Syntest Technologies, Inc v. Cisco Systems, Inc.

Filing 70

ORDER DENYING SYNTEST'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL by Judge Paul S. Grewal denying 53 and 58 (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/17/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

SYNTEST TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,

15

Defendant.

16

Case No.: 5:12-cv-05965-PSG
ORDER DENYING SYNTEST’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO
SEAL
(Re: Docket Nos. 53 and 58)

Before the court are Plaintiff Syntest Technologies, Inc.’s (“Syntest”) administrative

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

motions to file documents under seal.1

19

I. LEGAL STANDARDS

20

Pursuant to Local Rule 79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that

21
22

establishes the document is “sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise
entitled to protection under the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only

23
24

of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).”2 “Within 4 days of the filing of

25

1

26

2

27
28

See Docket Nos. 53, 58.

Id. In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the submitting party to attach a “proposed order that is
narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” which “lists in table format each document or
portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an “unreadacted version of
the document” that indicates “by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document
that have been omitted from the redacted version,” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d).
1
Case No.: 5:12-cv-05965-PSG
ORDER DENYING SYNTEST’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL

1
2

the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as
required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.”3
Additionally, the party must meet the “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) “to preserve the

3
4

secrecy of sealed discovery documents attached to non-dispositive motions.”4 To show good

5

cause, the party must make a “particularized showing”5 that “specific prejudice or harm will result”

6
7

if the information is disclosed.6 Broad “allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples
or articulated reasoning” will not suffice.7

8
II. DISCUSSION

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Syntest, the submitting party, filed two administrative motions to seal based on its belief

11

that its papers disclose materials and information designated by Cisco as Confidential or Highly

12

Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only under the protective order in this case.8 The docket reflects

13

Cisco’s failure to file a supporting declaration as required pursuant to Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). On

14

that basis, Syntest’s motions are DENIED.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

3

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). The Civil Local Rules have recently been amended shortening the time
available to the designating party to file a supporting declaration from seven days to four days. As
this rule change was only recently implemented the court applies the prior form of Civ. L.R. 79-5
for the purposes of this order. Because the designating party never filed a supporting declaration,
the rule change is of no effect.
4

In re Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Practices Litig., 686 F.3d 1115, 1119
(9th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu,
447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006).

25

5

Id.

26

6

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

27

7

Id.

28

8

See Docket No. 53 at 2 and Docket No. 58 at 2.

2
Case No.: 5:12-cv-05965-PSG
ORDER DENYING SYNTEST’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL