Cisco Systems Inc v. STMicroelectronics Inc

Filing 140

Order by Hon. Ronald M. Whyte granting 129 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portions of STMicroelectronics, Inc.'s Counter-Complaint. (rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/13/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

CISCO SYSTEMS INC,

Case No. 5:14-cv-03236-RMW

Plaintiff,
13

ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
PORTIONS OF
STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.’S
COUNTER-COMPLAINT

v.
14
15

STMICROELECTRONICS INC, et al.,
Defendants.

Re: Dkt. No. 129

16
17

Before the court is defendant STMicroelectronics, Inc.’s administrative motion to seal

18

portions of its counter-complaint against plaintiff Cisco. “Historically, courts have recognized a

19

‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and

20

documents.’” Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)

21

(quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)). Accordingly, when

22

considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id.

23

(quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties

24

seeking to seal judicial records bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with “compelling

25

reasons” that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Id.

26

at 1178-79.

27
1
28

5:14-cv-03236-RMW
ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF STMICROELECTRONICS,
INC.’S COUNTER-COMPLAINT

1

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

2

determination that good cause exists to keep the documents sealed, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at

3

1179-80, but a blanket protective order that allows the parties to designate confidential documents

4

does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine whether each particular document should

5

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

6

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

7

document, or portions thereof, are sealable.”).

8

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

9

documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ. L.R.
79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document is

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

21

With these standards in mind, the courts rules on the instant motion as follows.
Motion
Document to be Sealed
Ruling
Reason/Explanation
to Seal
129
Defendant STMicroelectronics,
GRANTED as to
Narrowly tailored to
Inc.’s Amended Answer to Third
proposed
confidential business
Amended Complaint and Counterredactions
information.
complaint (129-4)
(highlights).

22
23
24
25
26
27

2
28

5:14-cv-03236-RMW
ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF STMICROELECTRONICS,
INC.’S COUNTER-COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 13, 2016
______________________________________
Ronald M. Whyte
United States District Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
3
28

5:14-cv-03236-RMW
ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF STMICROELECTRONICS,
INC.’S COUNTER-COMPLAINT