Implicit Networks, Inc. v. F5 Networks, Inc.

Filing 161


Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 No. C 10-03365 SI IMPLICIT NETWORKS INC, ORDER RE PARTIES’ APPLICATIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL F5’s HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Plaintiff, v. F5 NETWORKS INC, Defendant. / 16 17 Currently before the Court are the following applications for leave to file under seal: (1) 18 Stipulation for leave to file under seal portions of F5’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Non- 19 Infringement and related exhibits [Docket Nos. 140, 145]; and the parties’ (2) Stipulation for Leave to 20 File Under Seal, narrowing the scope of the information the parties request be filed under seal. [Docket 21 Nos. 151, 155]. In the most recent filing, the parties seek to file under seal certain portions of the Storer 22 Declaration filed in support of F5’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement; portions of 23 the Nettles Declaration submitted in support of Implicit’s Opposition; and portions of Implicit’s 24 Opposition. The Declaration of Dave Schmitt, submitted in support of the narrowed sealing request, 25 asserts that sealing of the information at issue is necessary because disclosure of the “source code and 26 technical design details” for F5’s products could jeopardize the security of its products and would allow 27 competitors to copy F5’s technology. Schmitt also argues that portions of the Nettles Report which 28 describe specific products purchased by and specific services provided to named customers of F5 should 1 be sealed because disclosure would violate non-disclosure agreements and “could cause competitive 2 harm.” 3 The Court GRANTS the application to seal with respect to the information discussing F5’s 4 “source code and technical detail design.” However, the Court DENIES F5’s request to seal information 5 regarding specific products purchased by and specific services provided to named customers. F5 has 6 not shown that customers would likely suffer any specific type of damage by release of the information 7 regarding which products they purchased (e.g., that the customers could be hacked or the security of 8 their systems be compromised). A generalized assertion that “competitive harm” could result from 9 release of the information is not sufficient to demonstrate compelling reasons to seal that overcome the United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 public’s right of access to court documents. 11 Therefore, the portions of documents identified by the Schmitt Declaration may be filed under 12 seal only to the extent they disclose source code and technical design details of F5’s products. F5 shall 13 ensure that the public version of the Storer Declaration and attachments e-filed in the docket redact only 14 the information allowed by this Order. 15 Implicit shall ensure that the public versions of the following documents e-filed in the docket 16 redact only the information allowed by this Order: Implicit’s Opposition to F5’s Motion for Summary 17 Judgement of Non-Infringement [Docket No. 156]; the Nettles Declaration and Attachments [Docket 18 No. 157]; and Exhibit 3 of the Hosie Declaration [Docket No. 158].1 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 Dated: November 26, 2012 SUSAN ILLSTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 1 27 28 F5 and Mr. Schmitt fail to address whether Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Spencer Hosie should likewise be filed under seal. See Docket No. 155. However, as Exhibit 3 to the Hosie Declaration contains deposition testimony regarding the same information F5 seeks to seal in Implicit’s Opposition, the Court GRANTS the request to seal the portions of Exhibit 3 that reference F5’s source code or technical design details. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?