XimpleWare, Corp v. Versata Software, Inc. et al

Filing 116

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 110 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 10/29/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 8 9 XIMPLEWARE CORP., Plaintiff, v. Case No. 13-cv-05160-SI VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC., et al., Defendants. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 On October 14, 2014, defendants Versata Software Inc., Trilogy Development Group, Inc., 14 and Aurea, Inc. (collectively, Versata) filed an Administrative Motion to file under seal documents 15 in connection with plaintiff XimpleWare’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Docket Nos. 110; 16 102. The same day, defendants filed the declaration of Alisa Lipski, counsel for Versata, in 17 support of the motion to file under seal. Docket No. 110. Versata seeks to file under seal 18 documents that it contends contain confidential information, specifically portions of 19 correspondence from Versata to XimpleWare attached as part of Exhibit 2 to Versata’s Opposition 20 to XimpleWare’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Id. 21 With the exception of a narrow range of documents that are “traditionally kept secret,” 22 courts begin their sealing analysis with “a strong presumption in favor of access.” Foltz v. State 23 Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). “A stipulation, or a blanket protective 24 order that allows a party to designate documents as sealable, will not suffice to allow the filing of 25 documents under seal.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(a). When applying to file documents under seal in 26 connection with a dispositive motion, the party seeking to seal must articulate “compelling reasons 27 supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public 28 policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” 1 Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal 2 quotations and citations omitted). Where, as here, a party seeks to seal documents attached to a 3 non-dispositive motion, a showing of “good cause” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) is 4 sufficient. Id. at 1179-80; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). In addition, all requests to file under seal 5 must be “narrowly tailored,” such that only sealable information is sought to be redacted from 6 public access. Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). Versata alleges that information contained in Exhibit 2 describes technical details and 8 confidential information regarding the installations of Versata’s DCM software product at its 9 various customers, and that the level of detail regarding the implementation of the DCM is not 10 publicly available. Docket No. 110 at 1. After reviewing the relevant documents and Versata’s 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 7 declaration, the Court concludes that Versata has shown good cause to seal the designated portions 12 of Exhibit 2 to its Opposition to XimpleWare’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. In addition, 13 Versata’s request to seal the exhibit is narrowly tailored, as it seeks to redact only sealable 14 information. The Court therefore GRANTS Versata’s motion to seal. This resolves Docket No. 15 110. 16 17 18 19 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 10/29/14 ______________________________________ SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?