Exhibits 41 and 45, as well as the portions of the aboveidentified pages in Exhibit 53, that are (a) confidential and (b) have not previously been 

filed in the public record. Said supplemental declaration shall be filed no later than 

August 19, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 12, 2016

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01728-MMC Document 157 Filed 08/12/16 Page 3 of 3