Cisco Systems, Inc. et al v. Dexon Computer, Inc.

Filing 283

ORDER by Judge Charles R. Breyer granting 261 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 262 Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed; granting in part and denying in part 271 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 273 Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed; granting in part and denying in part 244 Administrative Motion to Consider Wh ether Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed; granting 246 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 247 Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed; granting in part and denying in part 256 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 259 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/14/2023)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,

9
v.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Defendants.

13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Plaintiff Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) and Defendant Dexon Computer, Inc.
(“Dexon”) have filed many, many administrative motions to seal portions of the parties’
confidential or highly confidential material. This Order addresses the motions to seal that
relate to Cisco’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (dkt. 202) and Cisco’s Motion for
Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (dkt. 205). 1 As more particularly set forth
herein, the Court evaluates and resolves each of the parties’ sealing requests in these
various motions.
I.

24
25
26

LEGAL STANDARD
A.

22
23

ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL

DEXON COMPUTER, INC., et al.,

12
14

Case No. 20-cv-04926-CRB

Good Cause vs. Compelling Reason

We must first decide the standard for sealing that applies to Cisco’s motions and the
documents underlying them. Courts in the Ninth Circuit apply two standards to determine
whether to allow a document supporting a motion to remain under seal: the “compelling
reasons” standard, Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178, or the “good cause” exception, see

27
28

The docket numbers for these requests to seal are as follows: Dkt. 244, 246, 247, 256,
259, 261, 262, 271, and 273.

1

1

Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213–14 (9th Cir.

2

2002). Where a motion is “dispositive,” or “more than tangentially related to the merits of

3

a case,” the “compelling reasons” standard applies. Where the motion is “non-dispositive,”

4

or “unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the cause of action,” the “good cause”

5

standard applies. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1098–1102

6

(9th Cir. 2016).
Dexon contends that, because a preliminary injunction motion is non-dispositive,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7
8

the Phillips “good cause” standard shall apply, but this argument misunderstands Ninth

9

Circuit precedent on this issue. In Center for Auto Safety, the Ninth Circuit decided

10

precisely the question to be resolved here: What standard should be applied to a

11

preliminary injunction motion which, while not strictly dispositive, was clearly relevant to

12

the merits of the case. 809 F.3d at 1102. The Court concluded that the “compelling

13

reasons” standard should apply because the motion was “more than tangentially related to

14

the merits,” in part because the relief the movant was seeking—“that Chrysler notify its

15

customers that there was a part in their vehicle which could require replacement and be

16

dangerous if it failed”—was one of the aspects of the ultimate relief plaintiffs sought in the

17

action as a whole. Id at 1102. So too here. In its prayer for relief in its complaint, Cisco

18

seeks to enjoin Dexon from selling counterfeit Cisco products; in its motion for a

19

preliminary injunction, Cisco seeks to enjoin Dexon from selling counterfeit Cisco

20

products. It would be difficult to find a motion that is more relevant to the merits than this

21

one.
Therefore, any documents put forth in support of that motion—though produced

22
23

pursuant to a protective order in the Texas Litigation—must meet the more stringent

24

“compelling reasons” standard to remain under seal. 2

25
26
27
28

2

This standard also applies to any request to seal a portion of a complaint. See In re NVIDIA
Corp. Derivative Litig., 2008 WL 1859067, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2008) (“[A] request to seal
all or part of a complaint must clearly meet the ‘compelling reasons’ standard and not the ‘good
cause’ standard. While a complaint is not, per se, the actual pleading by which a suit may be
disposed of, it is the root, the foundation, the basis by which a suit arises and must be disposed
of.”).

2

B.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Applying the “Compelling Reasons” Standard

In considering motions to seal, courts recognize “a strong presumption in favor of
access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (cleaned up). A request to seal
may be supported by compelling reasons if the documents or portions of documents at
issue are “sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive
standing.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097; see also Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. “The
mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant's embarrassment,
incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to
seal its records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Confidential business information in the
form of “license agreements, financial terms, details of confidential licensing negotiations,
and business strategies” can be “compelling reasons” to prevent competitors from
leveraging this information to harm the designating parties in future negotiations. See
Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-cv-04810-HSG, 2020 WL 2838812, at *1
(N.D. Cal. 2020) (citation omitted); In re Qualcomm Litig., No. 3:17-cv-0108-GPC-MDD,
2017 WL 5176922, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 2017).
If publicly disclosing that information would harm a designating party’s
competitive standing and divulge terms of confidential contracts or contract negotiations,
compelling reasons may exist to seal that information. See FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 17cv-00220-LHK, 2019 WL 95922, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2019). However, the fact that
documents are subject to a protective order, or labeled as confidential under a protective
order, is not a compelling reason justifying continued sealing of the document if attached
to a dispositive motion. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136; see also Est. of Nunez by & through
Nunez v. Cnty. of San Diego, 386 F. Supp. 3d 1334 (S.D. Cal. 2019) (“[A] party does not
satisfy the compelling reasons standard to justify sealing documents merely by labeling
them as ‘CONFIDENTIAL.’”).
II.

DISCUSSION
Under the compelling reasons standard, this Court proceeds to balance the interests

of the public in access to judicial records against the parties’ interest in sealing those
3

1

records. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1092. We find that the designating parties have

2

satisfied the compelling reasons standard for some sealing requests but failed for others.
As described below, the Court denies the requests in whole or in part where either

3
4

Cisco or Dexon did not meet its burden to show that the at-issue portion could reveal

5

competitively damaging information sufficient to outweigh the public’s presumption of

6

public access to judicial records. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79; Epic Games, Inc., 2021

7

WL 1925460, at *1, 4. For example, the Court denies several requests where the

8

designated material contains nothing more than conclusory allegations with no business

9

information. Where the requests are overbroad, the Court orders the parties to tailor the

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

redactions to the competitively damaging information and unseal the rest.

11

A.

12

Cisco filed an administrative motion to seal confidential Dexon material in its

Cisco’s Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 245)

13

second amended complaint. Dkt. 244. Dexon seeks sealing of fifty-two of those

14

statements. 3 Dkt. 252. The Court’s rulings on these requests are as follows:
Portions of Materials Designating Reasons Proffered
Ruling
Requested to be Sealed
Party
for Sealing
Portions of ¶ 33
Dexon
Proprietary Business GRANTED.
Record, containing
sales information
Portions of ¶ 35
Dexon
Proprietary Business DENIED. Dexon did
Record, containing
not meet its burden of
supplier information showing competitive
harm.
Portions of ¶ 37
Dexon
GRANTED only as
Confidential Client
Communications
consistent with the
redactions proposed
in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines
23–28.
Entirety of ¶ 38
Dexon
GRANTED only as
Confidential Client
Communications
consistent with the

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

To the extent that Dexon does not seek sealing of any statement for which it is the
designating party in Cisco’s filings, those shall be unsealed.

3

4

1
2
3

Entirety of footnote 1

Dexon

4

Entirety of ¶ 40

Dexon

Entirety of ¶ 41

Dexon

Confidential Client
Communications

Heading (4) and entirety
of ¶ 60

Dexon

Confidential Client
Communications

Portions of ¶ 80

Dexon

Confidential Client
Communications

Portions of ¶ 81

Dexon

Confidential Client
Communications

Portions of ¶ 82

Dexon

Confidential Client
Communications

Entirety of ¶ 84

Dexon

Confidential Client
Communications

5

Confidential Client
Communications
Confidential Client
Communications

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5

redactions proposed
in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines
23–28.
GRANTED.
GRANTED only as
consistent with the
redactions proposed
in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines
23–28.
GRANTED only as
consistent with the
redactions proposed
in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines
23–28.
GRANTED only as
consistent with the
redactions proposed
in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines
23–28.
GRANTED only as
consistent with the
redactions proposed
in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines
23–28.
GRANTED only as
consistent with the
redactions proposed
in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines
23–28.
GRANTED only as
consistent with the
redactions proposed
in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines
23–28.
GRANTED only as
consistent with the
redactions proposed
in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines

1
2

Portions of ¶ 85

Dexon

Confidential Client
Communications

Portions of ¶ 87

Dexon

Entirety of footnote 7

Dexon

Confidential Client
Communications
Confidential Client
Communications

Portions of ¶ 88

Dexon

Confidential Client
Communications

Portions of ¶ 89

Dexon

Confidential Client
Communications

Entirety of ¶ 90

Dexon

Confidential Client
Communications

Entirety of footnote 8

Dexon

Confidential Client
Communications

Portions of ¶ 91

Dexon

Confidential Client
Communications

Entirety of ¶ 100

Dexon

Confidential Client

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

6

23–28.
GRANTED only as
consistent with the
redactions proposed
in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines
23–28.
GRANTED.
GRANTED only as
consistent with the
redactions proposed
in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines
23–28.
GRANTED only as
consistent with the
redactions proposed
in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines
23–28.
GRANTED only as
consistent with the
redactions proposed
in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines
23–28.
GRANTED only as
consistent with the
redactions proposed
in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines
23–28.
GRANTED only as
consistent with the
redactions proposed
in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines
23–28.
GRANTED only as
consistent with the
redactions proposed
in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines
23–28.
GRANTED only for

Communications

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Portions of ¶ 101

Dexon

Confidential Client
Communications

Entirety of ¶ 102

Dexon

Confidential Client
Communications

Entirety of ¶ 103

Dexon

Confidential Client
Communications

Portions of ¶ 104

Dexon

Confidential Client
Communications

Portions of ¶ 105

Dexon

Confidential Client
Communications

Entirety of ¶ 107

Dexon

Confidential Internal
Business
Communications

Entirety of ¶ 108

Dexon

Confidential Client
Communications

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

7

the number of licenses
listed in line 17 and in
line 18.
DENIED as to the rest
of ¶ 100. Dexon did
not meet its burden of
showing competitive
harm.
DENIED. Dexon did
not meet its burden of
showing competitive
harm.
GRANTED only as
consistent with the
redactions proposed
in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines
23–28.
GRANTED only as
consistent with the
redactions proposed
in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines
23–28.
DENIED. Dexon did
not meet its burden of
showing competitive
harm.
DENIED. Dexon did
not meet its burden of
showing competitive
harm.
DENIED. Dexon did
not meet its burden of
showing competitive
harm.
GRANTED only as
consistent with the
redactions proposed
in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines

1
2

Entirety of ¶ 109

Dexon

Confidential Client
Communications

Portions of ¶ 110

Dexon

Confidential Client
Communications

Portions of ¶ 111

Dexon

Confidential Client
Communications

Entirety of ¶ 115

Dexon

Confidential Client
Communications

Entirety of ¶ 116

Dexon

Confidential Client
Communications

Entirety of ¶ 117

Dexon

Confidential Client
Communications

Entirety of ¶ 118

Dexon

Confidential Client
Communications

Entirety of ¶ 119

Dexon

Confidential Client
Communications

Entirety of ¶ 120

Dexon

Confidential Client
8

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

23–28.
GRANTED only as
consistent with the
redactions proposed
in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines
23–28.
GRANTED only as
consistent with the
redactions proposed
in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines
23–28.
GRANTED only as
consistent with the
redactions proposed
in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines
23–28.
GRANTED only as
consistent with the
redactions proposed
in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines
23–28.
GRANTED only as
consistent with the
redactions proposed
in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines
23–28.
DENIED. Dexon did
not meet its burden of
showing competitive
harm.
DENIED. Dexon did
not meet its burden of
showing competitive
harm.
DENIED. Dexon did
not meet its burden of
showing competitive
harm.
GRANTED only as

Communications

1
2
3
4

Entirety of ¶ 121

Dexon

Confidential Client
Communications

Entirety of ¶ 122

Dexon

Confidential Client
Communications

Entirety of ¶ 123

Dexon

Confidential Client
Communications

Entirety of ¶ 127

Dexon

Confidential Client
Communications

Entirety of ¶ 128

Dexon

Confidential Client
Communications

Entirety of ¶ 129

Dexon

Confidential Client
Communications

Entirety of ¶ 130

Dexon

Confidential Client
Communications

5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

9

consistent with the
redactions proposed
in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines
23–28.
GRANTED only as
consistent with the
redactions proposed
in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines
23–28.
GRANTED only as
consistent with the
redactions proposed
in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines
23–28.
GRANTED only as
consistent with the
redactions proposed
in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines
23–28.
GRANTED only as
consistent with the
redactions proposed
in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines
23–28.
GRANTED only as
consistent with the
redactions proposed
in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines
23–28.
GRANTED only as
consistent with the
redactions proposed
in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines
23–28.
GRANTED only as
consistent with the
redactions proposed
in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines
23–28.

1

Entirety of ¶ 131

Dexon

Confidential Client
Communications

Portions of ¶ 132

Dexon

Confidential Client
Communications

Entirety of ¶ 135

Dexon

Proprietary Business
Record, containing
supplier information

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

Portions of ¶ 136

Dexon

Confidential Client
Communications

Portions of ¶ 165

Dexon

Portions of ¶ 180

Dexon

Confidential Client
Communications
Confidential Client
Communications

Entirety of ¶ 184,
subparagraphs (i)-(vii)

Dexon

Confidential Client
Communications

Portions of ¶ 184,
subparagraph (viii)

Dexon

Confidential Client
Communications

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

10

GRANTED only as
consistent with the
redactions proposed
in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines
23–28.
GRANTED only as
consistent with the
redactions proposed
in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines
23–28.
GRANTED only for
the number of
SMARTNet Contracts
listed in line 21.
DENIED for the rest
of ¶ 135. Dexon did
not meet its burden of
showing competitive
harm.
GRANTED only as
consistent with the
redactions proposed
in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines
23–28.
GRANTED.
DENIED. Dexon did
not meet its burden of
showing competitive
harm.
DENIED. Dexon did
not meet its burden of
showing competitive
harm.
DENIED. Dexon did
not meet its burden of
showing competitive
harm.

1
2

Portions of ¶ 185,
subparagraphs (i)-(ii)

Dexon

Confidential Client
Communications

3
4
5
6
7
8

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

GRANTED only as
consistent with the
redactions proposed
in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines
23–28.

For the rulings that reference Dkt. 208, Cisco shall revise the corresponding
designated material to redact only customer names (and identifying information), vendor
names (and identifying information), and pricing details.
B.

Cisco’s Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion for Preliminary
Injunction (dkt. 248)

Cisco filed an administrative motion to seal confidential Dexon material in its

10

supplemental brief in support of its motion for preliminary judgment (dkt. 247). Dexon

11

seeks sealing of eight of those statements (dkt. 255). The Court’s rulings on these requests

12

are as follows:
Portions of Materials
Designating
Requested to be Sealed
Party
Page 4, lines 19–28
Dexon

13
14
15

Reasons Proffered
for Sealing
Confidential Client
Communications

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Page 5, portions of line
6
Page 5, portions of line
10
Page 5, portions of line
13
Page 5, portions of line
14
Page 5, portions of line
15

Dexon

Page 5, portions of lines
18–19

Dexon

Dexon
Dexon
Dexon
Dexon

Proprietary Business
Records
Proprietary Business
Records
Proprietary Business
Records
Proprietary Business
Records
Proprietary Business
Records

25
26
27

Proprietary Business
Records

28
11

Ruling
DENIED. Dexon
did not meet its
burden of showing
competitive harm.
GRANTED.
GRANTED.
GRANTED.
GRANTED.
DENIED. Dexon
did not meet its
burden of showing
competitive harm.
GRANTED only as
consistent with the
redactions proposed
in Dkt. 209 at 2,

1
2

Dexon

Proprietary Business
Records

3

For the rulings that reference Dkt. 209, Cisco shall revise the corresponding

4

designated material to redact only customer names (and identifying information), vendor

5

names (and identifying information), and pricing details.

6
7

C.

Heidecker Declaration (dkt. 249)

Cisco filed an administrative motion to seal its own confidential material in Exhibit

8

1 to the declaration of Michael Heidecker, which is attached to Cisco’s supplemental brief

9

in support of its motion for preliminary judgment (dkt. 246). The Court’s ruling on that

10
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Page 6, portions of line
2

lines 24–28.
GRANTED.

12
13

one request is as follows:
Portions of Materials
Designating
Requested to be Sealed
Party
Entirety of Exhibit 1
Cisco

Reasons Proffered
for Sealing
Executive Summary
Reports

Ruling
GRANTED.

14

D.

