Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc.

Filing 266

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: SEALING MOTIONS AT ECF #208 , #210 , #216 , #218 , #233 , #235 , #237 , #239 , #249 , #252 , #256 . Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 4/30/2018. (blflc4S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/30/2018)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

ARISTA NETWORKS, INC.,
Plaintiff,

8

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: SEALING
MOTIONS

v.

9
10

CISCO SYSTEMS INC.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 16-cv-00923-BLF

Defendant.

[Re: ECF 208, 210, 216, 218, 233, 235, 237,
239, 249, 252, 256]

12
13

Before the Court are the parties’ administrative motions to file under seal portions of their

14

briefing and exhibits in connection with the parties’ motions for summary judgment and Daubert

15

motions. ECF 208, 210, 216, 218, 233, 235, 237, 239, 249, 252, 256. For the reasons stated

16

below, the motions are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART without prejudice.

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 & Cty. 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)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong

22

presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.

23

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to

24

motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden

25

of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of

26

access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d

27

1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79.

28

However, “while protecting the public’s interest in access to the courts, we must remain

1

mindful of the parties’ right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm

2

their competitive interest.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228–29 (Fed.

3

Cir. 2013). Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the

4

merits of a case” therefore are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto

5

Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need

6

for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are

7

often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving

8

to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of

9

Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This
standard requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206,

12

1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by

13

specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co.,

14

966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). A protective order sealing the documents during discovery

15

may reflect the court’s previous determination that good cause exists to keep the documents

16

sealed, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80, but a blanket protective order that allows the parties

17

to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine

18

whether each particular document should remain sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) (“Reference

19

to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as

20

confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.”).

21

In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal

22

documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ. L.R.

23

79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document is

24

“sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under

25

the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and

26

must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the

27

submitting party to attach a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable

28

material” which “lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be
2

1

sealed,” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an “unredacted version of the document” that indicates “by

2

highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the

3

redacted version.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d). “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.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

6

II.

DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed Arista Networks, Inc. (“Arista”) and Cisco Systems, Inc.’s

7
8

(“Cisco”) sealing motions and the declarations of the designating parties submitted in support.

9

The Court finds that the parties have articulated compelling reasons to seal certain portions of the
submitted documents. While the proposed redactions are, for the most part, narrowly tailored,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

some are not. The Court’s rulings on the sealing requests are set forth in the tables below.

12

A.

ECF 208
Document to be Sealed:

13

ECF
No.

14

208-6

Exhibit A:
December 18, 2017,
Expert Report of Fiona
Scott Morton, Ph.D.

GRANTED.

208-7

Exhibit B:
Transcript from the
February 15, 2018,
deposition of Dr. Scott
Morton.

GRANTED as to 58:18– Contains highly confidential and
59:2. DENIED as to the sensitive information relating to
Arista. Disclosure of such
remainder.
information would cause
competitive harm to Arista.
Nelson Decl. at ECF 226 ¶ 3. The
remainder is denied because Arista
has not indicated that those
portions of this document contain
confidential information.

15
16

Result

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

208-10 Exhibit E:
Correspondence
produced by Arista.

GRANTED.

25
26
27
28

208-12 Exhibit G:
GRANTED.
February 2, 2018, Expert
Report of Dennis Carlton
3

Reasoning
The parties’ confidential
information is discussed
throughout the document. Seddon
Decl. at ECF 208-1 ¶ 2.
Disclosure of such information
would harm Cisco’s competitive
standing. Id.

Contains highly confidential and
sensitive information relating to
Arista. Disclosure of such
information would cause
competitive harm to Arista.
Nelson Decl. at ECF 226 ¶ 4.
Contains highly confidential and
sensitive information relating to
the parties’ financial information.
Disclosure of such information

1

ECF
No.

Document to be Sealed:

Result

2

would cause competitive harm to
the parties. Seddon Decl. at ECF
208-1 ¶ 2; Nelson Decl. at ECF
226 ¶ 5.

3
4

6

208-13 Exhibit H:
Transcript from the June
30, 2016, deposition of
Dr. John R. Black.

7

208-4

5

Reasoning

8
9

Cisco’s Daubert Motion
to Exclude the Expert
Opinion of Fiona Scott
Morton, Ph.D.

DENIED.

Arista, the designating party, does
not represent that the exhibit
should be sealed. Seddon Decl. at
ECF 208-1 ¶ 6; Nelson Decl. at
ECF 226 ¶ 6.

DENIED without
prejudice.

