1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 OYSTER OPTICS, LLC, Case No. 17-cv-05920-JSW

8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

OYSTER-FUJITSU SETTLEMENT

9 v. AGREEMENT SHOULD BE FILED

UNDER SEAL IN ITS ENTIRETY AND

10 CIENA CORPORATION, INSTRUCTIONS TO PARTIES Defendant. 11

12 13 In addition to the motions for summary judgment and motions to exclude expert testimony, 14 the parties have filed motions to seal portions of those briefs and exhibits in support of their 15 positions. 16 One of those exhibits is a settlement agreement between Oyster Optics LLC and Fujitsu 17 Ltd. and Fujitsu Network Communications (the “OFA”). (Dkt. No. 177-54.) Oyster is 18 ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why that exhibit should remain under seal in its entirety. See 19 Oyster Optics, LLC v. Coriant Am., Inc., No. 16-cv-01302-RJG, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 236708, 20 at *5-*9 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 4, 2018). 21 The Court FURTHER ORDERS the parties to meet and confer regarding all pending 22 motions to seal. To assist the Court in determining what portions of its order resolving pending 23 motions can be publicly filed, if there are exhibits that have been filed under seal in their entirety 24 that can be redacted, the parties shall file a joint statement, which includes a chart that sets forth 25 those exhibits, their docket number, and the portions of the exhibit that can be publicly filed. 26 The Court intends to issue its ruling on the motions to seal when it issues its Order 27 resolving the motions for summary judgment and Daubert motions. 1 || joint statement by no later than April 17, 2023. 2 IT ISSO ORDERED. } 3 || Dated: April 3, 2023 /f | 4k \ } / 4

JEFPREY 9. WHITE

5 United Sigs Dit Judge

7 8 9 10 1]

2B

16

«17

Oo

Z 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28