Network Protection Sciences, LLC v. Juniper Networks, Inc. et al

Filing 327

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL (DKT. NO. 260) by Hon. William Alsup denying 260 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/24/2013)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8
9

Plaintiff,

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11
12
13

No. C 12-01106 WHA

NETWORK PROTECTION SCIENCES,
LLC,

ORDER DENYING
MOTION TO SEAL
(DKT. NO. 260)

v.
FORTINET, INC.,
Defendant.
/

14
15

On September 5, plaintiff Network Protection Sciences, LLC (NPS) filed a motion to seal

16

documents designated confidential by defendant Fortinet that NPS submitted in connection

17

NPS’s opposition to a motion to strike the testimony of Dr. Keromytis (Dkt. No. 260). Fortinet

18

timely filed a declaration in support of the motion to seal that proposed filing the documents with

19

limited redactions (Dkt. No. 275). Many of these redactions appear reasonable. Some of the

20

redactions, however, are clearly overbroad. For example, on pages 37–38 of Dkt. No. 275-2

21

Fortinet has redacted a deposition transcript to remove generic references to antivirus work and

22

the fact that a witness worked in an antivirus group. The motion to seal is accordingly DENIED.

23

Fortinet may resubmit revised redactions by SEPTEMBER 26 AT NOON. Untimely submissions or

24

overbroad redactions will result in the subject documents being filed in full on the public docket.

25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27
28

Dated: September 24, 2013.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE