Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. et al v. A10 Networks, Inc. et al

Filing 418

Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh granting in part and denying in part 408 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal.(lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/22/2011)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS,
INC., a Delaware corporation, and FOUNDRY
NETWORKS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company,

)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants, )
)
v.
)
)
A10 NETWORKS, INC., a California
)
corporation; LEE CHEN, an individual;
)
RAJKUMAR JALAN, an individual; RON
)
SZETO, an individual; DAVID CHEUNG, an )
individual; LIANG HANG, an individual; and )
STEVE HWANG, an individual,
)
)
Defendants and Counterclaimants.
)
)

Case No.: 10-CV-03428-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL

Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to file under seal Plaintiffs’

18

expert’s declarations and associated exhibits in support of claim construction and summary

19

judgment oppositions. ECF No. 408. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek to file Exhibits J, K, N, O, and P

20

to the Declaration of Nitin Gambhir in Support of Plaintiffs’ (1) Claim Construction Brief; (2)

21

Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent

22

Nos. 7,647,427 and 7,716,370; and (3) Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

23

of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,558,195. Plaintiffs also seek to file the Declaration of

24

Izhak Rubin in Support of Plaintiffs’ (1) Claim Construction; (2) Opposition to Defendants’

25

Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,647,427 and 7,716,370;

26

and (3) Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S.

27

Patent No. 7,558,195.

28

1
Case No.: 10-CV-03428-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL

1

Plaintiffs contend that these documents contain confidential, privileged and trade secret

2

information including references to and analysis of both Plaintiffs’ and A10’s source code.

3

Plaintiffs also propose to file redacted versions of all documents to be filed under seal so that

4

public access to non-confidential materials will be provided.

5

As to the Gambhir Declaration, the Court agrees that Exhibits N, O, and P contain
confidential and trade secret information, including source code. Accordingly, the motion is

7

GRANTED as to these exhibits, and the Clerk shall file them under seal in their entirety. As to

8

Exhibits J and K, it is not clear on the face of these exhibits that they contain privileged,

9

confidential, or trade secret information. They bear no confidential or attorney’s eyes only

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

6

designations. The declaration also does not state with whom these documents are shared or

11

whether they are publicly available. Accordingly, as to Exhibits J and K, the motion is DENIED

12

without prejudice. Plaintiffs may re-file their motion as to Exhibits J and K.

13

As to the Rubin Declaration, the Court finds that this entire document cannot be filed under

14

seal. In addition to containing confidential and trade secret information, this declaration contains

15

non-confidential information such as Dr. Rubin’s education and experience; prior testimony and

16

compensation; understanding of the law; his opinion as to what the level of ordinary skill in the art

17

is; the list of documents he reviewed; and a background of the technology at issue in this case.

18

The Court notes that Plaintiffs have failed to comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5(c), which

19

requires that Plaintiffs lodge a copy of the document with the sealable portions identified, and

20

lodge and serve a redacted version of the document that can be filed in the public record if the

21

Court grants the sealing order. Plaintiffs have also failed to comply with the Court’s standing order

22

of December 1, 2011, which requires a party to publicly e-file, as an exhibit to the administrative

23

motion to file under seal, a proposed public redacted version of the documents that the party is

24

seeking to file under seal.

25

Accordingly, the motion to file the declaration of Dr. Rubin under seal is DENIED, without

26

prejudice, and Plaintiffs may re-file their motion pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(c) and the

27

Court’s December 1, 2011 standing order.

28

2
Case No.: 10-CV-03428-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL

1
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3

Dated: December 22, 2011

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3
Case No.: 10-CV-03428-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL