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)
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?