AMC Technology, L.L.C. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.

Filing 63

ORDER DISSOLVING DECEMBER 29, 2011 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; ORDER DENYING AS MOOT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL by Judge Paul S. Grewal finding as moot 46 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; finding as moot 47 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (psglc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/20/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
AMC TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
12
13
14
15
16

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
)
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )

Case No.: C 11-03403 PSG
ORDER DISSOLVING DECEMBER 29,
2011 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE;
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO
FILE UNDER SEAL
(Re: Docket Nos. 46, 47, 54)

17

In light of the substantial portion of the pleadings that the parties filed under seal, including

18

18 of 22 pages of the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) and a pending motion to dismiss all of the

19

claims alleged therein, the court ordered the parties to show cause why any portion of an order on

20

the pending motion must remain under seal. The court held a hearing on January 10, 2012. Plaintiff

21

AMC Technology, LLC (“AMC”) no longer seeks to have any documents or information remain

22

under seal. Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) seeks to have a limited amount of information

23

remain under seal and submitted declarations supporting the sealing of certain proprietary and

24

commercially competitive information: (1) the amount of fees and royalties paid by (or

25

contemplated to be paid by) Cisco for AMC’s development of the OEM software, AMC’s licensing

26

of the software, and AMC’s ongoing maintenance obligations; and (2) product specifications and

27
28
Case No.: C 11-3403 PSG
ORDER DISSOLVING OSC

1

1

features of the Cisco Siebel Adapter.1 Having reviewed the responses and the two declarations,

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the order to show cause is dissolved.

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that specific portions of the following documents shall remain

4

under seal:

5

(1) Complaint (Docket No. 1): Exhibit A, Pages 23-25; 37-61.

6

(2) Cisco’s Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 30): Page 5, line 25; Page 6, lines
2-4; Page 14, line 6.

7
8

(3) First Amended Complaint (Docket No. 34): Page 6, line 7, Exhibit A,
Pages 23-25; 37-61.

9

(4) Cisco’s Motion to Dismiss the FAC (Docket No. 39): Page 5, lines 9, 11;
Page 13, lines 7-8.

10
(5) AMC’s Opposition (Docket No. 41): Page 16, line 28.
11
(6) Cisco’s Reply (Docket No. 46): Page 8, lines 3-4.
12
The Ninth Circuit has explained that “[h]istorically, courts have recognized a ‘general right
13
to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents. This
14
right is justified by the interest of citizens in ‘keeping a watchful eye on the workings of public
15
16

agencies.’”2
“[A] strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.”3 Under this standard, a

17
party seeking to seal a judicial record relating to a dispositive motion bears the burden of
18
overcoming the strong presumption of public access by articulating “compelling reasons” supported
19
by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies
20

favoring disclosure.4 The court then must “conscientiously balance[] the competing interests” of the

21
22
23
1

24
25

At the hearing, Cisco also requested that Exhibit A to the First Amended Complaint
remain under seal. Exhibit A is a PowerPoint presentation. Cisco has since withdrawn the request that
it remain under seal. See Docket No. 60.
2

26

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal
citations omitted).

27

3

Id. at 1178.

28

4

See id. at 1178-79.

Case No.: C 11-3403 PSG
ORDER DISSOLVING OSC

2

1

public and the party who seeks to keep certain information and documents under seal.5 “[I]f the court

2

decides to seal certain judicial records, it must “base its decision on a compelling reason and

3

articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.”6

4

Willem Evert Nijenhuis (“Nijenhuis”) is a manager of product marketing in the contact

5

center business unit at Cisco. He is familiar with Cisco’s relationship with AMC and has been the

6

primary point of contact for the two companies. In the declaration, Nijenhuis states that current or

7

prospective OEM partners of Cisco generally are not privy to the fees and royalties paid under other

8

OEM contracts. Cisco has another OEM partner who currently licenses a similar CRM connector

9

and it has not disclosed to that partner the fees and royalties that were paid under the AMC OEM

10

contract. Nijenhuis states that any disclosure of the information paid to one OEM partner could

11

impact the demands of another OEM partner.

12

Nijenhuis also states that disclosure of the fees and royalties paid by Cisco to AMC would

13

allow customers to determine Cisco’s profit margin on the AMC adapters. He contends that the

14

information could affect sales or be used as a negotiation tool on other products. Because Cisco

15

continues to sell AMC Connectors for Microsoft Dynamics CRM, PeopleSoft, and Salesforce under

16

the OEM contract, the pricing information available on pages 23 to 25 of the OEM contract could

17

cause those Cisco customers to demand reductions in current profit margins.

18

Nijenhuis states that the details of the features of the Cisco Siebel Adapter should not be

19

unsealed. While some features of the Cisco Siebel Adapter are available publicly in the company’s

20

marketing materials, the comprehensiveness and level of detail provided in pages 37-61 of the

21

document entitled “AMC Application Adapter for Siebel Cisco Upgrade Document” are not and

22

constitute trade secrets of the company.

23

Nijenhuis concludes that disclosure of either Cisco’s fees and royalties under the AMC OEM

24

contract or the detailed features of the Cisco Siebel Adapter could cause financial harm to the

25

company.

26
27

5

See id.

28

6

See id.

Case No.: C 11-3403 PSG
ORDER DISSOLVING OSC

3

1

The court finds that Nijenhuis has shown compelling reasons to seal the limited information

2

regarding (1) Cisco’s payment (or contemplated payment) of fees and royalties to AMC in the OEM

3

contract; and (2) the detailed features of the Cisco Siebel Adapter. If the information is not sealed, it

4

might be used for an improper purpose, including the disclosure of Cisco’s trade secrets. Nijenhuis

5

explained that disclosure of the contract terms regarding fees and royalties Cisco paid (or was to

6

pay) AMC could affect its current relationship with one OEM partner and could impact negotiations

7

with other OEM partners. Nijenhuis also explained that details regarding features of the Cisco Siebel

8

Adapter should remain under seal because the product continues to be sold on the market and the

9

functionality or limits of the functionality are trade secrets. These explanations rise above any

10

hypothesis or conjecture.

11

No later than January 27, 2012, the parties shall re-file the above documents with only the

12

redactions set forth above. The parties pending administrative motions to file under seal are denied

13

as moot.7

14

Dated:

1/20/2012

15
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

7

See Docket Nos. 46 and 47.

Case No.: C 11-3403 PSG
ORDER DISSOLVING OSC

4