15

Cisco filed administrative motions to seal its own confidential material (dkt. 246)

Nelson Declaration (dkt. 250)

16

and confidential Dexon material (dkt. 247) in the declaration of Richard J. Nelson, which

17

is attached to Cisco’s supplemental brief in support of its motion for preliminary judgment.

18

Cisco seeks sealing of seven of those statements (dkt. 246). Dexon seeks sealing of

19

fourteen of those statements (dkt. 255). The Court’s rulings on these requests are as

20

follows:
Portions of Materials
Designating
Requested to be Sealed
Party
Portions of ¶ 4
Dexon

21
22
23

Reasons Proffered
for Sealing
Proprietary Business
Records

24
25
26
27

Portions of ¶ 5

Dexon

Proprietary Business
Records

28
12

Ruling
GRANTED only as
consistent with the
redactions proposed
in Dkt. 209 at 2,
lines 24–28.
GRANTED only as
consistent with the
redactions proposed
in Dkt. 209 at 2,

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

lines 24–28.
Portions of ¶ 6

Dexon

Portions of ¶ 7

Dexon

Portions of ¶ 9

Dexon

Portions of ¶ 10

Dexon

Page 4, Entirety of
Table
Page 5, Entirety of
Table
Portions of ¶ 14

Dexon

Portions of ¶ 15

Dexon

Confidential Client
Communications

Portions of ¶ 16

Dexon

Confidential Client
Communications

Entirety of Exhibit 1

Cisco

Entirety of Exhibit 2

Cisco

Entirety of Exhibit 3

Cisco

Entirety of Exhibit 4

Cisco

Entirety of Exhibit 5

Cisco

Entirety of Exhibit 6

Cisco

Entirety of Exhibit 7

Cisco

Executive Summary
Reports
Executive Summary
Reports
Executive Summary
Reports
Executive Summary
Reports
Executive Summary
Reports
Executive Summary
Reports
Executive Summary

Dexon
Dexon

Proprietary Business
Records
Proprietary Business
Records
Proprietary Business
Records
Proprietary Business
Records
Proprietary Business
Records
Proprietary Business
Records
Confidential Client
Communications

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

13

GRANTED.
GRANTED.
GRANTED.
GRANTED.
GRANTED.
GRANTED.
DENIED. Dexon
did not meet its
burden of showing
competitive harm.
DENIED. Dexon
did not meet its
burden of showing
competitive harm.
DENIED. Dexon
did not meet its
burden of showing
competitive harm.
GRANTED.
GRANTED.
GRANTED.
GRANTED.
GRANTED.
GRANTED.
GRANTED.

1
2

Reports
Entirety of Exhibit 10

Dexon

Confidential Client
Communications

Entirety of Exhibit 11

Dexon

Confidential Client
Communications

Entirety of Exhibit 12

Dexon

Confidential Client
Communications

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

GRANTED only as
consistent with the
redactions proposed
in Dkt. 209 at 2,
lines 24–28.
GRANTED only as
consistent with the
redactions proposed
in Dkt. 209 at 2,
lines 24–28.
GRANTED only as
consistent with the
redactions proposed
in Dkt. 209 at 2,
lines 24–28.

13

For the rulings that reference Dkt. 209, Cisco shall revise the corresponding

14

designated material to redact only customer names (and identifying information), vendor

15

names (and identifying information), and pricing details.
E.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Dexon’s Response to Cisco’s Supplemental Brief in Support of its
Motion for Preliminary Judgment (dkt. 257)

Dexon filed administrative motions to seal its own confidential material, as well as
confidential Cisco material, in its response to Cisco’s supplemental brief in support of its
motion for preliminary judgment. See Dkt. 256. Cisco did not file a statement within
seven days of Dexon’s motion. See Civil L.R. 79-5. The sealing requests—twenty in
total—are therefore denied as to Cisco. However, because Dexon designated its own
confidential material in those same twenty statements, this Court will evaluate the requests
as to Dexon, ruling as follows:
Portions of Materials
Designating
Requested to be Sealed 4
Party

Reasons Proffered
for Sealing

Ruling

26
27
28

The page numbers in Dexon’s motion to seal do not match up with the redacted portions
in Dexon’s response. The Court’s rulings, and page numbers in the below chart, are based
on those redacted portions.
14
44

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Page 1, portion of line
18

Dexon

Proprietary Business
Records

Page 1, portion of line
22

Dexon

Proprietary Business
Records

Page 2, portion of line
19
Page 3, portion of
footnote 3

Dexon

Proprietary Business
Records
Proprietary Business
Records

Page 4, portion of line 4

Dexon

Proprietary Business
Records

Page 4, portion of line 7

Dexon

Proprietary Business
Records

Page 4, portion of line
8–9

Dexon

Proprietary Business
Records

Page 4, portion of line
11

Dexon

Proprietary Business
Records

Page 5, line 1

Dexon

Proprietary Business
Records

Page 5, portion of lines
2–3

Dexon

Proprietary Business
Records

Page 5, portion of 5–6

Dexon

Proprietary Business
Records

Dexon

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

15

DENIED. Dexon did
not meet its burden
of showing
competitive harm.
DENIED. Dexon did
not meet its burden
of showing
competitive harm.
GRANTED.
DENIED. Dexon did
not meet its burden
of showing
competitive harm.
DENIED. Dexon did
not meet its burden
of showing
competitive harm.
DENIED. Dexon did
not meet its burden
of showing
competitive harm.
DENIED. Dexon did
not meet its burden
of showing
competitive harm.
DENIED. Dexon did
not meet its burden
of showing
competitive harm.
DENIED. Dexon did
not meet its burden
of showing
competitive harm.
DENIED. Dexon did
not meet its burden
of showing
competitive harm.
DENIED. Dexon did
not meet its burden

1
2
3

Page 5, portion of lines
6–8

Dexon

Proprietary Business
Records

Page 7, portion of line
15

Dexon

Confidential Client
Communications or
Proprietary Business
Records

Page 8, portion of line 1

Dexon

Page 8, portion of lines
4–6

Dexon

Page 8, portion of 6–7

Dexon

Page 8, portion of lines
7–10

Dexon

Confidential Client
Communications or
Proprietary Business
Records
Confidential Client
Communications or
Proprietary Business
Records
Confidential Client
Communications or
Proprietary Business
Records
Confidential Client
Communications or
Proprietary Business
Records

Page 8, portion of lines
10–12

Dexon

Confidential Client
Communications or
Proprietary Business
Records

Page 8, portion of line
14

Dexon

Confidential Client
Communications or
Proprietary Business
Records

Page 8, portion of lines

Dexon

Confidential Client

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

16

of showing
competitive harm.
DENIED. Dexon did
not meet its burden
of showing
competitive harm.
GRANTED only as
consistent with the
redactions proposed
in Dkt. 209 at 2, lines
24–28.
DENIED. Dexon did
not meet its burden
of showing
competitive harm.
DENIED. Dexon did
not meet its burden
of showing
competitive harm.
DENIED. Dexon did
not meet its burden
of showing
competitive harm.
GRANTED only as
consistent with the
redactions proposed
in Dkt. 209 at 2, lines
24–28.
GRANTED only as
consistent with the
redactions proposed
in Dkt. 209 at 2, lines
24–28.
GRANTED only as
consistent with the
redactions proposed
in Dkt. 209 at 2, lines
24–28.
DENIED. Dexon did
not meet its burden

1

20–21

Communications or
Proprietary Business
Records

2
3

For the rulings that reference Dkt. 209, Dexon shall revise the corresponding

4

designated material to redact only customer names (and identifying information), vendor

5

names (and identifying information), and pricing details.

6
7

F.

Lafeber Declaration, Exhibit A, Exhibit B (dkts. 257-1, 257-2, 257-3)

Dexon filed an administrative motion to seal its own confidential material in the

8

declaration of Michael Lafeber and Exhibits A and B, which are attached to its response to

9

Cisco’s supplemental brief in support of its motion for preliminary judgment. Dkt. 256.

10
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

of showing
competitive harm.

