Swarmify, Inc. v. CloudFlare, Inc.

Filing 73

ORDER RE 72 LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 16, 2018. Signed by Judge Alsup on 2/16/2018. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/16/2018)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
SWARMIFY, INC.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER RE LETTER DATED
FEBRUARY 16, 2018

CLOUDFLARE, INC.,

14

Defendant.
/

15
16

No. C 17-06957 WHA

The Court received a letter today from counsel for defendant Cloudflare, Inc., regarding

17

a recent news article titled “Swarmify Says CloudFlare Stole Stream Tech After Deal Talks”

18

published after yesterday’s hearing on plaintiff Swarmify, Inc.’s motion for preliminary

19

injunction. According to the article, after that hearing — a portion of which was held under

20

seal at Swarmify’s request so it could talk candidly about the substance of its supposed trade

21

secrets — Swarmify gave statements to the press that commented on both the public and sealed

22

portions of the hearing, including a comment purporting to construe the Court’s views on the

23

merits of arguments made during the sealed portion. In today’s letter, Cloudflare says it “would

24

like to respond, but feel[s] constrained about [its] ability to do so in light of the Court’s seal.”

25

Cloudflare wishes to “speak about the general tenor of the sealed portion of the hearing

26

(without disclosing any of Swarmify’s alleged trade secrets/confidential information).” It

27

therefore seeks clarification “as to how [it] may properly discuss these matters with the press”

28

(Dkt. No. 72).

1

Being familiar with the circumstances, the Court finds Cloudflare’s request reasonable.

2

The principal purpose of sealing part of yesterday’s hearing — again, at Swarmify’s request —

3

was to prevent disclosure of Swarmify’s supposed trade secrets. This order therefore concludes

4

Cloudflare should be able to respond publicly to Swarmify’s public statements at the same level

5

of generality employed by Swarmify itself. For example, Cloudflare may describe the “general

6

tenor” of the sealed hearing and give its own interpretation of what it believes to be the Court’s

7

views to the press at the same level of generality that Swarmify did.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
Dated: February 16, 2018.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2