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)
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?