Proposed redactions are not
narrowly tailored.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

B.
ECF
No.
210-4

14

ECF 210
Document to be
Sealed:
Plaintiff Arista
Networks, Inc.’s
Almeroth Daubert
Motion

15
16

Result

Reasoning

GRANTED as to
highlighted
portions at page 4,
lines 10–14.
DENIED as to the
remainder.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

210-6

Plaintiff Arista
Networks, Inc.’s
Carlton Daubert
Motion

GRANTED as to
highlighted
portions at “the
Record Evidence”
column of the
table on pages 8
and 9. DENIED
as to the
remainder.

24
25
26
27
28
4

Contains highly confidential and
sensitive information relating to Cisco’s
internal development strategies,
disclosure of such information would
cause competitive harm to Cisco.
Seddon Decl. at ECF 227 ¶ 18.
The remainder is denied because Cisco,
the designating party, does not represent
that the remaining portions should be
sealed. Seddon Decl. at ECF 227 ¶ 18;
Nelson Decl. at ECF 210-1 ¶¶ 3–4.
Contains highly confidential and
sensitive information relating to Cisco’s
internal development strategies,
disclosure of such information would
cause competitive harm to Cisco.
Seddon Decl. at ECF 227 ¶ 19.
The remainder is denied because Cisco,
the designating party, does not represent
that the remaining portions should be
sealed. Seddon Decl. at ECF 227 ¶ 19;
Nelson Decl. at ECF 210-1 ¶¶ 3–4.

1

210-8

Plaintiff Arista
Networks, Inc.’s
Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment

2
3
4
5

GRANTED as to
highlighted
portions at page
12, lines 24–27,
page 14, lines 22,
page 15, lines 5
and 7, and page 15
lines 10–11.
DENIED as to the
remainder.

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16

210-9, - Exhibits 1, 14 to
21
Declaration
of William P. Nelson
in Support of Arista’s
Daubert Motions to
Strike Expert Opinion
and Testimony from
Cisco’s Experts and
Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment
210-10, Exhibits 2, 4-13, 17 to
-11 to - Declaration of
20, -22 William P. Nelson in
Support of Arista’s
Daubert Motions to
Strike Expert Opinion
and Testimony from
Cisco’s Experts and
Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment

GRANTED.

GRANTED as to
Exhibits 2, 4–10,
17. GRANTED as
to 214:16–215:25
in Exhibit 13.
DENIED as to the
remainder of
Exhibit 13, and
Exhibits 11 and
12.

17
18

Contains highly confidential and
sensitive information relating to Cisco’s
financial information and investment
strategies, disclosure of such information
would cause competitive harm to Cisco.
Seddon Decl. at ECF 227 ¶ 20.
The remainder is denied because Cisco,
the designating party, does not represent
that the remaining portions should be
sealed. Seddon Decl. at ECF 227 ¶ 20;
Nelson Decl. at ECF 210-1 ¶¶ 3–4.
Contains highly confidential and
sensitive information relating to the
parties’ financial information. Disclosure
of such information would cause
competitive harm to the parties. Nelson
Decl. at ECF 210-1 ¶ 4; Seddon Decl. at
ECF 208-1 ¶ 2;

Contains highly confidential and
sensitive information relating to Cisco’s
financial information and internal
development strategies, disclosure of
such information would cause
competitive harm to Cisco. Seddon
Decl. at ECF 227 ¶¶ 5–12, 16–17.
Cisco, the designating party, does not
represent that Exhibits 11 and 12 and
portions other than 214:16–215:25 of
Exhibit 13 should be sealed. Seddon
Decl. at ECF 227 ¶¶ 13–15; Nelson Decl.
at ECF 210-1 ¶¶ 3–4.

19
20
21
22

C.
ECF
No.
216-10

23
24
25

216-4

ECF 216
Document to be
Result
Sealed:
Exhibit E:
DENIED.
Transcript from the
February 20, 2018,
deposition of Dr.
Black.
Cisco’s Daubert
DENIED.
Motion as to Dr. Black

Reasoning
Arista, the designating party, does not
represent that any portion of the exhibit
should be sealed. Nelson Decl. at ECF
226 ¶ 8; Seddon Decl. at ECF 216-1 ¶¶
2–3.
Arista, the designating party, does not
represent that any portion of the
document should be sealed. Nelson
Decl. at ECF 226 ¶ 9; Seddon Decl. at
ECF 216-1 ¶¶ 2–3.

26
27
28
5

1
2

D.
ECF
No.
218-7

3
4
5

ECF 218
Document to be
Sealed:
Exhibit A1: Excerpts
from the transcript from
the February 15, 2018,
deposition of Dr. Scott
Morton.

Result

Reasoning

GRANTED as to
portions at
105:13–23,
107:6–13, 162:5–
164:6.

Contains highly confidential and sensitive
information relating to Arista’s financial
and customer information. Disclosure of
such information would cause competitive
harm to Arista. Nelson Decl. at ECF 226
¶ 11.

6

The remainder is denied because Arista,
the designating party, does not represent
that the remaining portions should be
sealed. Nelson Decl. at ECF 226 ¶ 11;
Seddon Decl. at ECF 218-1 ¶ 2.
Arista, the designating party, does not
represent that any portion of the document
should be sealed. Nelson Decl. at ECF
226 ¶ 12.

7
8
9

218-8

Exhibit A2: Excerpts
from the transcript from
the February 20, 2018,
deposition of Dr. John
R. Black.
Exhibit A5: Final CLI
Agreement between
Huawei and Cisco in
Cisco Sys., Inc. v.
Huawei Techs., Co.
Exhibit A6: Excerpts
from the December 18,
2017, Expert Report of
Fiona Scott Morton,
Ph.D.

DENIED.

21816

Exhibit A10: March 1,
2018 Declaration of
Dennis W. Carlton and
attached Exhibit A.

GRANTED.

219-1

Exhibit A11: Excerpts
from the transcript from
the February 12, 2016,
deposition of Kenneth
Duda.

GRANTED as to
341:2-342:2;
343:4-6; 344:8345:4; 361:25363:16.
DENIED as to
the remainder.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

21811

14
15

21812

16
17

GRANTED.

The exhibits contains a confidential
settlement terms between Cisco and thirdparty, Huawei Technologies, Co. Seddon
Decl. at ECF 218-1 ¶ 4.

GRANTED.

Contains highly confidential and sensitive
information relating to the parties’
internal strategies and financial and
customer information. Disclosure of such
information would cause competitive
harm to the parties. Nelson Decl. at ECF
226 ¶ 13; Seddon Decl. at ECF 218-1 ¶ 5.
The parties’ confidential information is
discussed throughout the document,
disclosure of would cause competitive
harm to the parties. Nelson Decl. at ECF
226 ¶ 14; Seddon Decl. at ECF 218-1 ¶ 6.
Contains highly confidential and sensitive
information relating to Arista’s financial
and customer information. Disclosure of
such information would cause competitive
harm to Arista. Nelson Decl. at ECF 226
¶ 15.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

The remainder is denied because Arista,
the designating party, does not represent
that the remaining portions should be
sealed. Nelson Decl. at ECF 226 ¶ 15.

27
28
6

1

219-2

2
3

Exhibit A12: Excerpts
from the transcript from
the February 25, 2016,
deposition of Jayshree
Ullal.

GRANTED as to
201:23-203:12;
206:10-12;
374:3-9.
DENIED as to
the remainder.

Contains highly confidential and sensitive
information relating to Arista’s internal
personnel decisions. Disclosure of such
information would cause competitive
harm to Arista. Nelson Decl. at ECF 226
¶ 16.

4
The remainder is denied because Arista,
the designating party, does not represent
that the remaining portions should be
sealed. Nelson Decl. at ECF 226 ¶ 16.
Contains highly confidential and sensitive
information relating to Cisco’s
communication with a supplier, disclosure
of would cause competitive harm to
Cisco. Seddon Decl. at ECF 218-1 ¶ 9.
Contains highly confidential and sensitive
information relating to Cisco’s internal
communications regarding strategies
regarding litigation. Seddon Decl. at ECF
218-1 ¶ 10.
Contains highly confidential and sensitive
information relating to Cisco’s internal
communications regarding strategies
regarding litigation. Seddon Decl. at ECF
218-1 ¶ 11.

5
6
7

21918

Exhibit A28: Exhibit
192 to the November
17, 2017, deposition of
Mark Chandler.

GRANTED.

22010

Exhibit A50: Document
produced by Cisco,
bearing the production
number CSI-ANI00744973.
Exhibit A51: Document
produced by Cisco, with
production number CSIANI-00744973, email
from Cisco executive
and two attachments.
Exhibit A53: Excerpts
from the transcript from
the November 7, 2017,
deposition of Anshul
Sadana.
Exhibit A54: Arista’s
November 9, 2017 Fifth
Supplemental Response
to Cisco’s First Set of
Interrogatories.
Exhibit A57: Excerpts
from the transcript from
the October 23, 2017,
deposition of Mark
Foss.

GRANTED.

Exhibit A63: Excerpts
from the transcript from
the November 3, 2017,
deposition of Frank
Palumbo.

GRANTED.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

22011

14
15
16
17

22013

18
19
20

22015

21
22

22018

23
24

GRANTED.

GRANTED.

GRANTED as to
highlighted
portions.

GRANTED.

