# Optronic Technologies, Inc. v. Ningbo Sunny Electronic Co., Ltd.

> District Court, N.D. California · July 10, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10064474

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** July 10, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10064474

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6 SAN JOSE DIVISION
7
OPTRONIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC, et al.,
8 Case No. 5:16-cv-06370-EJD
Plaintiffs,
9 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
v. DENYING IN PART CELESTRON
10 ACQUISITION, LLC’S APPLICATION
NINGBO SUNNY ELECTRONIC CO., SEEKING CLARIFICATION OF THIS
11 LTD., et al., COURT’S JULY 2, 2020 TRO
12 Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 704

13 Before the Court is Celestron Acquisition, LLC’s (“Celestron”) Application Seeking
14 Clarification of This Court’s July 2, 2020 TRO. Dkt. No. 704 (“Motion for Clarification”). For
15 the reasons stated below, the Motion for Clarification is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
16 I. Background
17 On July 2, 2020, Plaintiff Optronic Technologies, Inc. (“Orion”) filed an ex parte
18 application for a temporary restraining order and an order compelling Defendant Ningbo Sunny
19 Electronic Co., LTD. (“Ningbo Sunny”) and Celestron to produce evidence. Dkt. No 702. Later
20 that day, the Court granted Orion’s motion and entered a temporary restraining order. Dkt. No.
21 703 (the “TRO”).
22 The TRO (1) enjoined Ningbo Sunny and Celestron from “selling, divesting,
23 hypothecating, or transferring out of the United States any assets, product, or receivables in their
24 possession associated with telescopes manufactured by Ningbo Sunny and imported into the
25 United States through ViewWay Optics Enterprises Co., Ltd.;” and (2) ordered Ningbo Sunny and
26 Celestron to produce “all invoices, bills of lading, communications, and other documents relating
27
Case No.: 5:16-cv-06370-EJD
1 to telescope sales to, telescope purchases from, or telescope imports by ViewWay created or sent
2 between January 1, 2020 to the present.” Id. The TRO further directed the parties to appear for a
3 hearing on July 15, 2020 to determine whether the temporary relief should continue and/or
4 whether other relief should issue.
5 On July 6, 2020, Celestron filed the present Motion for Clarification, requesting
6 “clarification on some ambiguities in the TRO.” Motion for Clarification at 1. Specifically,
7 Celestron requests (1) that they be permitted to produce documents on an “Attorney’s Eyes Only”
8 basis, and (2) that they be permitted to resume sales of products manufactured by Ningbo Sunny in
9 exchange for turning over to Orion all money not yet paid to ViewWay for such products, less
10 ViewWay’s “margin.” Id.
11 The Court directed the parties to meet and confer and allowed Orion and Ningbo Sunny an
12 opportunity to respond to the motion. Dkt. No. 705. On July 8, 2020, Orion filed a response to
13 the Motion for Clarification, along with a motion to file under seal certain of the documents it
14 attached as exhibits. Dkt. Nos. 706, 707. Celestron then filed a supplemental brief in support of
15 its Motion for Clarification as well as a separate opposition to Orion’s motion to seal. Dkt. Nos.
16 709, 710.
17 II. Discussion
18 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit a court to “correct a clerical mistake or a
19 mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other
20 part of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 60(a). “[T]he clarification process presumes some
21 legitimate need supporting relief, such as the existence of ambiguity or confusion that can be
22 corrected with further explanation.” Padgett v. Loventhal, No. 5:04-cv-03946-EJD, 2015 WL
23 13753300, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 13, 2015).
Neither of the requests that Celestron makes in its Motion for Clarification refers to a
24
mistake, omission, or oversight in the TRO in need of correction. Rather, Celestron seeks to
25
modify or dissolve the TRO by offering a solution that, in Celestron’s opinion, “would obviate this
26
entire issue and the entire basis for the requested preliminary injunctive relief, at least as it relates
27
Case No.: 5:16-cv-06370-EJD
1 to Celestron.” Dkt. No. 709 at 2. At the Court’s instruction, the parties met and conferred
