CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Case No. 20-cv-04926-CRB
Plaintiffs,
ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE v. MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL
DEXON COMPUTER, INC., et al., Defendants.
Plaintiff Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) and Defendant Dexon Computer, Inc. (“Dexon”) have filed many, many administrative motions to seal portions of the parties’ confidential or highly confidential material. This Order addresses the motions to seal that relate to Cisco’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (dkt. 202) and Cisco’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (dkt. 205).1 As more particularly set forth herein, the Court evaluates and resolves each of the parties’ sealing requests in these various motions. I. LEGAL STANDARD A. Good Cause vs. Compelling Reason We must first decide the standard for sealing that applies to Cisco’s motions and the documents underlying them. Courts in the Ninth Circuit apply two standards to determine whether to allow a document supporting a motion to remain under seal: the “compelling reasons” standard, Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178, or the “good cause” exception, see Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213–14 (9th Cir. 2002). Where a motion is “dispositive,” or “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case,” the “compelling reasons” standard applies. Where the motion is “non-dispositive,” or “unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the cause of action,” the “good cause” standard applies. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1098–1102 (9th Cir. 2016). Dexon contends that, because a preliminary injunction motion is non-dispositive, the Phillips “good cause” standard shall apply, but this argument misunderstands Ninth Circuit precedent on this issue. In Center for Auto Safety, the Ninth Circuit decided precisely the question to be resolved here: What standard should be applied to a preliminary injunction motion which, while not strictly dispositive, was clearly relevant to the merits of the case. 809 F.3d at 1102. The Court concluded that the “compelling reasons” standard should apply because the motion was “more than tangentially related to the merits,” in part because the relief the movant was seeking—“that Chrysler notify its customers that there was a part in their vehicle which could require replacement and be dangerous if it failed”—was one of the aspects of the ultimate relief plaintiffs sought in the action as a whole. Id at 1102. So too here. In its prayer for relief in its complaint, Cisco seeks to enjoin Dexon from selling counterfeit Cisco products; in its motion for a preliminary injunction, Cisco seeks to enjoin Dexon from selling counterfeit Cisco products. It would be difficult to find a motion that is more relevant to the merits than this one. Therefore, any documents put forth in support of that motion—though produced pursuant to a protective order in the Texas Litigation—must meet the more stringent “compelling reasons” standard to remain under seal.2 2 This standard also applies to any request to seal a portion of a complaint. See In re NVIDIA Corp. Derivative Litig., 2008 WL 1859067, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2008) (“[A] request to seal all or part of a complaint must clearly meet the ‘compelling reasons’ standard and not the ‘good cause’ standard. While a complaint is not, per se, the actual pleading by which a suit may be B. Applying the “Compelling Reasons” Standard In considering motions to seal, courts recognize “a strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (cleaned up). A request to seal may be supported by compelling reasons if the documents or portions of documents at issue are “sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097; see also Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. “The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant's embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Confidential business information in the form of “license agreements, financial terms, details of confidential licensing negotiations, and business strategies” can be “compelling reasons” to prevent competitors from leveraging this information to harm the designating parties in future negotiations. See Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-cv-04810-HSG, 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (citation omitted); In re Qualcomm Litig., No. 3:17-cv-0108-GPC-MDD, 2017 WL 5176922, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 2017). If publicly disclosing that information would harm a designating party’s competitive standing and divulge terms of confidential contracts or contract negotiations, compelling reasons may exist to seal that information. See FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 17- cv-00220-LHK, 2019 WL 95922, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2019). However, the fact that documents are subject to a protective order, or labeled as confidential under a protective order, is not a compelling reason justifying continued sealing of the document if attached to a dispositive motion. