Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc.

Filing 94

ORDER REGARDING #47 , #59 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 8/17/2016. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/17/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 ARISTA NETWORKS, INC., Case No. 16-cv-00923-BLF Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 CISCO SYSTEMS INC., et al., Defendants. ORDER REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL [Re: ECF 47, 59] United States District Court Northern District of California 11 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 motion to stay or dismiss. ECF 47 AND 59. For the 15 reasons stated below, the motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 16 17 I. LEGAL STANDARD “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 18 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of 19 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 20 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are 21 “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of 22 “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 23 1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed 24 upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. 25 In addition, sealing motions filed in this district must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing 26 only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). A party moving to seal a document in whole or in 27 part must file a declaration establishing that the identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79- 28 5(d)(1)(A). “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain 1 documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are 2 sealable.” Id. 3 II. DISCUSSION 4 The Court has reviewed the parties’ sealing motions and respective declarations in support 5 thereof. The Court finds the parties have articulated compelling reasons to seal certain portions of 6 most of the submitted documents. The proposed redactions are also narrowly tailored. The 7 Court’s rulings on the sealing request are set forth in the tables below: 8 A. ECF 47 Identification of Documents Description of Documents to be Sealed Quote from or cite Exhibits 2 Cisco’s Motion to Stay/Dismiss at p. 2 ln. 17, 18– and 3 below 21, 22–24 Exhibit 2 Confidential Arista business information regarding Arista’s product development process, including details regarding Arista’s decision as to whether to implement certain features and comparisons between Arista’s and competitors’ products Exhibit 3 Portions at 221-224 concern remarks made at conference and are not confidential. 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Exhibit 11 23 24 25 26 27 Exhibit 13 at Pages 4−5, 66−80, 83−85, 87−89, 118−122, 126, 129, 146, 173−184, 186−188, 190, 196−198, 200, 202−203, 251−253, 266, 273 The remainder of the exhibit contains confidential Arista business information regarding Arista’s product development process, including comparison of Arista’s and competitors’ products The excerpted portions do not contain confidential Arista business information Highly sensitive business information, including confidential details on the design and inner workings of the EOS operating system 28 2 Court’s Order GRANTED GRANTED GRANTED except to pages 221-224. DENIED because supporting declaration states that the excerpted portion does not contain confidential information. GRANTED 1 2 3 4 5 B. ECF 59 Identification of Documents to be Sealed Arista’s Opposition of Arista Networks, Inc. to Cisco’s Motion to Stay or Dismiss, at 1:9, 2:20-23, 7:26-27; and 13:5-7 Exhibit D Description of Documents The Court previously found this information sealable as containing Cisco’s confidential business information GRANTED Designated as Confidential or Highly Confidential by Cisco. DENIED because supporting declaration agrees that this is not sealable. 6 7 III. Court’s Order ORDER For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN 9 PART. Under Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(2), for any request that has been denied because the party 10 designating a document as confidential or subject to a protective order has not provided sufficient 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 8 reasons to seal, the submitting party must file the unredacted (or lesser redacted) documents into 12 the public record no earlier than 4 days and no later than 10 days form the filing of this order. 13 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 17, 2016 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?