Symantec Corporation v. Acronis, Inc
Filing
259
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting in part and denying in part 245 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 254 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/16/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
Northern District of California
United States District Court
11
12
13
SYMANTEC CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
14
15
v.
Case No.: 11-5310 EMC (JSC)
ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS TO SEAL (Dkt. Nos. 245 &
254)
16
17
18
ACRONIS CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
19
20
Now pending before the Court are the parties’ administrative motions to seal filings
21
related to Defendants Acronis Corporation, et al., (collectively “Acronis”) Motion to
22
Amend/Correct Invalidity Contentions. (Dkt. Nos. 245 & 254.) Both parties’ motions fail to
23
comply with this Court’s Standing Order which requires that a party seeking to file a
24
document under deal simultaneously electronically file the document under seal. Neither
25
party electronically filed under seal any of the documents over which sealing is sought. In the
26
interests of expediency, the Court nevertheless rules as follows.
27
28
Acronis has established good cause for filing under seal certain exhibits attached to
their motion to amend. Accordingly, the motion to seal is GRANTED as to Exhibits F, G, H,
1
I and J to the Declaration of Olga May, and Exhibits A and C to the Declaration of Dmitry
2
Joukovsky. (Dkt. No. 245.) Acronis shall electronically file these exhibits under seal within
3
three days. The motion is DENIED as to Exhibit B to the Declaration of Olga May as the
4
request to seal an entire deposition transcript is not narrowly tailored in accordance with
5
Local Rule 79-5. Symantec contends that the transcript should be filed under seal because “it
6
contains testimony on Symantec’s source code, including source code files for Symantec’s
7
Backup Exec product and contains information about Symantec’s product Backup Exec.
8
Public disclosure of this information would likely cause Symantec substantial prejudice by
9
creating a risk of public harm that can cause a competitive injury to Symantec.” (Dkt. No.
Northern District of California
247 ¶ 3.) While this may establish good cause for sealing portions of the exhibit, it does not
11
United States District Court
10
establish good cause for filing the document under seal in its entirety. Accordingly, the
12
motion is DENIED without prejudice as to Exhibit B. Acronis shall immediately
13
electronically file this exhibit under seal in lieu of the redacted (blank) version filed at Docket
14
No. 247-3 in accordance with this Court’s Standing Order.
15
With respect to Plaintiff Symantec Corporation’s (“Symantec”) Administrative Motion
16
to File Under Seal Symantec’s Opposition to Acronis’s Motion to Amend Invalidity
17
Contentions and Certain Exhibits thereto, the request is likewise granted in part and denied in
18
part. (Dkt. No. 254.) The motion is DENIED as to Exhibits A and E. The parties have failed
19
to establish good cause for sealing Exhibit A as the document is predominately in Russian
20
and no translation is provided. Similarly, Symantec has failed to establish good cause to seal
21
Exhibit E which is a notice of a deposition that Symantec seeks to file under seal in its
22
entirety. In support of its request, Symantec indicates that the exhibit “contains information
23
about Symantec’s source code, including source code filenames.” (Dkt. No. 254-3, ¶ 3.)
24
However, the request for sealing is not “narrowly tailored” as required by Local Rule 79-5 so
25
as to only seek sealing of sealable material related to source code. Accordingly, the request
26
for sealing is DENIED as to these two exhibits without prejudice. Symantec shall, however,
27
immediately electronically file these documents under seal in place of the redacted (blank)
28
versions filed at Docket Nos. 254-4 and 254-8 in accordance with this Court’s Standing
2
1
Order. Symantec has, however, established good cause to file Exhibits D, K, and L under
2
seal. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED as to these exhibits which Symantec shall
3
electronically file under seal within three days. As Acronis does not contend that any of the
4
other exhibits or any portion of the opposition brief should be filed under seal, these shall
5
immediately be filed on the public docket in unredacted form.
6
This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 245 and 254.
7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
10
Dated: September 16, 2013
_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Northern District of California
United States District Court
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?