Cisco Systems, Inc. et al v. Shenzhen Usource Technology Co., et al

Filing 47

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part 43 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents Related to Second Amended Complaint and Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 5/27/2021. (ejdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/27/2021)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., et al.,

Case No. 5:20-cv-04773-EJD

Plaintiffs,
9
v.
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

SHENZHEN USOURCE TECHNOLOGY
CO., et al.,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL
Re: Dkt. No. 43

Defendants.

13
14

Plaintiffs Cisco Systems, Inc. and Cisco Technology, Inc.’s (collectively, “Cisco”) move to

15

seal documents in connection with its concurrently filed motion for leave to file a second amended

16

complaint (Dkt. No. 44) and motion for temporary restraining order (“TRO motion”) (Dkt. No.

17

45). Dkt. No. 43. First, Cisco seeks to temporarily seal for 15 days its motion for leave to file a

18

second amended complaint, the proposed second amended complaint (“PSAC”), the TRO motion,

19

the proposed order granting the TRO motion, and other documents accompanying the motions in

20

their entirety. Id. at 3–5. After the expiration of the 15-day period, Cisco seeks to permanently

21

seal portions of these documents. Id. at 5–8. This request presumes that the Court would grant

22

Cisco’s motion to amend and TRO motion; however, the Court has denied those motions and now

23

considers the motion to seal in view of that result. Dkt. No. 46. For the following reasons, the

24

Court grants in part and denies in part Cisco’s administrative motion to seal.

25

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

26

documents, including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu,

27

447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted). If the court record is “more than

28

Case No.: 5:20-cv-04773-EJD
ORDER GRANTING IN PART ADMIN. MOT. TO SEAL
1

1

tangentially related to the merits of the case”—as is the case with the PSAC—then there is a

2

“strong presumption in favor of access.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d

3

1092, 1102 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. To overcome this presumption, the

4

party who wishes to keep the record under seal must “articulate compelling reasons supported by

5

specific factual findings” for doing so. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. “The mere fact that the

6

production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further

7

litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. at 1179. Courts

8

applying the compelling reasons standard have upheld the sealing of trade secrets, marketing

9

strategies, product development plans, detailed product-specific financial information, customer
information, internal reports and other such materials that could harm a party's competitive

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

standing. See, e.g., In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008); Opperman v.

12

Path, Inc., No.13-cv-00453-JST, 2017 WL 1036652, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2017); Lucas v.

13

Breg, Inc., No. 15-cv-00258-BAS-NLS, 2016 WL 5464549, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2016);

14

Rodman v. Safeway Inc., No. 11-cv-03003-JST, 2015 WL 13673842 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2015).

15

Having considered Cisco’s moving papers, the Court finds that Cisco’s request does not

16

comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5(b) in that it is not narrowly tailored to seek sealing of only

17

sealable material. Specifically, Cisco has not provided compelling reasons for sealing the

18

requested documents in their entirety in view of the Court’s denial of its motion to amend and the

19

TRO motion. However, the Court finds that Cisco has presented sufficient justification for

20

maintaining its confidential information under seal, as well as the identities of the two proposed

21

defendants sought to be added in the PSAC (“the Proposed Defendants”). Dkt. No. 43 at 4–8.

22

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Cisco’s motion to seal the following:

23
24
25

Document
Cisco’s Motion for Leave to File Second
Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 44)

Portions to be Sealed
Names of the Proposed Defendants wherever
they appear throughout the entire document

26
27
28

Case No.: 5:20-cv-04773-EJD
ORDER GRANTING IN PART ADMIN. MOT. TO SEAL
2

1
2
3
4

Declaration of Stephen Steinberg in Support of Names of the Proposed Defendants wherever
Cisco’s Motion for Leave to File Second
they appear throughout the entire document
Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 44-1)
[Proposed] Second Amended Complaint (Dkt.
No. 44-2)

Names of the Proposed Defendants wherever
they appear throughout the entire document
Pg. 9, lines 3-15
Pg. 10, lines 7-9, 11-14
Pg. 15, lines 10-25
Pg. 17, lines 9-11, 15-21
Pg. 16, lines 18-24
Pg. 18, lines 14-23
Pg. 20, lines1-2, 6-13

Cisco’s Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order (Dkt. No. 45)

Names of the Proposed Defendants wherever
they appear throughout the entire document
Pg. 7, line 25
Pg. 8, lines 1-11
Pg. 13, lines 7-9
Pg. 24, lines 3-4

Declaration of First Witness in Support of
Cisco’s Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order (Dkt. No. 45-1)

Names of the Proposed Defendants wherever
they appear throughout the entire document
Pg. 1, line 1
Pg. 8, line 10

Declaration of Second Witness in Support of
Cisco’s Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order (Dkt. No. 45-5)

Names of the Proposed Defendants wherever
they appear throughout the entire document
Pg. 1, lines 1, 11
Pg. 3, lines 1-2, 21-26, 28
Pg. 4, lines 1-4, 6-7, 22-23, 25-26
Pg. 5, lines 4, 7-9, 15-16, 22-27
Pg. 6, line 15

Declaration of Third Witness in Support of
Cisco’s Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order (Dkt. No. 45-6)

Names of the Proposed Defendants wherever
they appear throughout the entire document
Pg. 1, lines 1, 24-28
Pg. 2, lines 1-7, 9
Pg. 8, lines 2-3, 18

[Proposed] Order Granting Cisco’s Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. No. 45-8)

Names of the Proposed Defendants wherever
they appear throughout the entire document

5
6
7
8
9
10

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

Case No.: 5:20-cv-04773-EJD
ORDER GRANTING IN PART ADMIN. MOT. TO SEAL
3

1

By June 3, 2021, Cisco shall file revised redacted versions of its motion for leave to file a

2

second amended complaint, its TRO motion, and all accompanying documents that comport with

3

the above. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f).

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 27, 2021
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

8
9
10

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

Case No.: 5:20-cv-04773-EJD
ORDER GRANTING IN PART ADMIN. MOT. TO SEAL
4