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

Filing 377

ORDER RESOLVING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL BRIEFS AND EXHIBITS RE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 4/29/16. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/29/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
CHRIMAR SYSTEMS INC, et al.,

7

Plaintiffs,

8
v.

9

CISCO SYSTEMS INC, et al.,

10

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 13-cv-01300-JSW
ORDER RESOLVING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO
SEAL BRIEFS AND EXHIBITS RE
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO AMEND
Re: Docket Nos. 339, 355

12
Now before the Court are Defendants’ motions to seal, which pertain to the opening and

13
14

reply briefs on their motion for leave to amend, and exhibits submitted in support of that motion.

15

(Docket Nos. 339, 355.)1

16

A.

Administrative Motion to Seal Opening Brief and Exhibits – Docket No. 339.
Plaintiffs have submitted a declaration in response to this motion. (Docket No. 342,

17
18

Declaration of Brandon M. Jordan.) According to Defendants’ motion, Clyde Boenke designated

19

certain materials as confidential. Because the Court had not received a declaration from Mr.

20

Boenke that demonstrated why the material he designated as confidential should remain under

21

seal, the Court gave him a further opportunity to comply with Northern District Civil Rule 79-

22

5(e)(1). The Court also advised Mr. Boenke that if he failed to file such a declaration, the Court

23
1

24
25
26
27
28

On April 22, 2016, and April 25, 2016, respectively, the Defendants filed motions to seal
and their amended answers and counterclaims, in which the parties move to seal some of the same
information that is addressed in the pending motions. (See Docket Nos. 368, 372.) Plaintiffs have
filed a declaration responding to those motions. (Docket No. 374.)
The Cisco Defendants filed a proof of service showing that they served third party Clyde
Boenke with a copy of their motion to seal. HP has not filed such proof of service. The Court will
be ruling on those motions as soon as the time to respond has passed. However, all parties are
advised that the Court’s ruling will be consistent with its ruling on the motions addressed in this
Order.

1

was likely to order the materials filed in the public record. (Docket No. 360.) Mr. Boenke has not

2

submitted a declaration pursuant to Rule 79-5.

3

The Motion for Leave to Amend.

4

Although Plaintiffs state that Defendant’s motion for leave to amend does not contain any

5

of their confidential information, the motion does cite portions of exhibits that they have deemed

6

confidential and which the Court finds to be sealable. However, the material that Mr. Boenke

7

designated as confidential is not sealable. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS, IN PART, the

8

motion to seal the opening brief, and the following pages and lines shall remain under seal

9

pending further order of the Court:
Page 4:15-17 (starting after “For example,” and ending at end of sentence)

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Page 4:18-23 (starting after “1” and excluding the record cites).

12

The Exhibits in Support of the Motion for Leave to Amend.

13

The Court finds the following portions of the exhibits attached to the motion and to the

14

Declaration of Michael DeVries shall remain under seal pending further order of the Court:

15

Motion Exhibit A: Cisco Systems, Inc. and Linksys LLC’s (“Cisco Defendants”)

16

Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses and Third Amended Counterclaims: page 16, line 5

17

though page 17, line 5 (Paragraph 46 of Cisco Defendants’ Amended Answer);

18

Motion Exhibit B: Redline Version of Cisco Defendants’ Amended Answer and

19

Affirmative Defenses and Third Amended Counterclaims: page 16, line 11 through page 17, line

20

10 (Paragraph 46 of Cisco Defendants’ Amended Answer);

21

Motion Exhibit C: HP’s Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Second Amended

22

Counterclaims: page 14, line 24-15, lines 23 (Paragraph 46 of HP’s Amended Answer);
Motion Exhibit D: Redline Version of HP’s Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Second

23
24

Amended Counterclaims: page 14, line 24-15, lines 23 (Paragraph 46 of HP’s Amended Answer);
DeVries Declaration Exhibit 4: Deposition of Josua Beebe, page 33, line 1 through 34,

25
26

line 4;

27

DeVries Declaration Exhibit 6: Letter dated February 10, 1998. A portion of this exhibit

28

is cited in Defendants’ motion at page 4, lines 6-10, and the same portion of that letter is also cited
2

1

in the Defendan amende answers an countercl
t
nts’
ed
nd
laims, and P
Plaintiffs did not argue th portion
hat

2

of the letter sho
t
ould be seale Rather, they argue th exhibit c
ed.
t
his
contains conf
fidential pric
cing

3

inf
formation.
The Co conclude that the la sentence o each para
ourt
es
ast
of
agraph captio
oned as a “Phase” may

4
5

be sealed, and Defendants shall redact those senten
nces only.
DeVrie Declaration Exhibit 7: Letter dat March 11, 1998. Th exhibit ma be sealed
es
7
ted
he
ay

6
7

in its entirety; and
i
a
DeVrie Declaration Exhibit 8: Letter dat Novembe 15, 1998 and Invoice dated
es
8
ted
er

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

12/
/08/98. The invoice may be sealed.
y
B.

Admin
ibits – Dock No. 355.
nistrative Motion to Sea Reply Bri and Exhi
al
ief
ket
Plaintif submitted a declaratio that states that none o the materi submitte by
ffs
d
on
s
of
ials
ed

12

De
efendants sub
bmitted in su
upport of the reply brief contain info
e
ormation that they design
t
nated as

13

con
nfidential. (D
Docket No. 363, Declara
ation of Bran
ndon M. Jor
rdan, ¶¶ 2-7.) As noted, Mr. Boenke
e

14

has failed to fil a declarati to show why the info
s
le
ion
ormation he designated a confident should be
as
tial
e

15

sea
alable. With the exceptio of Exhibi 17 to the R
h
on
it
Reply Declar
ration of Mic
chael De Vr
ries, the

16

Court conclude that the in
es
nformation is not sealabl e.
s

17
18

Accord
dingly, the Court GRANT the motio to seal Ex
TS
on
xhibit 17, bu it DENIES the
ut
S
rem
mainder of Defendants’ motion to seal portions o the reply b
D
m
of
brief.
CONCLU
USION

19
20

Defend
dants shall fil revised redacted versi
le
ions of all do
ocuments ad
ddressed in th Order by
his
y

21

Ma 6, 2016. It is FURTH
ay
I
HER ORDE
ERED that D
Defendants shall serve a copy of th Order
his

22

on Mr. Boenk and shall file proof of such servi with the Court.
ke
f
ice

23
24

IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: April 29 2016
9,

25
26
JE
EFFREY S. W
WHITE
Un
nited States D
District Judg
ge

27
28
3