12
13

The Court’s rulings on these requests are as follows:
Portions of Materials
Designating
Reasons Proffered
Requested to be Sealed
Party
for Sealing
Lafeber Decl., portion
Dexon
Proprietary Business
of ¶ 3
Records

14
15

Exhibit A

Dexon

Proprietary Business
Records

Exhibit B

Dexon

Proprietary Business
Records

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

Ruling
DENIED. Dexon did
not meet its burden
of showing
competitive harm
GRANTED only as
consistent with the
redactions proposed
in Dkt. 209 at 2, lines
24–28.
GRANTED only as
consistent with the
redactions proposed
in Dkt. 209 at 2, lines
24–28.

For the rulings that reference Dkt. 209, Dexon shall revise the corresponding
designated material to redact only customer names (and identifying information), vendor
names (and identifying information), and pricing details.
G.

Dexon’s Response to Cisco’s Revised Proposed Injunction (dkt. 260)

Dexon filed an administrative motion to seal its own confidential material, as well
as Cisco’s confidential material, in its response to Cisco’s revised proposed injunction.
17

1

Dkt. 259. Cisco did not file a statement within seven days of Dexon’s motion, so the

2

material designated by only Cisco shall be unsealed. See Civil L.R. 79-5. The Court’s

3

rulings on Dexon’s three sealing requests are as follows:
Portions of Materials
Designating
Reasons Proffered
Requested to be Sealed
Party
for Sealing
Page 10, portions of
Dexon
Proprietary Business
lines 12–16
Records
Page 11, portions of
Dexon
Proprietary Business
lines 5–9
Records

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Page 11, lines 9–12

Dexon

Proprietary Business
Records

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

H.

Ruling
GRANTED.
DENIED. Dexon did
not meet its burden
of showing
competitive harm.
DENIED. Dexon did
not meet its burden
of showing
competitive harm.

Kaas Declaration (dkt. 260-1)

Dexon filed an administrative motion to seal its own confidential material in the
declaration of Leo Kaas, attached to its response to Cisco’s revised proposed injunction.
Dkt. 259. The Court’s rulings on Dexon’s three requests are as follows:
Portions of Materials
Designating
Reasons Proffered
Ruling
Requested to be Sealed
Party
for Sealing
Page 2, ¶ 6
Dexon
Proprietary Business GRANTED.
Records
Page 3, portions of ¶ 10 Dexon
Proprietary Business DENIED. Dexon did
Records
not meet its burden
of showing
competitive harm.
Page 3, ¶ 11
Dexon
Proprietary Business DENIED. Dexon did
Records
not meet its burden
of showing
competitive harm.
I.

Cisco’s Motion to Strike (dkt. 263)

Cisco filed an administrative motion to seal its own confidential material (dkt. 261),
as well as confidential Dexon material (dkt. 262), in its motion to strike Dexon’s
18

1

supplemental brief. Cisco seeks sealing of two of those statements. Dkt. 261. So does

2

Dexon. Dkt. 267. The Court’s rulings on these requests are as follows:
Portions of Materials
Designating
Reasons Proffered
Ruling
Requested to be Sealed
Party
for Sealing
5
Page 3, lines 25–28
Cisco
Details of Proprietary GRANTED.
Business Tool
6
Page 4, lines 1–20
Cisco
Details of Proprietary GRANTED.
Business Tool
Page 5, portions of line Dexon
Proprietary Business
GRANTED.
27
Records
Page 5, portions of line Dexon
Proprietary Business
GRANTED.
28
Records

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

J.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Nelson Declaration (dkt. 263-1)

Cisco filed an administrative motion to seal its own confidential material in the
declaration of Richard J. Nelson, attached to its motion to strike Dexon’s supplemental
brief. Dkt. 261. The Court’s rulings on these nine requests are as follows:
Portions of Materials
Designating
Reasons Proffered
Ruling
Requested to be Sealed
Party
for Sealing
Entirety of ¶ 6(a)
Cisco
Details of Proprietary GRANTED.
Business Tool
Entirety of ¶ 6(b)
Cisco
Details of Proprietary GRANTED.
Business Tool
Entirety of ¶ 6(c)
Cisco
Details of Proprietary GRANTED.
Business Tool
Entirety of ¶ 6(d)
Cisco
Details of Proprietary GRANTED.
Business Tool
Entirety of ¶ 6(e)
Cisco
Details of Proprietary GRANTED.
Business Tool
Entirety of ¶ 6(f)
Cisco
Details of Proprietary GRANTED.
Business Tool
Entirety of ¶ 6(g)
Cisco
Details of Proprietary GRANTED.
Business Tool

26
27
28

This page number is based on the redacted portions in Cisco’s motion to strike. Dkt. 263.
It appears that the page number in Cisco’s motion to seal (dkt. 261) was a typo.
6
See supra note 3.
19
5

1
2

Entirety of ¶ 6(h)

Cisco

Entirety of ¶ 7

Cisco

United States District Court
Northern District of California

3

Details of Proprietary
Business Tool
Details of Proprietary
Business Tool

GRANTED.
GRANTED.