25
26
27
28

22024

7

Contains highly confidential and sensitive
information relating to Arista’s customers
and financial data, disclosure of which
would cause competitive harm to Arista.
Nelson Decl. at ECF 226 ¶ 17.
Contains highly confidential and sensitive
information relating to Arista’s customers
and financial data, disclosure of which
would cause competitive harm to Arista.
Nelson Decl. at ECF 226 ¶ 18.
Contains highly sensitive information
relating to Arista’s confidential
interactions with specific customers,
disclosure of which would cause
competitive harm to Arista. Nelson Decl.
at ECF 226 ¶ 19.
Contains highly sensitive information
relating to Cisco’s confidential business
and sales strategies, disclosure of which
would cause competitive harm to Cisco.
Seddon Decl. at ECF 218-1 ¶ 15.

1

22025

2
3
4

22029

5
6
7
8

22030

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

DENIED.
Exhibit A64: Excerpts
from the transcript from
the June 30, 2016,
deposition of John
Black.
DENIED.
Exhibit A68: Chart
summarizing data
contained within a large
spreadsheet produced
by Arista in this
litigation as
ARISTA923_10000212.
Exhibit A69: Excerpts
GRANTED.
from the transcript from
the December 1, 2017,
deposition of
Christophe Metivier.

22031

Exhibit A70: Excerpts
from the transcript from
the November 16, 2017,
deposition of Ita
Brennan.
Exhibit A73: Exhibit
1267 to the November
29, 2017, deposition of
Kevin McCabe.

Arista, the designating party, does not
represent that any portion of the document
should be sealed. Nelson Decl. at ECF
226 ¶ 12.

Contains highly sensitive information
relating to Arista’s confidential
manufacturing capacity and capabilities,
disclosure of which would cause
competitive harm to Arista. Nelson Decl.
at ECF 226 ¶ 22.
Contains highly sensitive information
relating to Arista’s confidential internal
evaluations of its sales and business
performances, disclosure of which would
cause competitive harm to Arista. Nelson
Decl. at ECF 226 ¶ 23.
Contains highly sensitive information
relating to Arista’s confidential internal
business communications with its clients
and potential sales opportunities,
disclosure of which would cause
competitive harm to Arista. Nelson Decl.
at ECF 226 ¶ 24.

GRANTED.

22032

Arista, the designating party, does not
represent that any portion of the document
should be sealed. Nelson Decl. at ECF
226 ¶ 12.

GRANTED.

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

8

1

218-4

Cisco’s Motion for
Summary Judgment

2

GRANTED as to
highlighted
portions.

The proposed redacted portions at page 4,
lines 22-23; page 5, lines 13-14; page 6,
lines 4-6; page 9, lines 1-2; page 11, line
4; page 11, line 6; page 11, line 14-15;
page 11, lines 15-16; page 12, lines 5-6;
page 13, lines 26-27; page 16, lines 23-24;
page 19, lines 12-13; page 19, line 24;
page 20, lines 7-9; page 21, lines 17-19;
page 21, lines 24-25; page 22, line 13;
page 22, lines 17-19; page 22, lines 20-21;
page 22, lines 24-26; page 24, line 13;
page 24, line 14; and page 24, line 18
contains highly confidential and sensitive
information relating to the parties’
internal strategy and customer
information. Disclosure of such
information would cause competitive
harm to the parties. Seddon Decl. at ECF
218-1 ¶ 21; Nelson Decl. at ECF 226 ¶
10.

Result

Reasoning

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

E.
ECF No.
233-5

16
17
18
19

233-6

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

233-4

ECF 233
Document to be
Sealed:
Exhibit A:
Transcript excerpts
from the February
16, 2018 deposition
of Dr. Dennis
Carlton.

GRANTED.

Contains highly confidential and sensitive
information relating to Cisco’s internal
documents, business and competitive
strategies, and private business
communications, disclosure of which
would cause competitive harm to Cisco.
Leary Decl. at ECF 233-1 ¶ 2.
Arista, the designating party, does not
represent that any portion of the document
should be sealed. Nelson Decl. at ECF
246 ¶ 3.

DENIED.
Exhibit B:
Transcript excerpts
from the February
15, 2018 deposition
of Dr. Scott Morton.
Cisco’s Opposition
DENIED.
to Arista’s Motion to
Strike Expert
Opinion and
Preclude Testimony
of Dr. Dennis
Carlton, filed March
28, 2018

Arista, the designating party, does not
represent that any portion of the document
should be sealed. Nelson Decl. at ECF
246 ¶ 3; see also Leary Decl. at ECF 2331 ¶¶ 3–4.

27
28
9

1
2

F.
ECF No.
235-6

3
4
5
6

235-14

7
8
9
10

235-15

Exhibit O: Excerpts
from the transcript
from the August 4,
2015 deposition of
Cesar Obediente.

