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

Filing 781

ORDER GRANTING BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL re 452 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal PLAINTIFFS ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS BROCADE COMMUNIC ATIONS SYSTEMS, INC.S AND FOUNDRY NETWORKS, LLCS IDENTIFICATION OF PATENT CLAIMS, TRADE SECRETS, AND COPYRIGHT CLAIMS filed by Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Foundry Networks, LLC. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on September 18, 2012. (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS,
INC., et al,
Plaintiffs,

13
14

v.

Case No.: 10-CV-03428-PSG
ORDER GRANTING BROCADE
COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS’
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

A10 NETWORKS, INC., et al,
(Re: Docket No. 452)

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., (“Brocade”) moves to seal portions of its

19
20

Identification of Patent Claims, Trade Secrets, and Copyright Claims for July 16, 2012 Trial

21

Pursuant to Court Order Dated November 30, 2011 (“Identification of Claims”), and Exhibit 1 to

22

the Identification of Claims (“Exhibit 1”). Brocade has filed a declaration consistent with Civ.

23

L.R. 79.5 to support its request.

24
“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and

25
26

documents, including judicial records and documents.’”1 Accordingly, when considering a sealing

27
1

28

Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006).
1
Case No: 10-CV-03428-PSG
ORDER GRANTING BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS’ ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

1

request, “a strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.”2 Parties seeking to seal

2

judicial records relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of overcoming the presumption

3

with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies

4

favoring disclosure.3

5
6

Records attached to nondispositive motions, however, are not subject to the strong
presumption of access.4 Because the documents attached to nondispositive motions “are often

7
unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,” parties moving to seal
8
9

must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).5 As with dispositive motions,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

the standard applicable to nondispositive motions requires a “particularized showing”6 that

11

“specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed.7 “[B]road allegations of

12

harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning” will not suffice.8 A

13

protective order sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court’s previous

14

determination that good cause exists to keep the documents sealed,9 but a blanket protective order

15
16
17

that allows the parties to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial
scrutiny to determine whether each particular document should remain sealed.10

18
19
2

Id.

3

Id. at 1178-79.

4

See id. at 1180.

5

Id. at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

6

Id.

7

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

8

Id.

9

See id. at 1179-80.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

10

28

See Civil L.R. 79-5(a).

2
Case No: 10-CV-03428-PSG
ORDER GRANTING BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS’ ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal

1
2

documents must comply with the procedures established by Civil Local Rule 79-5. The rule allows

3

sealing orders only where the parties have “establishe[d] that the document or portions thereof is

4

privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.”11 The

5

rule requires parties to “narrowly tailor” their requests only to sealable material.12

6

The court has considered the documents Brocade designated for sealing and determined that

7
Brocade has met even the higher “compelling reasons” standard applicable to dispositive motions.
8
9

The proposed redactions to the Identification of Claims include only Brocade’s claimed trade

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

secrets and Exhibit 1 consists of Brocade’s and A10’s source code. Both types of information are

11

highly proprietary and confidential, and therefore sealable under Civil Local Rule 79-5. Brocade’s

12

motion to seal the documents is GRANTED.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 18, 2012

16

_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
11

Id.

12

Id.

27
28

3
Case No: 10-CV-03428-PSG
ORDER GRANTING BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS’ ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL