Radware, LTD. et al v. A10 Networks, Inc.

Filing 243

ORDER by Judge Ronald M. Whyte granting 137 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 157 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 161 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 192 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 193 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 200 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 217 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (rmwlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/2/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12
13
14
15
16

RADWARE, LTD.; RADWARE, INC.,
Plaintiffs, Counterclaim-Defendants,
v.

Case Nos. C-13-02021
ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS TO SEAL 137, 157, 161, 192,
193, 200, 217

A10 NETWORKS, INC.,
Defendant, Counterclaim-Plaintiff.

17
18
19

Before the court are 7 administrative motions to seal 14 documents. “Historically, courts

20

have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including

21

judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178

22

(9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)).

23

Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the

24

starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir.

25

2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of

26

overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of access

27

and the public policies favoring disclosure. Id. at 1178-79.

28
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO SEAL
Case Nos. C-13-2021-RMW
RDS

-1-

1

However, “while protecting the public’s interest in access to the courts, we must remain

2

mindful of the parties’ right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm

3

their competitive interest.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228-29

4

(Fed. Cir. 2013). Records attached to nondispositive motions therefore are not subject to the strong

5

presumption of access. See id. Because the documents attached to nondispositive motions “are often

6

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

7

must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c). Id. (internal quotations and citations

8

omitted). As with dispositive motions, the standard applicable to nondispositive motions requires a

9

“particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir.

11

2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples

12

of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476

13

(9th Cir. 1992). A protective order sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court’s

14

previous determination that good cause exists to keep the documents sealed, see Kamakana, 447

15

F.3d at 1179-80, but a blanket protective order that allows the parties to designate confidential

16

documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine whether each particular

17

document should remain sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) (“Reference to a stipulation or

18

protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to

19

establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.”).

20

Pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a trial court has broad

21

discretion to permit sealing of court documents for, inter alia, the protection of “a trade secret or

22

other confidential research, development, or commercial information.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G).

23

The Ninth Circuit has adopted the definition of “trade secrets” set forth in the Restatement of Torts,

24

holding that “[a] trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of

25

information which is used in one’s business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an

26

advantage over competitors who do not know or use it.” Clark v. Bunker, 453 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th

27

Cir. 1972) (quoting Restatement of Torts § 757, cmt. b). “Generally it relates to the production of

28

goods. . . . It may, however, relate to the sale of goods or to other operations in the business. . . .” Id.
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO SEAL
Case Nos. C-13-2021-RMW
RDS

-2-

1

In addition, the Supreme Court has recognized that sealing may be justified to prevent judicial

2

documents from being used “as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s

3

competitive standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598.

4

In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal
documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L. R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ. L.

6

R. 79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document is

7

“sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under

8

the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must

9

conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b) (requiring the submitting party to attach a

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

5

“proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” which “lists in table

11

format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,” and an “unreadacted version of

12

the document” that indicates “by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document

13

that have been omitted from the redacted version.”). “Within 4 days of the filing of the

14

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required

15

by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” Civ. L.R.

16

79-5(e)(1).

17

With these standards in mind, the court rules on the instant motions as follows.

18
19
20

Motion
to Seal
137

21
22

137

23
24
25

157, 161

26
27
28

157, 193

Document to be Sealed
Exhibit I to the Declaration
of David Kowalski In
Support of A10 Networks,
Inc.’s Motions for
Summary Judgment
Exhibit I to the Declaration
of David Kowalski In
Support of A10 Networks,
Inc.’s Motions for
Summary Judgment
Radware’s Opposition to
A10 Networks, Inc.’s
Motion for Summary
Judgment of NonInfringement
Declaration of Dr. Izhak
Rubin in Support of
Radware’s Opposition

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO SEAL
Case Nos. C-13-2021-RMW
RDS

Ruling

Reason/Explanation

GRANTED.

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

GRANTED.

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

GRANTED.

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

GRANTED.

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

-3-

1

157

2
3

157

4
5

157

6
7

157

8
9

157

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

157

12
13

192

14
15
16

192, 200

17
18
19
20
21
22

192

23
24
25
26
27
28

217

Exhibit 2 to the Declaration
of Judith S.H. Hom in
Support of Radware’s
Opposition
Exhibit 3 to the Declaration
of Judith S.H. Hom in
Support of Radware’s
Opposition
Exhibit 4 to the Declaration
of Judith S.H. Hom in
Support of Radware’s
Opposition
Exhibit 5 to the Declaration
of Judith S.H. Hom in
Support of Radware’s
Opposition
Exhibit 6 to the Declaration
of Judith S.H. Hom in
Support of Radware’s
Opposition
Exhibit 7 to the Declaration
of Judith S.H. Hom in
Support of Radware’s
Opposition
Radware’s Response to
Defendants’ Supplemental
Brief in Support of
Summary Judgment
Pursuant to this Court’s
Order Re Same
Supplemental Declaration
Izhak Rubin, Ph.D. in
Support of Radware, Inc.’s
and Radware, Ltd.’s
Opposition to Defendants
F5 Networks, Inc.’s and
A10 Networks, Inc.’s
Motions for Summary
Judgment of NonInfringement and Invalidity
of U.S. Patent Nos.
6,665,702, 8,266,319, and
8,484,374
Exhibit 1 to Radware’s
Response to Defendants’
Supplemental Brief in
Support of Summary
Judgment Pursuant to this
Court’s Order Re Same
Exhibit 1 to the Declaration
of Teri H.P. Nguyen in
Support of Radware’s
Motion for Leave to
Amend Infringement
Contentions

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO SEAL
Case Nos. C-13-2021-RMW
RDS

GRANTED.

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

GRANTED.

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

GRANTED.

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

GRANTED.

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

GRANTED.

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

GRANTED.

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

GRANTED.

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

GRANTED.

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

GRANTED.

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

GRANTED.

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

-4-

1
2
3

Dated: July 2, 2014

_________________________________
RONALD M. WHYTE
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
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO SEAL
Case Nos. C-13-2021-RMW
RDS

-5-