Cisco Systems Inc-v-Arista Networks, Inc

Filing 604

ORDER RE 584 , 592 SEALING MOTIONS. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 10/27/2016. (blflc4S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/27/2016)

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
v.

ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS

9
10

ARISTA NETWORKS, INC.,

[Re: ECF 584, 592]

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
This order addresses Arista Networks, Inc.’s administrative motions to file under seal

13
14

portions of its briefing and exhibits in support of its response to Cisco Systems Inc.’s Submission

15

re Protectable Elements. ECF 584. It also addresses the motion to file under seal Court’s Daubert

16

Order. ECF 592. For the reasons stated below, the motions are GRANTED IN PART and

17

DENIED IN PART.

18
19

I.

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4
5

II.

DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed Arista Networks, Inc.’s sealing motions and declarations in

6

support thereof. The Court finds the parties have articulated compelling reasons to seal certain

7

portions of most of the submitted documents. The proposed redactions are also narrowly tailored.

8

The Court’s rulings on the sealing requests are set forth in the tables below:

9

A.
ECF 584
Identification of Documents
to be Sealed
Arista’s Response to Cisco’s
Submission re Protectable
Elements

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of
John R. Black, Jr. ISO Arista’s
Response to Cisco’s
Submission re Protectable
Elements

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Exhibit 7 to the Declaration of
Ryan Wong ISO Arista’s
Response to Cisco’s
Submission re Protectable
Elements (“Wong Decl.”)
(Excerpts from Deposition of
Philip Kasten (Juniper
30(b)(6)))
Exhibit 8 to the Wong Decl.
(Excerpts from Deposition of
Gavin Cato (Dell 30(b)(6)))

Description of Documents

Court’s Order

Highlighted portions on pages
5 and 7 contain Cisco’s
confidential product
development information.
Highlighted portions on pages
8 and 14 contain Juniper
Networks, Inc.’s confidential
information relating to its
proprietary software and trade
secrets. No parties seek to seal
the other highlighted portions.
Paragraphs 13, 23, 35, 59, 76,
78, 80, 84, 85, 98, 99, 100 and
footnote 11 contain Cisco’s
confidential information
relating to Cisco’s product
development and source code.
Cisco does not seek to seal
other portions of this exhibit.
This exhibit contains Juniper
Networks, Inc.’s confidential
information relating to its
proprietary software and trade
secrets.

GRANTED as to the
highlighted positions on pages
5, 7, 8, and 14; and DENIED
as to remainder.

Third-party Dell has not
submitted a declaration in
support of sealing this exhibit.

DENIED.

2

GRANTED as to Paragraphs
13, 23, 35, 59, 76, 78, 80, 84,
85, 98, 99, 100 and footnote
11; and DENIED as to
remainder.

GRANTED.

1
2
3
4
5

Exhibit 9 to the Wong Decl.
(Excerpts from Deposition of
Balaji Venkatraman (HP
30(b)(6)))

Third-party HP Enterprise has
not submitted a declaration in
support of sealing this exhibit.

DENIED.

Exhibit 11 to the Wong Decl.
(Excerpts from Deposition of
Tong Liu)

Pages 167-172 contain Cisco’s
confidential information
relating to product
development and architecture.
Cisco does not seek to seal
other portions of this exhibit.
Pages 506, 583-584, 587-588,
and 626 contain Cisco’s
confidential information
relating to product
development and architecture.
Cisco does not seek to seal
other portions of this exhibit.

GRANTED as to pages 167172; and DENIED as to
remainder.

6
7
8
9

Exhibit 12 to Wong Decl.
(Excerpts from September 16,
2016 Deposition of Kirk
Lougheed)

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

B.
ECF 592
Identification of Documents
to be Sealed
The Court’s Order on Daubert
Motions

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Description of Documents
Arista seeks to seal the
following portions – page 18,
line 21, beginning with the
percentage figure, through
page 19 line 1; page 19, line 6:
the percentage figure; Page 19,
line 10: the percentage figure;
page 19, line 14: the
percentage figure; page 19,
line 27, beginning with the
percentage figure, through
page 19 line 28; page 20, line
2: the percentage figure; page
20, line 9: the percentage
figure, which contain
confidential information
relating to Arista’s finances
and competitive intelligence.

GRANTED as to pages 506,
583-584, 587-588, and 626;
and DENIED as to remainder.

Court’s Order
GRANTED.

24
III.
25
26
27

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIED IN PART the

sealing motion at ECF 584, and the Court GRANTS the sealing motion at ECF 592. Under Civil
Local Rule 79-5(e)(2), for any request that has been denied because the party designating a

28
3

1

document as confidential or subject to a protective order has not provided sufficient reasons to

2

seal, the submitting party must file the unredacted (or lesser redacted) documents into the public

3

record no earlier than 4 days and no later than 10 days form the filing of this order. With respect

4

to the motion at ECF 592, Arista is ordered to file a redacted version of the Court’s Daubert order

5

within 10 days from the filing of this order.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Dated: October 27, 2016
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4