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

Filing 69

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO AMEND ORDER DISSOLVING DECEMBER 29, 2011 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND DENYING AS MOOT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL re 68 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 54 Order Stipulation to Amend Order Dissolving December 29, 2011 Order to Show Cause and Denying as Moot Administrative Motions to File Under Seal filed by Cisco Systems, Inc. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on January 27, 2012. (psglc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/27/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SAN JOSE DIVISION AMC TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C., 12 13 14 15 Case No. 5:11-cv-03403-PSG Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] AMENDED ORDER DISSOLVING DECEMBER 29, 2011 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND DENYING AS MOOT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL vs. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. (Re: Docket Nos. 46, 47, 54) 16 17 18 In light of the substantial portion of the pleadings that the parties filed under seal, 19 including 18 of 22 pages of the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) and a pending motion to 20 dismiss all of the claims alleged therein, the court ordered the parties to show cause why any 21 portion of an order on the pending motion must remain under seal. The court held a hearing on 22 January 10, 2012. Plaintiff AMC Technology, LLC (“AMC”) no longer seeks to have any 23 documents or information remain under seal. Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) seeks to 24 have a limited amount of information remain under seal and submitted declarations supporting the 25 sealing of certain proprietary and commercially competitive information: (1) the amount of fees 26 and royalties paid by (or contemplated to be paid by) Cisco for AMC’s development of the OEM 27 software, AMC’s licensing of the software, and AMC’s ongoing maintenance obligations; and (2) 28 1 Case No.: C 11-3403 PSG [PROPOSED] AM. ORDER DISSOLVING OSC 1 product specifications and features of the Cisco Siebel Adapter.1 Having reviewed the responses 2 and the two declarations, 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the order to show cause is dissolved. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that specific portions of the following documents shall 5 remain under seal: 6 (1) Complaint (Docket No. 1): Exhibit D, Pages 23-25; 37-61. 7 (2) Cisco’s Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 30): Page 5, line 25; Page 6, lines 2-4; Page 8 14, line 6. 9 (3) First Amended Complaint (Docket No. 34): Page 6, line 7, Exhibit D, Pages 23-25; 10 37-61. 11 (4) Cisco’s Motion to Dismiss the FAC (Docket No. 39): Page 5, lines 9, 11; Page 13, 12 lines 7-8. 13 (5) AMC’s Opposition (Docket No. 41): Page 16, line 28. 14 (6) Cisco’s Reply (Docket No. 46): Page 8, lines 3-4. 15 The Ninth Circuit has explained that “[h]istorically, courts have recognized a ‘general 16 right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and 17 documents. This right is justified by the interest of citizens in ‘keeping a watchful eye on the 18 workings of public agencies.’”2 “[A] strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.”3 Under this standard, a 19 20 party seeking to seal a judicial record relating to a dispositive motion bears the burden of 21 overcoming the strong presumption of public access by articulating “compelling reasons” 22 supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public 23 policies favoring disclosure.4 The court then must “conscientiously balance[] the competing 24 25 26 27 28 1 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 Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal citations omitted). 3 Id. at 1178. 4 See id. at 1178-79. 2 Case No.: C 11-3403 PSG [PROPOSED] AM. ORDER DISSOLVING OSC 1 interests” of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain information and documents under 2 seal.5 “[I]f the court decides to seal certain judicial records, it must “base its decision on a 3 compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or 4 conjecture.”6 5 Willem Evert Nijenhuis (“Nijenhuis”) is a manager of product marketing in the contact 6 center business unit at Cisco. He is familiar with Cisco’s relationship with AMC and has been the 7 primary point of contact for the two companies. In the declaration, Nijenhuis states that current or 8 prospective OEM partners of Cisco generally are not privy to the fees and royalties paid under 9 other OEM contracts. Cisco has another OEM partner who currently licenses a similar CRM 10 connector and it has not disclosed to that partner the fees and royalties that were paid under the 11 AMC OEM contract. Nijenhuis states that any disclosure of the information paid to one OEM 12 partner could impact the demands of another OEM partner. 13 Nijenhuis also states that disclosure of the fees and royalties paid by Cisco to AMC would 14 allow customers to determine Cisco’s profit margin on the AMC adapters. He contends that the 15 information could affect sales or be used as a negotiation tool on other products. Because Cisco 16 continues to sell AMC Connectors for Microsoft Dynamics CRM, PeopleSoft, and Salesforce 17 under the OEM contract, the pricing information available on pages 23 to 25 of the OEM contract 18 could cause those Cisco customers to demand reductions in current profit margins. 19 Nijenhuis states that the details of the features of the Cisco Siebel Adapter should not be 20 unsealed. While some features of the Cisco Siebel Adapter are available publicly in the 21 company’s marketing materials, the comprehensiveness and level of detail provided in pages 37- 22 61 of the document entitled “AMC Application Adapter for Siebel Cisco Upgrade Document” are 23 not and constitute trade secrets of the company. 24 Nijenhuis concludes that disclosure of either Cisco’s fees and royalties under the AMC 25 OEM contract or the detailed features of the Cisco Siebel Adapter could cause financial harm to 26 the company. 27 5 28 6 See id. See id. 3 Case No.: C 11-3403 PSG [PROPOSED] AM. ORDER DISSOLVING OSC 1 The court finds that Nijenhuis has shown compelling reasons to seal the limited 2 information regarding (1) Cisco’s payment (or contemplated payment) of fees and royalties to 3 AMC in the OEM contract; and (2) the detailed features of the Cisco Siebel Adapter. If the 4 information is not sealed, it might be used for an improper purpose, including the disclosure of 5 Cisco’s trade secrets. Nijenhuis explained that disclosure of the contract terms regarding fees and 6 royalties Cisco paid (or was to pay) AMC could affect its current relationship with one OEM 7 partner and could impact negotiations with other OEM partners. Nijenhuis also explained that 8 details regarding features of the Cisco Siebel Adapter should remain under seal because the 9 product continues to be sold on the market and the functionality or limits of the functionality are 10 trade secrets. These explanations rise above any 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 13 denied as moot.7 14 Dated: 1/27/2012 _____________________________ PAUL S. GREWAL United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 See Docket Nos. 46 and 47. 4 Case No.: C 11-3403 PSG [PROPOSED] AM. ORDER DISSOLVING OSC

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?