Cisco Systems Inc-v-Arista Networks, Inc

Filing 772

ORDER GRANTING 768 MOTION TO SEAL CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS AND TERMINATING 711 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 2/24/2017. (blflc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/24/2017)

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 GRANTING MOTION TO
SEAL

9
10

ARISTA NETWORKS, INC.,

[Re: ECF 768, 771]

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
Before the Court is Plaintiff Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”)’s administrative motion to file

13
14

under seal certain portions of the trial transcripts. ECF 768. Arista Networks, Inc. (“Arista”)

15

Arista filed an opposition, to which Cisco seeks leave to file a reply in further support of the

16

motion. ECF 769, 771. For the reasons stated below, the motion is GRANTED and Cisco’s

17

motion for leave to file a reply is TERMINATED as moot.

18
19

I.

LEGAL STANDARD
There is a “strong presumption in favor of access” to judicial records. Kamakana v. City &

20

Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.

21

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). A party seeking to seal judicial records bears the

22

burden of overcoming this presumption by articulating “compelling reasons supported by specific

23

factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring

24

disclosure.” Id. at 1178-79. Compelling reasons for sealing court files generally exist when such

25

“‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to

26

gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade

27

secrets.” Id. (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). However,

28

“[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment,

1

incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its

2

records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Ultimately, “[w]hat constitutes a ‘compelling reason’ is

3

‘best left to the sound discretion of the trial court.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrslyer Grp., LLC,

4

809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016).

5

In this District, parties seeking to seal transcripts of proceedings must furthermore follow

6

Civil Local Rule 79-5 and General Order No. 59, which require, inter alia, that a sealing request

7

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

8

submitting party seeks to file under seal a document designated confidential by another party, the

9

burden of articulating compelling reasons for sealing is placed on the designating party. Id. 795(e). General Order No. 59 sets forth the time frame in which a transcript of a proceeding will be

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

made public and the procedure by which a party may request redactions.

12
13

II.

DISCUSSION
Cisco argues that the motion should be granted because it is seeking to redact narrow

14

portions of the trial transcripts relating to terms of a confidential agreement and Cisco’s

15

confidential business and litigation strategies. Mot. 2, ECF 768; Jenkins Decl. 1, ECF 768-1.

16

Arista opposes the motion because Cisco did not follow the procedures to redact court transcripts

17

as required by General Order No. 59. According to Arista, Cisco did not file a “Notice of Intent to

18

Request Redaction” for at least one of the transcript days and waited over two months after the

19

filing of its “Notice of Intent to Request Redaction” before filing the instant motion. Opp’n 1 -2,

20

ECF 769.

21

Although Cisco may or may not have complied with the procedures required by General

22

Order No. 59, the Court nonetheless will consider the motion and need not determine whether this

23

motion is timely. The timeliness requirement of General Order No. 59 is not jurisdictional. See,

24

e.g., U.S., ex rel. Meyer v. Horizon Health Corp., No. 00-1303 SBA, 2007 WL 518607, at *3

25

(N.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2007) (holding that “timeliness requirement of Rule 54(d)(1) is not

26

jurisdictional”). Moreover, the transcripts relevant to this motion still remain locked and

27

unavailable to the public to date. Accordingly, the Court will exercise its discretion to consider

28

this motion.
2

The Court has reviewed Cisco’s sealing motion and declaration of Sara Jenkins in support

1
2

thereof. According to the declaration, the portions of the transcripts should be sealed because they

3

contain confidential information based on a non-public agreement that reveals Cisco’s litigation

4

strategies. ECF 768-1 ¶ 3. The Court finds that Cisco has articulated compelling reasons to seal

5

certain portions of the transcripts. The proposed redactions are also narrowly tailored.

6

III.

For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motion at ECF 768 is GRANTED and the following

7
8

ORDER

narrowly tailored portions of the trial transcript are to be sealed:


1187:2-5

10



1188:4-1190:16

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9



1191:6-1192:3

12



1199:18-21

13



1720:9-14

14



1765:23-25

15



1771:11-17

16



2130:4-7

17



2130:16-8

18



2264:15-20

19



2760:8-10

20



2789:1-5

21
22
23
24

Dated: February 24, 2017
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
3