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