GRANTED.

235-19

Exhibit AA:
Excerpts from the
transcript from the
October 20, 2017,
deposition of Frank
D’Agostino.

GRANTED.

235-7

Exhibit E: Excerpts
from the transcript
from the February
25, 2016 deposition
of Jayshree Ullal.

GRANTED.

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

ECF 235
Document to be
Result
Sealed:
Exhibit B: The
GRANTED.
March 1, 2018,
Declaration of
Dennis W. Carlton
and excerpts from
attached expert
report.
Exhibit N: Excerpts GRANTED.
from the transcript
from the October 24,
2017 deposition of
Cesar Obediente.

235-8, -9, Exhibits G, H, L:
-12
Figures and data
underlying the
December 18, 2017,
Expert Report of
Fiona M. Scott
Morton, Ph.D.
(“Scott Morton
Report”).
235-13
Exhibit M: Tables
comparing per-port
prices of Ethernet
switches based on

DENIED.

DENIED.

Reasoning
The parties’ confidential information is
discussed throughout the document.
Seddon Decl. at ECF 235-1 ¶ 2.
Disclosure of such information would
harm Cisco’s competitive standing. Id.

Contains highly confidential and sensitive
information relating to Cisco’s internal
communications on strategy and customer
requirements, disclosure of which would
cause competitive harm to Cisco. Seddon
Decl. at ECF 235-1 ¶ 3.
Contains highly confidential and sensitive
information relating to Cisco’s internal
communications on strategy and customer
requirements, disclosure of which would
cause competitive harm to Cisco. Seddon
Decl. at ECF 235-1 ¶ 3.
Contains highly sensitive information
relating to Cisco’s confidential
competitive market analysis, internal
organization, and process for creating
marketing collateral, disclosure of which
would cause competitive harm to Cisco.
Seddon Decl. at ECF 235-1 ¶ 4.
Contains highly confidential and sensitive
information relating to Arista’s internal
strategy, training, and financial data,
disclosure of which would cause
competitive harm to Arista. Nelson Decl.
at ECF 246 ¶ 6.
Arista, the designating party, does not
represent that any portion of the document
should be sealed. Nelson Decl. at ECF
246 ¶¶ 7, 8, 11.

Arista, the designating party, does not
represent that any portion of the document
should be sealed. Nelson Decl. at ECF
246 ¶ 12.
10

1
2

ECF No.

235-10

3
4
5
6
7

235-11

8
9

Document to be
Sealed:
the data in Ex. L.
Exhibit J: Chart
summarizing data
contained within a
large spreadsheet
produced by Arista
in this litigation as
ARISTA923_10000
212.
Exhibit K: Excerpts
from the transcript
from the November
7, 2017, deposition
of Anshul Sadana.

Result

DENIED.

Arista, the designating party, does not
represent that any portion of the document
should be sealed. Nelson Decl. at ECF
246 ¶ 9.

GRANTED.

Contains highly confidential and sensitive
information relating to Arista’s products,
strategy, manufacturers, and financial
data, disclosure of which would cause
competitive harm to Arista. Nelson Decl.
at ECF 246 ¶ 10.
Contains highly sensitive information
relating to Arista’s confidential sales and
customer service strategies, disclosure of
which would cause competitive harm to
Arista. Nelson Decl. at ECF 246 ¶ 13.
Arista, the designating party, does not
represent that any portion of the document
should be sealed. Nelson Decl. at ECF
246 ¶ 14.

10
235-16
United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

235-17

14
15
16

235-18

17
18
19
20

235-20

21
22
23

Exhibit U: Excerpts
from the transcript
from the February 4,
2016, deposition of
Mark Foss.
Exhibit Y: Excerpts
from the transcript
from the February
15, 2018, deposition
of Dr. Scott Morton.
Exhibit Z: Excerpts
from the transcript
from the December
1, 2017, deposition
of Christophe
Metivier.
Exhibit AB: The
March 27, 2018,
Declaration of Kevin
C. Almeroth and
excerpts from
attached expert
report.

GRANTED.

DENIED.

GRANTED.

Contains highly confidential and sensitive
information relating to Arista’s
manufacturing capacity and capabilities,
disclosure of which would cause
competitive harm to Arista. Nelson Decl.
at ECF 246 ¶ 15.
GRANTED as to Contains highly confidential and sensitive
paragraphs 116,
information relating to Arista’s internal
123, 135, and
strategy and customers and sales
152, including
information. Disclosure of such
footnote 253.
information would cause competitive
DENIED as to the harm to Arista. Nelson Decl. at ECF 246
remainder.
¶ 16.

24
25
26
27
28

235-21

Exhibit AC: Arista
daily inventory file.

