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

Filing 335

ORDER RESOLVING MOTIONS TO SEAL RE: 293 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, 323 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, 316 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 3/9/16. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CHRIMAR SYSTEMS INC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

ORDER RESOLVING MOTIONS TO
SEAL

v.
CISCO SYSTEMS INC, et al.,

Re: Docket Nos. 293, 316, 322

Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 13-cv-01300-JSW

12
13

This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of motions to seal the briefs and

14

evidence submitted in connection with Plaintiff Chrimar Systems, Inc.’s motion to file amended

15

answers to counterclaims asserted by the defendants in this case.

16

The Court has considered the supplemental briefs filed on March 1, 2016, and it HEREBY

17

GRANTS, IN PART, the motions to seal, with the caveat that, as previously stated, factual

18

citations to the record shall not be sealed.

19
20

DOCUMENT

PORTIONS THAT MAY BE SEALED

21

Docket No. 292, ChriMar’s Motion for Leave

3:15-17 (starting after “For example,”)

22

to Amend Answer

3:18-21 (starting after “application.”)

23

3:23-27

24

4:3-5 (starting with first full sentence on line up

25

to but not including “Chad Jones)

26

4:6-13

27
28

1

Docket No. 293-5, Declaration of Brandon M.

2

Jordan, Ex. 1 (Responses to Interrogatories)1

3

Docket No. 293-6, Declaration of Brandon M.

Any portions of the deposition that were not

4

Jordan, Ex. 2 (Excerpts of Deposition of Chad

cited by the parties in any of their briefs may

5

Jones)

redacated. For example, if ChriMar did not

57:9-12

6

cite to page 56:16-57:18 of the Jones

7

deposition, those pages and lines should be

8

redacted. However, the Court shall not seal

9

page 56:13-15.
In addition, the following pages and lines may

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

be sealed:

12

51:8-12

13

52:11-53:13

14

54:3-55:20

15

59:2-12

16

61:2-5

17
18

Docket No. 293-7, Declaration of Brandon M.

Any portions of the deposition that were

19

Jordon, Ex. 3 (Deposition of Dan Lang)

submitted with the exhibit but were not cited in

20

any the briefs may be redacted. In addition, the

21

following pages may be sealed:

22

91:10-15

23

92:10-22

24

154:8-155:16 (pages 153:16-154:7 are not

25
1

26
27
28

In its supplemental brief in support of the motions to seal, ChriMar refers to Docket No.
292 for the exhibits submitted in support of its opening motion for leave to amend. The same is
true with the parties’ references to Docket No. 314, the Cisco Defendants’ opposition, and to
ChriMar’s references to Docket No. 322, its reply brief. However, because the un-redacted
versions of the documents sought to be sealed are located at Docket Nos. 293, 316, and 323,
respectively, the Court has referred to those docket entries in this Order.
2

1

sealable)

2

Docket No. 316-3, Cisco Opposition to Motion

2:16-23

3

for Leave to Amend

6:20-27

4

7:20-27

5

9:22

6

Docket No. 316-6, Declaration of Michael De

7

Vries, Ex. A (License Agreement)

8

Docket No. 316-8, Declaration of Michael De

Any portions of the deposition that were

9

Vries, Ex. B (Deposition of Monte Cooper)

submitted with the exhibit but were not cited in

Entire document may be sealed.

any of the briefs may be redacted. In addition,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

the following pages may be sealed

12

18:12-17

13

19:23-20:1

14

Docket No. 323-4, ChriMar Reply Brief2

12:1-3 (up to citations to record)

15

12:4-7 (after “However” and up to citations to

16

record)

17

12:8-10 (after “one hand” and up to “as it”

18

12:17-18 (after “that” on line 17 and up to

19

“that” on line 18)

20

12:21-25

21

13:3 (after “patent” and up to citations to

22

record)

23
24
25
26
27
28

2

In its supplemental submission, ChriMar has included its reply brief and supporting
evidence in its chart. It states that certain portions do not contain ChriMar confidential material,
but cites to declarations previously submitted the Cisco Defendants, which were submitted in
support of sealing that material. (See generally Docket No. 332, ChriMar Supplemental Brief at
6:3-26.) The Court found the prior declarations were insufficient to support the motions to seal.
Because the Cisco Defendants have not addressed any portion of ChriMar’s reply brief or the
supporting evidence in their supplemental chart, the Court will only seal those portions that
ChriMar contends contains its confidential information or which are adequately supported by the
Cisco Defendants’ supplemental submission.
3

1
2
3
4

The par
rties shall fil redacted versions of th briefs an evidence, which com
le
v
heir
nd
,
mport with
the terms of thi Order by March 16, 2016.
e
is
M
IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: March 9, 2016

5
6
JE
EFFREY S. W
WHITE
Un
nited States D
District Judg
ge

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
4