4

K.

5

Dexon filed an administrative motion to seal confidential Cisco material in Exhibit

Exhibit to Dexon’s Response to Cisco’s Motion to Strike (dkt. 274-4)

6

C to its response to Cisco’s motion to strike (dkt. 273). 7 Cisco did not file Redaction

7

Request by September 6, 2023. See Minute Order, Dkt. 265. Nor did it file a statement

8

within seven days of Dexon’s motion. See Civil L.R. 79-5. Therefore, this material shall

9

be unsealed.

10

L.

11

Dexon files an administrative motion to seal its own confidential material in its

Dexon’s Partial Answer to Cisco’s Amended Complaint (dkt. 272)

12

partial answer to Cisco’s second amended complaint. Dkt. 271. The Court’s rulings on

13

Dexon’s ten requests are as follows:
Portions of Materials
Designating
Requested to be Sealed
Party
Page 8, lines 4–5
Dexon

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Page 11, portions of
lines 17–18

Dexon

Page 11, portions of
lines 22–23

Dexon

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

7

Reasons Proffered
for Sealing
Confidential Client
Communications,
Proprietary Business
Records, and
Confidential Internal
Business
Communications
Confidential Client
Communications,
Proprietary Business
Records, and
Confidential Internal
Business
Communications
Confidential Client
Communications,
Proprietary Business

Ruling
GRANTED only as
consistent with the
redactions proposed
in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines
23–28.

GRANTED.

GRANTED.

This document is the transcript of the July 14, 2023 hearing before this Court.
20

1
2
3
4
5

Page 12, portions of line Dexon
1

6
7
8
9
10

Page 12, portions of line Dexon
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

Page 12, portions of line Dexon
21

16
17
18
19
20

Page 14, portions of line Dexon
21

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Page 14, portions of line Dexon
25

Records, and
Confidential Internal
Business
Communications
Confidential Client
Communications,
Proprietary Business
Records, and
Confidential Internal
Business
Communications
Confidential Client
Communications,
Proprietary Business
Records, and
Confidential Internal
Business
Communications
Confidential Client
Communications,
Proprietary Business
Records, and
Confidential Internal
Business
Communications
Confidential Client
Communications,
Proprietary Business
Records, and
Confidential Internal
Business
Communications
Confidential Client
Communications,
Proprietary Business
Records, and
Confidential Internal
Business
Communications
21

GRANTED.

GRANTED.

GRANTED.

GRANTED.

GRANTED.

1
2

Page 15, portions of line Dexon
2

3
4
5
6
7

Page 15, portions of line Dexon
13

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Confidential Client
Communications,
Proprietary Business
Records, and
Confidential Internal
Business
Communications
Confidential Client
Communications,
Proprietary Business
Records, and
Confidential Internal
Business
Communications

GRANTED.

GRANTED.

For the rulings that reference Dkt. 208, Dexon shall revise the corresponding

12

designated material to redact only customer names (and identifying information), vendor

13

names (and identifying information), and pricing details.

14

III.

CONCLUSION

15

The Court’s rulings are reflected in the charts included throughout this Order.

16

The moving party shall publicly file revised versions of the documents pursuant to

17

this Order and Civil Local Rule 79-5(g) within 21 days of this Order.

18

For each ruling that refers to Dkt. 208 or Dkt. 209, the revised designated material

19

shall only redact customer names (and identifying information), vendor names (and

20

identifying information), and pricing details. See sections A, B, D, E, F, and L.

21
22

This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 244, 246, 247, 256, 259, 261, 262, 271, and
273.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

Dated: September 14, 2023

CHARLES R. BREYER
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
22