ChriMar Systems Inc. et al v. Cisco Systems Inc. et al

Filing 313

ORDER RE 293 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. Responses to Order due by 1/26/2016. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on January 13, 2016. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/13/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CHRIMAR SYSTEMS INC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8

CISCO SYSTEMS INC, et al.,

Re: Docket No. 293

Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER REGARDING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL

v.

9
10

Case No. 13-cv-01300-JSW

12
13

On January 5, 2016, Plaintiffs, ChriMar Systems Inc. d/b/a CMS Technologies and

14

ChriMar Holding company, LLC (collectively “ChriMar”), filed a motion to seal portions of its

15

motion for leave to amend its answer to the counterclaims asserted by Defendants Cisco Systems

16

(“Cisco”), Inc. and Hewlett Packard Co. (“HP”) and exhibits to a declaration supporting that

17

motion.

18

Cisco filed a declaration in support of the motion, and ChriMar has filed a supplemental

19

declaration in support of the motion. (See Docket Nos. 301, 305.) According to ChriMar, HP

20

designated portions of Exhibit 4 as highly confidential. HP has not filed a declaration pursuant to

21

Northern District Civil Local Rule 79-5.

22

The Court denies the motion, in part, to the extent it requests to seal citations to the record,

23

which do not reveal any confidential information. ChriMar’s motion is overly broad in that

24

respect. Therefore, to the extent the Court ultimately grants the motion to seal, ChriMar shall not

25

redact the citations to the record.

26

The Court tentatively denies the request to seal page 3 lines 3-5, of the motion, as well as

27

page 23 lines 6-9 of the Jones Deposition, because it appears that those portions of the record do

28

not reveal any confidential information. The Court will give the parties leave to further support

1

the request to seal those portions of th record in the supplem
eir
o
p
he
mental declar
rations perm
mitted by this

2

Ord
der.

3

ourt
VES
NG
mainder of t motion, a it ORDE Cisco
the
and
ERS
The Co RESERV RULIN on the rem

4

and ChriMar to submit furt
d
o
ther declarat
tions support
ting their req
quests to sea the portion of the
al
ns

5

mo
otion that hav been reda
ve
acted, as wel as the exhi
ll
ibits. In add
dition, becau Cisco con
use
ntends that

6

Exh
hibit 1 need not be filed under seal, ChriMar sha identify b page and line the port
all
by
tions of

7

Exh
hibit 1 (and Exhibit 4, if appropriate that it con
f
e),
ntends must be sealed. I third or no
If
on-parties

8

hav designated this inform
ve
mation as con
nfidential, C
ChriMar shou also advi the Court whether
uld
ise
t

9

any additional declarations will be filed in support of the motio to seal.
y
s
d
on

10

Finally, the Court ORDERS all parties to ad
,
O
l
ddress wheth the Cour should app the
her
rt
ply

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

“co
ompelling re
easons” or th “good cau
he
use” standard to resolve t motion. See, e.g., Ce
d
the
Center for

12

Auto Safety v. Chrysler Gro No. 15C
oup,
-55084, Slip Op. at 11-12, 17-18 (9 Cir. Jan. 11, 2016).
p.
9th

13

All resp
ponses to thi Order shal be due by no later than January 26 2016.
is
ll
n
6,

14

IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.

15

Da
ated: January 13, 2016
y

16
17
JE
EFFREY S. W
WHITE
Un
nited States D
District Judg
ge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2