Symantec Corporation v. Veeam Software Corporation

Filing 239

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE SYMANTEC'S MOTION TO SEAL (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 6/27/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

No. C 12-00700 SI

SYMANTEC CORPORATION,

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE SYMANTEC’S MOTION TO
SEAL

Plaintiff,
v.

14

VEEAM SOFTWARE CORPORATION,

15

Defendant.

/

16
17

On June 11, 2014, defendant Veeam Software Corporation (“Veeam”) filed a motion to stay.

18

Docket No. 215. On June 20, 2014, Symantec filed its opposition to Veeam’s motion to stay along with

19

accompanying exhibits and a motion to seal. Docket Nos. 229, 230. On June 25, 2014, the Court

20

granted the parties’ stipulation to stay the action in light of the inter partes review until May 1, 2015,

21

mooting Veeam’s motion to stay. Docket Nos. 237, 238. Currently before the Court is Symantec’s

22

motion to seal its entire opposition, exhibits D through K to the Cassidy declaration in support of its

23

opposition, and exhibits A to the Kearl, Sims, and Stec declarations in support of its opposition. Docket

24

No. 230.

25

With the exception of a narrow range of documents that are “traditionally kept secret,” courts

26

begin their sealing analysis with “a strong presumption in favor of access.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut.

27

Auto. Ins., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). When applying to file documents under seal in

28

connection with a dispositive motion, the submitting party bears the burden of “articulating compelling
reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public

1

policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.”

2

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations

3

and citations omitted). However, when a party seeks to seal documents attached to a non-dispositive

4

motion, a showing of “good cause” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) is sufficient. Id. at

5

1179-80; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). In addition, all requests to file under seal must be “narrowly

6

tailored,” such that only sealable information is sought to be redacted from public access. Civil Local

7

Rule 79-5(b). Because Veeam’s motion to stay is a non-dispositive motion, the “good cause” standard

8

applies. See SEC v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc., 729 F.3d 1248, 1260 (9th Cir. 2013) (stating that a motion

9

to stay is a non-dispositive motion).

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

In support of the motion, Symantec has submitted the declaration of Kate Cassidy, and Veeam

11

has submitted the declaration of Byron Pickard. Docket Nos. 230-1, 235. Veeam explains that exhibits

12

D, E, G, H, and J to the Cassidy declaration contain information Veeam has designated as “Highly

13

Confidential - Attorney’s Eyes Only” and disclosure of this information could cause competitive injury

14

to Veeam. Docket No. 235, Pickard Decl. ¶¶ 4-8. Symantec explains that exhibit I discloses “Highly

15

Confidential - Attorney’s Eyes Only” content and discusses confidential information about the terms

16

of a confidential settlement agreement. Cassidy Decl. ¶ 7. Exhibit K discloses “Highly Confidential -

17

Attorney’s Eyes Only” content and discusses confidential information about Symantec’s competitive

18

weaknesses. Id. ¶ 8. Exhibit A to the Kearl declaration and exhibit A to the Sims declaration contain

19

confidential information about Symantec’s financials, competitive position, licensing, and general

20

competitive strategy. Id. ¶¶ 9-10. Exhibit A to the Stec declaration reveals confidential information

21

regarding features of Symantec’s products. Id. ¶ 11. Symantec explains that disclosure of this

22

information could lead to competitive injury. Id.

23

Although Symantec appears to have shown good cause for sealing portions of the requested

24

documents, a review of the documents shows that Symantec’s sealing request is not narrowly tailored.

25

For example, Symantec seeks to seal its opposition and exhibit F to the Cassidy declaration in their

26

entirety even though portions of these documents do not contain sealable information. Accordingly, the

27

Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Symantec’s motion to seal. Docket No. 230. Symantec may

28

resubmit its request to seal provided that the request is narrowly tailored such that only sealable
2

1

information is sought to be redacted from public access within seven (7) days from the date this order

2

is filed. In the alternative, in light of the fact that the Court has granted the parties’ stipulation to stay

3

the action and denied as moot Veeam’s motion to stay, Symantec may file a notice withdrawing its

4

opposition and the accompanying exhibits.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: June 27, 2014

9

SUSAN ILLSTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3