2 regarding Celestron’s proposal and were unable to come to a mutually agreeable resolution.
3 While Celestron may continue to negotiate with Orion and may advocate for its proposal at the
4 hearing set for July 15, 2020, the alternative arrangement it seeks may not be properly
5 characterized as a “clarification” of the TRO.
6 Nevertheless, Celestron argues that the TRO should be modified to allow it to resume sales
of the telescopes it received from ViewWay in order “to avoid substantial interim harm to
7
Celestron and its relationship with its customers.” Motion for Clarification at 1. Without
8
identifying any customer or contract that requires immediate fulfillment, Celestron maintains that
9
“even a two-week restriction on sales could create substantial issues between Celestron and its
10
international customers.” Ibid. Celestron does not provide, and the Court is not aware of, any
11
authority indicating that a TRO may be modified in advance of its expiration due to the potential
12
for harm to the restrained party. Indeed, Courts specifically consider the “balance of hardships” in
13
evaluating a TRO. See, e.g., Perez v. Wolf, No. 5:19-CV-05191-EJD, 2020 WL 1865303, at *11
14
(N.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2020) (“A petitioner must establish that . . . that the balance of equities tips in
15
his favor”) (citing Winter v. NRDC, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008)). Some level of hardship to the
16
impacted parties is therefore contemplated, though it is limited by the fact that a TRO is typically
17
in force for a maximum of 14 days. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 65(b)(2). Celestron has not provided
18
any information that fundamentally changes the Court’s calculus on the balance of hardships
19
imposed by the present TRO. Thus, the Court does not find it appropriate to modify the TRO in
20
advance of its expiration.
21
Next, Celestron argues that the Court should require all of the documents it has been
22
ordered to produce to be produced on an Attorneys’ Eyes Only (“AEO”) basis. Federal Rule of
23
Civil Procedure 26(c) provides that upon a showing of “good cause” a court may enter a protective
24
order “requiring that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial
25 information not be revealed or be revealed only in a specified way.” See San Jose Mercury News,
26 Inc. v. United States Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999).
27
Case No.: 5:16-cv-06370-EJD
1 Celestron contends that the documents contain “competitively-sensitive information,” such
2 as SKU numbers, volume and prices of Celestron’s shipments from ViewWay. Celestron argues
3 || that there is no legitimate reason for this information to be made available to Orion’s principals,
4 || rather than simply its attorneys. Orion agrees that pricing information is competitively sensitive
5 and may be produced on an AEO basis; however, counsel argues that they need the input of
6 || Orion’s CEO Peter Morea “to understand and digest other aspects of the discovery.” Dkt. No. 707
7 at 3. Without more information about the nature of the documents being produced, the Court
8 cannot decide whether an AEO designation is proper. The Court will hear arguments on the issue
9 at the hearing on July 15, 2020. To preserve confidentiality in the interim, Celestron shall produce
10 all competitively sensitive documents unredacted, except to preserve privilege, on an AEO basis
and shall make redacted versions of all documents available to Orion.

iI. Conclusion
E B For the reasons stated above, Celestron’s Motion for Clarification is GRANTED in part
S 4 and DENIED in part. Celestron’s request to resume sales is DENIED. The TRO shall remain in
5 5 effect until the show cause hearing on July 15, 2020.
6 It is further ORDERED that Celestron shall produce all competitively sensitive documents,
unredacted, except to preserve privilege, on an Attorneys’ Eyes Only basis and must make
= redacted versions available to Orion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 10, 2020

21 EDWARD J. DAVILA
0 United States District Judge
23
24
25
26
Case No.: 5:16-cv-06370-EJD
28 || ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART CELESTRON ACQUISITION,
LLC’S APPLICATION SEEKING CLARIFICATION OF THIS COURT'S JULY 2, 2020 TRO

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10064474. Public record. Not legal advice.