Cisco Systems Inc-v-Arista Networks, Inc
Filing
265
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO SEAL by Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal granting-in-part and denying-in-part 261 . (psglc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/24/2016)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
CISCO SYSTEMS INC,
Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10
ARISTA NETWORKS, INC.,
United States District Court
Northern District of California
12
14
15
16
17
18
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART
MOTION TO SEAL
(Re: Docket No. 261)
Defendant.
11
13
Case No. 5:14-cv-05344-BLF
Before the court is one administrative motion to seal.1 “Historically, courts have
recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial
records and documents.’”2 Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong
presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.”3 Parties seeking to seal judicial records
relating to motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action”4 bear
the burden of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general
history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.5
19
However, “while protecting the public’s interest in access to the courts, we must remain
20
21
22
1
23
2
24
See Docket No. 261.
Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v.
Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)).
3
Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)).
4
Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016).
5
Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79.
25
26
27
28
1
Case No. 5:14-cv-05344-BLF
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO SEAL
1
mindful of the parties’ right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm
2
their competitive interest.”6 Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially
3
related, to the merits of a case” therefore are not subject to the strong presumption of access.7
4
Parties moving to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause”
5
standard of Rule 26(c).8 This standard requires a “particularized showing”9 that “specific
6
prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed.10 “Broad allegations of harm,
7
unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice.11 A protective
8
order sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court’s previous determination that
9
good cause exists to keep the documents sealed,12 but a blanket protective order that allows the
parties to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
determine whether each particular document should remain sealed.13
In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal
12
13
documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to
14
Civ. L.R. 79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document
15
16
17
18
19
6
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228-29 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
7
Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has
less of a need for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those
documents are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”).
8
Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
9
Id.
20
21
22
23
10
Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002);
see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).
11
Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).
12
See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80.
24
25
13
26
27
28
See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) (“Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party
to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or
portions thereof, are sealable.”).
2
Case No. 5:14-cv-05344-BLF
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO SEAL
1
is “sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection
2
under the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material,
3
and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).”14 “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative
4
Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection
5
79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.”15
6
With these standards in mind, the court rules on the instant motions as follows:
Docket
Document to be Sealed
Result
Reason/Explanation
No.
261-3
Cisco’s Motion for
Designations highlighted at
Only sealed portions
Protective Order
9:18-28;
narrowly tailored to
10:4-9;
confidential business
10:11-17;
information.
10:19-21;
10:23-11:2;
11:5-6
SEALED; remainder
UNSEALED.
261-5
Declaration of John
Designations highlighted at
Only sealed portions
Chambers ISO Cisco’s
3:1-3;
narrowly tailored to
Motion for Protective
3:21-25
confidential business
Order
SEALED; remainder
information.
UNSEALED.
261-7
Ex. 7 to Jenkins Decl. ISO Highlighted portions SEALED;
Sealed portions
Cisco’s Motion for
remainder UNSEALED.
narrowly tailored to
Protective Order
confidential business
information.
261-9
Ex. 11 to Jenkins Decl.
SEALED.
Narrowly tailored to
ISO Cisco’s Motion for
confidential business
Protective Order
information.
261-11
Ex. 12 to Jenkins Decl.
SEALED.
Narrowly tailored to
ISO Cisco’s Motion for
confidential business
Protective Order
information.
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
28
14
Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). 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
“unredacted 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).
15
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
3
Case No. 5:14-cv-05344-BLF
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO SEAL
1
2
261-13
261-15
3
4
261-17
5
6
261-19
7
Ex. 13 to Jenkins Decl.
ISO Cisco’s Motion for
Protective Order
Ex. 14 to Jenkins Decl.
ISO Cisco’s Motion for
Protective Order
Ex. 15 to Jenkins Decl.
ISO Cisco’s Motion for
Protective Order
Ex. 16 to Jenkins Decl.
ISO Cisco’s Motion for
Protective Order
8
9
10
261-21
Ex. 18 to Jenkins Decl.
ISO Cisco’s Motion for
Protective Order
SEALED.
SEALED.
SEALED.
238:22-239:19;
240:1-11;
241:3-242:13;
247:17-23;
249:22-250:8 SEALED;
remainder UNSEALED.
ECF p. 6-11 SEALED;
remainder UNSEALED.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
Only sealed portions
narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.
SO ORDERED.
13
Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.
Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.
Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.
Only sealed portions
narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.
Dated: May 24, 2016
14
15
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Case No. 5:14-cv-05344-BLF
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO SEAL
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?