ChriMar Systems Inc. et al v. Cisco Systems Inc. et al

Filing 160

ORDER RESERVING RULING ON MOTION TO SEAL. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 10/22/13. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/22/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC, et al.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

Plaintiffs,

No. C 13-01300 JSW

v.

ORDER RESERVING RULING
ON MOTION TO SEAL

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC, et al.,
Defendants.
/

14
15

Now before the Court is the joint administrative motion to file portions of Exhibit A to

16

the parties’ joint claim construction statement under seal. As a public forum, the Court will

17

only entertain requests to seal that establish good cause and are narrowly tailored to seal only

18

the particular information that is genuinely privileged or protectable as a trade secret or

19

otherwise has a compelling need for confidentiality. Parties seeking to file documents, or

20

portions thereof, under seal must file a declaration to establish that “the document sought to be

21

filed under seal, or portions thereof, are sealable. Reference to a stipulation or protective order

22

that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish

23

that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Northern District Civil L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A);

24

see also See Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-81 (9th Cir. 2006)

25

(“Those who seek to maintain the secrecy of documents ... must meet the high threshold of

26

showing that ‘compelling reasons’ support secrecy.”).

27

Here, the parties seek to file under seal any reference to expert reports and expert

28

deposition testimony previously designated as confidential, without any argument or discussion

1

as to why the particular excerpts are genuinely privileged or protectable or otherwise have a

2

compelling need for confidentiality. Moreover, the Court notes that the proposed order filed by

3

the parties is deficient. The Local Rules require the parties to file a “proposed order that is

4

narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material, and which lists in table format each

5

document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed.” Northern District Civil L.R. 79-

6

5(d)(1)(B).

7

The Court HEREBY RESERVES RULING on the joint administrative motion to seal,

8

pending a further showing to demonstrate why the particular excepts should be filed under seal

9

and the filing of a revised proposed order in accordance with the Local Rules. The parties shall
make a further showing by no later than November 1, 2013. If the parties fail to do so by this

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

date, the Court will deny the motion to seal and direct the parties to publicly file an unredacted

12

version of Exhibit A.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: October 22, 2013
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2