Reasoning

GRANTED.
11

The remainder is denied because Arista,
the designating party, does not represent
that the remaining portions should be
sealed. Nelson Decl. at ECF 245 ¶ 16;
see also Seddon Decl. at ECF 235-1 ¶ 9.
Contains highly sensitive information
relating to Arista’s confidential internal

1

ECF No.

Document to be
Sealed:

Result

2
3
4

235-4

5

Cisco’s Opposition
to Arista’s Motion
for Partial Summary
Judgment

6
7
8
9
10

GRANTED as to
page 8, lines 13–
15; page 9, lines
3–11; page 17,
line 27; page 21,
lines 5–7; page
22, line 19; page
24, line 6; page
24, line 23
through page 25,
line 3. DENIED
as to the
remainder.

Reasoning
inventory file, disclosure of which would
cause competitive harm to Arista. Nelson
Decl. at ECF 246 ¶ 17.
Contains highly confidential and sensitive
information relating to Arista’s internal
strategy, manufacturing capacity and
capabilities, and customers. Disclosure of
such information would cause competitive
harm to Arista. Nelson Decl. at ECF 246
¶ 18.
The remainder is denied because Arista,
the designating party, does not represent
that the remaining portions should be
sealed. Nelson Decl. at ECF 245 ¶ 18;
see also Seddon Decl. at ECF 235-1 ¶ 11.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

G.
ECF No.
237-5

15
16
17

237-6

18
19
237-8
20
21
22

ECF 237
Document to be
Sealed:
Exhibit A1: Excerpts
from the June 3,
2016 Expert Report
of John Black.
Exhibit B: Excerpts
from the February 2,
2018 Expert Report
of Kevin C.
Almeroth.
Exhibit C: Excerpts
from the transcript
from the deposition
of Kevin C.
Almeroth, dated
February 9, 2018.

Result
DENIED.

Arista, the designating party, does not
represent that any portion of the document
should be sealed. Nelson Decl. at ECF
246 ¶ 19.

DENIED.

Arista, the designating party, does not
represent that any portion of the document
should be sealed. Nelson Decl. at ECF
246 ¶ 20.

GRANTED as to
page 214, lines
18-22; page 215,
lines 14-17.

The proposed redacted portions contain
Cisco’s confidential communication
between Cisco and a licensor of
intellectual property concerning potential
litigation. Disclosure of such information
would cause harm to Cisco’s relationship
with the licensor and third-parties.
Seddon Decl. at ECF 237-1 ¶ 4.
Contains highly sensitive information
relating to Cisco’s confidential and
internal competitive assessments,
disclosure of which would cause
competitive harm to Cisco. Seddon Decl.
at ECF 237-1 ¶ 5.
Arista, the designating party, does not
represent that any portion of the document

23
24

237-9

Exhibit D: Arista’
response to Cisco’s
Interrogatory Nos. 1
and 2.

GRANTED.

237-10

Exhibit E: Arista’s
response to Cisco’s

DENIED.

25
26
27
28

Reasoning

12

1

ECF No.

2

Document to be
Sealed:
Interrogatory No.
12.

Result

Reasoning
should be sealed. Nelson Decl. at ECF
246 ¶ 22.

3
4
5

H.
ECF No.

6

239-8

7
8
239-6
9
10

ECF 239
Document to be
Sealed:
Plaintiff Arista
Networks, Inc.’s
Response to Black
Daubert
Plaintiff Arista
Networks, Inc.’s
Opposition to Scott
Morton Daubert

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Result
DENIED.

Cisco, the designating party, does not
represent that any portion of the document
should be sealed. Seddon Decl. at ECF
239-1 ¶ 21.

GRANTED as to
highlight portions
at 7:18–19 and
8:17–18.
DENIED as to the
remainder.

Contains highly confidential and sensitive
information relating to the parties’
internal strategies and sales information,
disclosure of which would cause
competitive harm to the parties. Nelson
Decl. at ECF 239-1 ¶ 4; Seddon Decl. at
ECF 237-1 ¶ 22.

12
13

The remainder is denied because neither
party represents that sealing is necessary.

14
15

239-4

16
17

Plaintiff Arista
Networks, Inc.’s
Opposition to
Cisco’s Motion for
Summary Judgment

18

GRANTED as to
highlighted
portions at pages
2–5, 18, 19, and
23. DENIED as
to the remainder.

19
20
21
22

239-26, 27

Exhibits 27 and 28

GRANTED.

Exhibit 1

GRANTED.

