Cisco Systems Inc v. STMicroelectronics Inc

Filing 69

ORDER by Judge Ronald M Whyte denying 29 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 51 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 53 Motion for Leave to File (rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/18/2015)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CISCO SYSTEMS INC, 11 Case No. 5:14-cv-03236-RMW United States District Court Northern District of California Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 STMICROELECTRONICS INC, 14 Defendant. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DENYING MOTIONS TO SEAL Re: Dkt. Nos. 29, 51, 53 15 16 Before the court is plaintiff Cisco Systems, Inc.’s (“Cisco”) motion for leave to file a third 17 18 amended complaint (“TAC”). Dkt. No. 53. Defendant STMicroelectronics, Inc. (“ST Micro US”) 19 opposes. Dkt. No. 64. For the reasons explained below, the court GRANTS the motion for leave 20 to file the TAC. The court also addresses two sealing motions related to exhibits submitted with 21 the first and second amended complaints. 22 I. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Cisco seeks leave to file a TAC which names STMicroelectronics S.r.l. (“ST Micro Italy”) 23 24 as a defendant. Dkt. No. 53 at 1. 1 Leave to amend is freely given. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 15. Courts 25 commonly consider four factors when determining whether to grant leave to amend: (1) bad faith 26 1 27 28 A detailed factual background of this litigation can be found in the Court’s earlier order on ST Micro US’s motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. Dkt. No. 62; Cisco Sys., Inc. v. STMicroelectronics, Inc., No. C-14-03236-RMW, 2014 WL 7387962 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2014). 5:14-cv-03236-RMW 1 1 on the part of the movant; (2) undue delay; (3) prejudice to the opposing party; and (4) futility of 2 the proposed amendment. Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 194 F.3d 980, 986 3 (9th Cir. 1999); see also Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). “[I]t is the consideration of 4 prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. 5 Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing DCD Programs, Ltd v. Leighton, 833 6 F.2d 183, 185 (9th Cir. 1987)). “Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining 7 Foman factors, there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” 8 Id. (citation omitted). “Undue delay by itself, however, is insufficient to justify denying a motion 9 to amend.” Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 758 (9th Cir. 1999). 10 ST Micro US offers no reason to deny the motion for leave other than undue delay. Dkt. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 No. 64. Importantly, ST Micro US does not identify any prejudice that would result from 12 allowing Cisco to name ST Micro Italy as a defendant. On the other hand, Cisco has no 13 explanation for why it did not name ST Italy in its original complaint. Cisco only argues that 14 because no case management order has been entered, the delay is not “undue.” Dkt. No. 53 at 6. 15 Although the court agrees with ST Micro US that Cisco could have, and should have, 16 named ST Micro Italy in its original complaint, delay alone is not sufficient to deny Cisco leave to 17 amend. See Bowles, 198 F.3d at 758. Accordingly, the court GRANTS the motion for leave to 18 file the TAC. 19 II. MOTIONS TO SEAL 20 Cisco filed two Administrative Motions to File Under Seal Six Exhibits to the Amended 21 Complaints. Dkt. Nos. 29 and 51. ST Micro US claims that the exhibits contain confidential 22 information, and submitted declarations of Antonino Motto submitted in support of the motions to 23 seal. Dkt. Nos. 32 and 54. The court DENIES without prejudice the motions to seal. The 24 motions seek to seal six exhibits in their entirety. The motions are not narrowly tailored, as all of 25 the documents sought be sealed contain information that was publically disclosed in the 26 complaints or in the parties’ papers. It is not clear from the declarations what information in the 27 documents has both not been publically disclosed and should be sealed. For example, Exhibit 8 is 28 5:14-cv-03236-RMW 2 1 a “Customer Complaint Report” discussed at Paragraph 63 and throughout the Second Amended 2 Complaint. The discussion in the public complaint includes details about the authors, content, and 3 distribution of the report. The declaration of Antonino Motta does not explain what information 4 within the report is sealable. 5 Defendant STMicroelectronics may file a narrowly tailored declaration in support of 6 sealing specific portions of the exhibits that contain confidential business information. See Civil 7 Local Rule 79-5 (detailing requirements for filing a motion to seal). 8 III. ORDER 9 For the reasons explained above, the court GRANTS the motion for leave to file the Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiff shall serve defendants forthwith. The motions to seal are DENIED 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 without prejudice. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 18, 2015 ______________________________________ Ronald M. Whyte United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5:14-cv-03236-RMW 3

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?