Juniper Networks Inc. v. Swarm Technology LLC

Filing 58

ORDER RE SEALING. Signed by Judge James Donato on 12/21/2021. (jdlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2021)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JUNIPER NETWORKS INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 3:20-cv-03137-JD
ORDER RE SEALING

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 45
SWARM TECHNOLOGY LLC,
Defendant.

12
13

The Court has addressed in other orders the standards for sealing requests in conjunction

14

with case filings, see In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2021 WL

15

4190165, (N.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2021), and that discussion is incorporated here. In pertinent

16

summary, “judicial records are public documents almost by definition, and the public is entitled to

17

access by default.” Id. at *1 (quoting Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,

18

1180 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092,

19

1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (when considering a request to seal, “we start with a strong presumption in

20

favor of access to court records.”) (quotation omitted). The party seeking to seal a document bears

21

the burden of articulating “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh

22

the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Id. (quotation and

23

citation omitted). General assertions of potential competitive or commercial harm are not enough

24

to establish good cause for sealing court records, and the “fact that the parties may have

25

designated a document as confidential under a stipulated protective order is also not enough to

26

justify sealing.” Id. (citation omitted).

27

The documents proposed for sealing were produced by Swarm during the course of

28

jurisdictional discovery, and used by Juniper in conjunction with its opposition to Swarm’s motion

1

to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. See Dkt. No. 46. As required by Civil Local Rule 79-

2

5, Juniper filed the initial notice of sealing for documents obtained during discovery that Swarm

3

had designated as confidential under the protective order entered in this case. Dkt. No. 45 at 1.

4

Juniper further indicated its belief that “Swarm [would] determine the information Swarm

5

believe[d] should remain under seal and file the required supporting declarations and proposed

6

order.” Id. Civil Local Rule 79-5 required Swarm to state why the documents should be sealed,

7

and propose ways of tailoring sealing to the narrowest possible scope.

8

Swarm did not file a declaration or other response to Juniper’s motion to file under seal,

9

and so did not carry its burden under Civil Local Rule 79-5. Nothing was adduced to show that
Swarm might be harmed by the public disclosure of these documents. Consequently, the “default

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

posture of public access prevails.” In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation, --- F. Supp. 3d ---,

12

2021 WL 4190165 at *3 (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1182). Juniper is directed to file

13

unredacted versions of the opposition to the motion to dismiss and supporting exhibits on ECF

14

within 7 days of this order. Civil L.R. 79-5(f).

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 21, 2021

17
18
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2