23
24

Reasoning

239-9

25
26
27
28
13

Contains highly confidential and sensitive
information relating to Arista’s products,
customers, and financial data as well as
Cisco’s internal competitive strategies,
disclosure of which would cause
competitive harm to the parties. Nelson
Decl. at ECF 239-1 ¶ 4; Seddon Decl. at
ECF 247 ¶ 23.
The remainder is denied because neither
party represents that sealing is necessary.
Contains highly confidential and sensitive
information relating to Arista’s products,
customers, and financial data, disclosure
of which would cause competitive harm
to Arista. Nelson Decl. at ECF 239-1 ¶ 4.
Contains highly confidential and sensitive
information relating to Arista’s products
and Cisco’s confidential source code and
discussion of confidential third-party
source code, disclosure of which would
cause competitive harm to Cisco. Nelson
Decl. at ECF 239-1 ¶ 4; Seddon Decl. at
ECF 247 ¶ 4.

1
2

ECF No.
239-10, 11

Document to be
Sealed:
Exhibits 3 and 5

Result
DENIED.

3
4
5

239-12 to 8-14, 16, 18-23
-18, -19, 20 to -25

GRANTED.

239-28, 29

Exhibit 31 and 32

DENIED.

Exhibit 33

GRANTED.

6
7
8
9
10
239-30

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Reasoning
Cisco, the designating party, does not
represent that any portion of the document
should be sealed. Seddon Decl. at ECF
239-1 ¶¶ 5, 6.
Contains highly sensitive information
relating to Cisco’s confidential business
strategies, internal employee evaluation,
product design strategies, and
communications with customers.
Disclosure of such information would
cause competitive harm to Cisco. Seddon
Decl. at ECF 247 ¶¶ 7–17.
Cisco, the designating party, does not
represent that any portion of the document
should be sealed. Seddon Decl. at ECF
239-1 ¶ 17.
Contains highly sensitive information
relating to Cisco’s confidential internal
competitive analyses, disclosure of which
would cause competitive harm to Cisco.
Seddon Decl. at ECF 247 ¶¶ 20.

14
15

I.
ECF No.

16
17

249-5

18
19
249-6
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

249-7

ECF 249
Document to be
Sealed:
Exhibit F: Excerpts
from the transcript
of the February 20,
2018, deposition of
John R. Black, Jr.
Exhibit G: Excerpts
from the transcript
of the November 7,
2017, deposition of
Anshul Sadana.
Exhibit H: Excerpts
from the
transcript of the
October 23,
2017, deposition of
Mark Foss.

Result
DENIED.

Reasoning
Arista, the designating party, does not
represent that any portion of the document
should be sealed. Nelson Decl. at ECF
260 ¶ 3.

GRANTED.

Contains highly sensitive information
relating to Arista’s confidential
communication with its customers,
disclosure of which would cause
competitive harm to Arista. Nelson Decl.
at ECF 260 ¶ 4.
GRANTED as to Contains highly sensitive information
page 114, lines 9– relating to Arista’s confidential details
22. DENIED as
regarding a customer, disclosure of which
to the remainder. would cause competitive harm to Arista.
Nelson Decl. at ECF 260 ¶ 5.
The remainder is denied because Arista,
the designating party, does not represent
that the remaining portions should be
sealed. Nelson Decl. at ECF 260 ¶ 5.

27
28
14

1
2

ECF No.
249-9

3
4
5

Document to be
Sealed:
Exhibit J: Excerpts
from the February 2,
2018 Expert Report
of Dr. Kevin C.
Almeroth.

249-4

Cisco’s Reply in
Support of its
Daubert Motion to
Exclude the Expert
Opinion of John R.
Black, Jr.

11

J.
ECF No.

12

252-4

ECF 252
Document to be
Sealed:
Plaintiff Arista
Networks, Inc.’s
Reply to Carlton
Daubert

6
7
8

Result
GRANTED.

DENIED.

Reasoning
Contains highly confidential and sensitive
information relating to Arista’s internal
strategy, training and financial data,
disclosure of which would cause
competitive harm to Arista. Nelson Decl.
at ECF 260 ¶ 6.
Arista, the designating party, does not
represent that any portion of the document
should be sealed. Nelson Decl. at ECF
260 ¶ 7.

9

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

13
14
15

252-6

16
17
18

Plaintiff Arista
Networks, Inc.’s
Reply to Motion for
Partial Summary
Judgment

19
20
21
22
23

252-7, -8, Exhibits 19, 20, and
-11
25

24
25
26
27
28

252-10

Exhibits 24

Result

Reasoning

GRANTED as to
highlighted
portions at page
5.

Contains highly confidential and sensitive
information relating to Cisco’s internal
strategy command-line interface
development, disclosure of which would
cause competitive harm to Cisco. Findlay
Decl. at ECF 259 ¶ 8.
Contains highly confidential and sensitive
information relating to Arista’s products
and Cisco’s internal business strategies
and investments, disclosure of which
would cause competitive harm to the
parties. Nelson Decl. at ECF 252-1 ¶ 4;
Findlay Decl. at ECF 259 ¶ 9.

