Teradata Corporation et al v. SAP SE et al

Filing 382

ORDER by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero denying 339 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. Teradata shall file all of the documents at issue in the public record no later than February 1, 2021. (jcslc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/26/2021)

Case 3:18-cv-03670-WHO Document 382 Filed 01/26/21 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

TERADATA CORPORATION, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 18-cv-03670-WHO (JCS)

v.
SAP SE, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER REGARDING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL
Re: Dkt. No. 339

12
13

Plaintiffs Teradata Corporation; Teradata US, Inc.; and Teradata Operations, Inc.

14

(collectively, “Teradata”) moved to file under seal exhibits to a joint letter brief. Defendants SAP

15

SE; SAP of America, Inc.; and SAP Labs, LLC (collectively, “SAP”) filed a responsive

16

declaration withdrawing some of SAP’s assertions of confidentiality but supporting sealing some

17

of the material at issue.

18

In civil action in federal court, a party generally must show “compelling reasons” to file a

19

document under seal rather than in the public record. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC,

20

809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016). Where discovery documents designated as confidential

21

under a protective order are filed in connection with a motion that is not “more than tangentially

22

related to the underlying cause of action,” however, a lower standard of “good cause” may suffice

23

to warrant sealing. See id. at 1097, 1101. The “good cause” standard is often applied to

24

“discovery-related motions,” and is appropriate here. See id. at 1097.

25

Most of the material that Teradata initially sought to seal was based solely on SAP’s

26

designations of confidentiality, which SAP withdrew in its response. The remaining material

27

consists of portions of Exhibits 6, 15, and 17. Teradata seeks to seal a several-page portion of

28

Exhibit 17 on the basis that it “contains a discussion of unfounded allegations by SAP that, if

Case 3:18-cv-03670-WHO Document 382 Filed 01/26/21 Page 2 of 2

1

made public, would reveal confidential commercial information and may negatively impact

2

Teradata’s relationship with customers, potential customers, or partners,” and “could harm

3

Teradata’s competitive standing by revealing confidential commercial information and may

4

negatively impact Teradata’s relationship with other parties.” Prendergast Decl. (dkt. 339-1) ¶¶ 2–

5

3. SAP seeks to seal portions of Exhibits 6 and 15 on the basis that they “consist of unproven

6

allegations by Teradata’s counsel (e.g., that certain information constitutes Teradata’s ‘trade

7

secrets,’ or that certain acts constitute ‘misappropriation’) that are not mentioned in the joint

8

discovery letter or in Teradata’s amended complaints” and “draw inferences about employees’

9

intentions that have not been proven.” Lanier Decl. (dkt. 342) ¶ 8.
The Court has reviewed the material at issue, in which counsel for both parties accuse their

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

opponents’ employees of stealing or misusing trade secrets and other confidential information.

12

The confidential information is not itself included in these letters. Parties’ “unproven allegations”

13

are routinely disclosed in litigation, and neither party cites authority for sealing such allegations

14

under comparable circumstances.1 Teradata’s administrative motion to file under seal is therefore

15

DENIED in its entirety, and Teradata shall file all of the documents at issue in the public record no

16

later than February 1, 2021.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated: January 26, 2021
______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Neither party’s declaration seeks to seal the party’s own allegations against its opponent, and the
Court does not reach the question of whether the outcome might differ if both parties had
supported sealing particular communications between counsel that were intended to remain
private.
2