1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SKYWATER TECHNOLOGY FOUNDRY, Case No. 20-cv-03168-BLF (SVK)

INC.,

8 Plaintiff, ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE 9 MOTIONS TO SEAL v. 10 Re: Dkt. Nos. 43, 47, 48

CLARK STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC,

11 Defendant. 12 13 Now before the Court are Administrative Motions to File Documents Under Seal seeking 14 to seal certain materials submitted to the Court in connection with the parties’ December 3, 2020 15 Joint Discovery Letter Brief (Dkt. 45). Dkt. 43, 47, 48. Courts recognize a “general right to 16 inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” 17 Kamakana v. City & Cnty. Of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. 18 Warner Communs., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). A request to seal court records 19 therefore starts with a “strong presumption in favor of access.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 20 (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). The standard for overcoming the presumption of public access to court records depends on the purpose 21 for which the records are filed with the court. A party seeking to seal court records relating to 22 motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” must 23 demonstrate “compelling reasons” that support secrecy. Ctr. For Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 24 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016). For records attached to motions that re “not related, or only 25 tangentially related, to the merits of the case,” the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) 26 applies. Id.; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. A party moving to seal court records must 27 1 Here, the “good cause” standard applies because the information the parties seek to seal 2 was submitted to the Court in connection with a discovery-related motion, rather than a motion 3 that concerns the merits of the case. Having considered the motions to seal, supporting 4 declarations, and the pleadings on file, and good cause appearing, the motions are hereby 5 GRANTED as follows: 6 7 Document Order on Reason(s) for Sealing Motion to 8 Seal Exhibit B to the Joint GRANTED as to the Plaintiff SkyWater has designated 9 Discovery Letter Brief (Dkt. 45) – following highlighted this document “Confidential” on the SkyWater’s answers to Clark portions in Dkt. 47-2: grounds that the redacted material is 10 Street’s first set of interrogatories ECF Page 5, Lines protected from public disclosure 11 24-27 because it contains information ECF Page 6, Lines 1- about the United States Government 12 20 (“USG”) that is subject to ECF Page 17 dissemination controls imposed by 13 ECF Page 18 federal statutes and regulations, agency directives, and contract 14 documents, including, but not 15 limited to, Department of Defense (“DoD”) Directive 5400.7, 16 Executive Order 13556, and 32 CRF Part 2002. The materials should 17 remain redacted because SkyWater has provided evidence that it is not 18 permitted by the USG to publicly 19 disclose these materials in the public record without the USG’s prior 20 knowledge or consent. Exhibit F to the Joint Discovery GRANTED as to the Plaintiff SkyWater has designated 21 Letter Brief – SkyWater’s following highlighted this document “Confidential” on the responses to Clark Street’s first portions in Dkt. 47-4: grounds that the redacted material is 22 set of requests for production ECF Page 8, Lines 5, protected from public disclosure 23 14, 18, 24 because of the dissemination ECF Page 9, Lines 6, controls referenced above and 24 10, 12, 21, 25 because some of the projects and/or ECF Page 10, Lines technologies referenced in the 25 25-26 redacted exhibits relate to matters of 26 ECF Page 11, Lines national security, disclosure of 3, 8, 14, 18, 22-23 which in the public record could 27 ECF Page 12, Lines have a detrimental impact on 18-21 national security. 1 3-4, 10, 16-19 ECF Page 14, Lines 2 2-4, 8, 12, 15-17, 28 ECF Page 15, Lines 3 1, 7, 13, 15, 25-26 ECF Page 16, Lines 4 2, 8-11, 21, 26-28 5 ECF Page 17, Lines 3-5, 10, 20-21 6 The parties’ consulting GRANTED as to the [Plaintiff represents that the redacted agreement — attached as Exhibit following highlighted material is protected from public 7 1 to the Declaration of Kathryn portions in Dkt. 48-3: |disclosure because of the endt in Support of Plaintiff ECF Pages 2, 3, dissemination controls referenced 8 SkyWater Technology 8, 18 above. Additionally, some of the 9 Foundry, Inc.’s Administrative projects, programs, and/or Motion to File technologies referenced in the 10 edacted exhibit relate to matters of national security, disclosure of 11 Which in the public record could lhave a detrimental impact on 12 national security.

SO ORDERED.

14 |) Dated: December 15, 2020 15 16 Sassen art

17 SUSAN VAN KEULEN = United States Magistrate Judge

Z 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28