GRANTED as to
highlighted
portions at 7:7–9;
7:11–12; 13:26–
28; 14:2–4;
14:15. DENIED
as to the
remainder.

The remainder is denied because neither
party has provided reasons in support of
sealing other portions of the document.
See Nelson Decl. at ECF 252-1 ¶ 4;
Findlay Decl. at ECF 259 ¶ 9.
GRANTED.
Contains highly confidential and sensitive
information relating to Cisco’s internal
business strategies and customer
requirements, disclosure of which would
cause competitive harm to Cisco. Findlay
Decl. at ECF 259 ¶¶ 4–5.
GRANTED as to Contains highly sensitive information
pages 16–19.
relating to details on Cisco’s customers,
DENIED as to the disclosure of which would cause
remainder.
competitive harm to Cisco. Findlay Decl.
15

1

ECF No.

Document to be
Sealed:

Result

Reasoning

2

at ECF 259 ¶ 6.

3

The remainder is denied because Arista,
the designating party, does not represent
that the remaining portions should be
sealed. Findlay Decl. at ECF 259 ¶ 6.
Cisco, the designating party, does not
represent that any portion of the document
should be sealed. Findlay Decl. at ECF
259 ¶ 7.
Contains highly confidential and sensitive
information relating to Arista’s products
and customers, disclosure of which would
cause competitive harm to Arista. Nelson
Decl. at ECF 252-1 ¶ 4.

4
5

252-12

Exhibit 26

DENIED.

252-9

Exhibit 21

GRANTED.

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

K.
ECF No.
256-5

14
15
16
17
256-6
18
19
20
21
256-7
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

256-8

ECF 256
Document to be
Sealed:
Exhibit A75:
Excerpts from
the transcript from
the November 17,
2017
deposition of Mark
Chandler.
Exhibit A76:
Document
produced by Cisco,
bearing
the production
number CSICPT00004206.
Exhibit A77:
Excerpts from
the transcript from
the February 15,
2018 deposition
of Dr. Morton.
Exhibit A78:
Excerpts from the
transcript from the
February 25, 2016
deposition
of Jayshree Ullal.

Result
GRANTED.

GRANTED.

Reasoning
Contains highly sensitive information
relating to Cisco’s confidential
discussions of its business strategies and
internal policy making strategies,
disclosure of which would cause
competitive harm to Cisco. Leary Decl. at
ECF 256-1 ¶ 3.
Contains highly sensitive information
relating to Cisco’s confidential internal
product analysis and product design
strategies, disclosure of which would
cause competitive harm to Cisco. Leary
Decl. at ECF 256-1 ¶ 4.

DENIED.

Arista, the designating party, does not
represent that any portion of the document
should be sealed. Nelson Decl. at ECF
260 ¶ 8.

GRANTED.

Contains highly confidential and sensitive
information relating to Arista’s internal
strategy, training and financial data,
disclosure of which would cause
competitive harm to Arista. Nelson Decl.
at ECF 260 ¶ 9.

16

1
2

ECF No.
256-4

3
4

Document to be
Sealed:
Cisco’s Reply in
Support of
its Motion for
Summary
Judgment

5
6

Result

Reasoning

GRANTED as to
page 2, lines 25–
26; page 3,
line 1; page 11,
lines 7–8;
page 13, lines 7–
10; page 14,
line 28–page 15,
line 1.

Contains highly confidential and sensitive
information relating to Arista’s new
customers and R&D allocation and
Cisco’s internal business strategies,
disclosure of which would cause
competitive harm to the parties. Nelson
Decl. at ECF 260 ¶ 10; Findlay Decl. at
ECF 259 ¶¶ 3, 8.

7
8
III.
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motions at ECF 208, 210, 216, 218, 233, 235, 237,

239, 249, 252, and 256 are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART without prejudice. In
particular, the Court DENIED without prejudice Cisco’ request to file under seal its Daubert
Motion to Exclude the Expert Opinion of Fiona Scott Morton, Ph.D. because the proposed
redactions were not narrowly tailored (ECF 208). Cisco may renew its motion and seek more
narrowly tailored redactions. Any such redactions shall be proposed by May 4, 2018.
Under Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(2), for any request that has been denied because the party
designating a document as confidential or subject to a protective order has not provided sufficient
reasons to seal, the submitting party must file the unredacted (or lesser redacted) documents into
the public record no earlier than 4 days and no later than 10 days form the filing of this order.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22
23
24

Dated: April 30, 2018
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
17