Cisco Systems Inc-v-Arista Networks, Inc

Filing 490

MODIFIED ORDER REGARDING 379 DEFENDANTS SEALING MOTION. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 8/26/2016. (blflc4S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/26/2016)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

CISCO SYSTEMS INC,

Case No. 14-cv-05344-BLF

Plaintiff,
8

MODIFIED ORDER REGARDING
DEFENDANT’S SEALING MOTION

v.
9
10

ARISTA NETWORKS, INC.,

[Re: ECF 379]

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
This order modifies the Court’s prior order, ECF 488, pursuant to a letter from Third Party

13
14

Dell, Inc. (“Dell”), directing the Court to a declaration in support of Defendant’s motion to file

15

under seal. ECF 390, 489. For the reasons stated below, the motion is GRANTED IN PART

16

AND DENIED IN PART.

17
18

I.

LEGAL STANDARD
“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records

19

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of

20

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435

21

U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are

22

“more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of

23

“compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092,

24

1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed

25

upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. In addition, sealing motions filed in this

26

district must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b).

27

A party moving to seal a document in whole or in part must file a declaration establishing that the

28

identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). “Reference to a stipulation or protective

1

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

2

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

3
4

II.

DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed the sealing motion and Dell’s declaration in support thereof. The

5

Court finds that Dell has articulated compelling reasons to seal certain portions of the submitted

6

documents. The proposed redactions are also narrowly tailored. The table below sets forth the

7

Court’s rulings on the sealing request directed to only two of the documents. The Court’s prior

8

order, ECF 488, governs the other documents to be sealed not addressed below.

9

A.
ECF 378, 379
Identification of Documents
to be Sealed
Declaration of John R. Black
Jr. in Support of Defendant
Arista Networks, Inc.’s
Opposition to Cisco’s Motion
for Summary Judgment and
Arista’s Summary Judgment
Motion (“Black Decl.”) Ex. 1
(“Black Opening Report”)
Wong Decl. Ex. 5 (Excerpts
from Dell Corporate
Deposition Transcript)

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Description of Documents

Court’s Order

Dell supports the sealing of a
redacted portion of paragraph
298 on page 142. ECF 390-2.
The portion contains
confidential customer
information.

GRANTED as to the
redacted portion of paragraph
298 on page 142; see prior
order, ECF 488, as to
remainder.

Dell supports the sealing of
redacted portions at line 6 of
page 50 and line 12 of page
54. ECF 390-1. The portions
contain confidential customer
information.

GRANTED as to the
redacted portions at line 6 of
page 50 and line 12 of page
54 and DENIED as to
remainder.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22
23
24

Dated: August 26, 2016
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
2