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136; see also Est. of Nunez by & through Nunez v. Cnty. of San Diego, 386 F. Supp. 3d 1334 (S.D. Cal. 2019) (“[A] party does not satisfy the compelling reasons standard to justify sealing documents merely by labeling them as ‘CONFIDENTIAL.’”). II. DISCUSSION Under the compelling reasons standard, this Court proceeds to balance the interests of the public in access to judicial records against the parties’ interest in sealing those records. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1092. We find that the designating parties have satisfied the compelling reasons standard for some sealing requests but failed for others. As described below, the Court denies the requests in whole or in part where either Cisco or Dexon did not meet its burden to show that the at-issue portion could reveal competitively damaging information sufficient to outweigh the public’s presumption of public access to judicial records. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79; Epic Games, Inc., 2021 WL 1925460, at *1, 4. For example, the Court denies several requests where the designated material contains nothing more than conclusory allegations with no business information. Where the requests are overbroad, the Court orders the parties to tailor the redactions to the competitively damaging information and unseal the rest. A. Cisco’s Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 245) Cisco filed an administrative motion to seal confidential Dexon material in its second amended complaint. Dkt. 244. Dexon seeks sealing of fifty-two of those statements.3 Dkt. 252. The Court’s rulings on these requests are as follows: Portions of Materials Designating Reasons Proffered Ruling Requested to be Sealed Party for Sealing Portions of ¶ 33 Dexon Proprietary Business GRANTED. Record, containing sales information Portions of ¶ 35 Dexon Proprietary Business DENIED. Dexon did Record, containing not meet its burden of supplier information showing competitive harm. Portions of ¶ 37 Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED only as Communications consistent with the redactions proposed in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines 23–28. Entirety of ¶ 38 Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED only as Communications consistent with the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Case No. 20-cv-04926-CRB
Plaintiffs,
ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE v. MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL
DEXON COMPUTER, INC., et al., Defendants.
Plaintiff Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) and Defendant Dexon Computer, Inc. (“Dexon”) have filed many, many administrative motions to seal portions of the parties’ confidential or highly confidential material. This Order addresses the motions to seal that relate to Cisco’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (dkt. 202) and Cisco’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (dkt. 205).1 As more particularly set forth herein, the Court evaluates and resolves each of the parties’ sealing requests in these various motions. I. LEGAL STANDARD A. Good Cause vs. Compelling Reason We must first decide the standard for sealing that applies to Cisco’s motions and the documents underlying them. Courts in the Ninth Circuit apply two standards to determine whether to allow a document supporting a motion to remain under seal: the “compelling reasons” standard, Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178, or the “good cause” exception, see Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213–14 (9th Cir. 2002). Where a motion is “dispositive,” or “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case,” the “compelling reasons” standard applies. Where the motion is “non-dispositive,” or “unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the cause of action,” the “good cause” standard applies. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1098–1102 (9th Cir. 2016). Dexon contends that, because a preliminary injunction motion is non-dispositive, the Phillips “good cause” standard shall apply, but this argument misunderstands Ninth Circuit precedent on this issue. In Center for Auto Safety, the Ninth Circuit decided precisely the question to be resolved here: What standard should be applied to a preliminary injunction motion which, while not strictly dispositive, was clearly relevant to the merits of the case. 809 F.3d at 1102. The Court concluded that the “compelling reasons” standard should apply because the motion was “more than tangentially related to the merits,” in part because the relief the movant was seeking—“that Chrysler notify its customers that there was a part in their vehicle which could require replacement and be dangerous if it failed”—was one of the aspects of the ultimate relief plaintiffs sought in the action as a whole. Id at 1102. So too here. In its prayer for relief in its complaint, Cisco seeks to enjoin Dexon from selling counterfeit Cisco products; in its motion for a preliminary injunction, Cisco seeks to enjoin Dexon from selling counterfeit Cisco products. It would be difficult to find a motion that is more relevant to the merits than this one. Therefore, any documents put forth in support of that motion—though produced pursuant to a protective order in the Texas Litigation—must meet the more stringent “compelling reasons” standard to remain under seal.2 2 This standard also applies to any request to seal a portion of a complaint. See In re NVIDIA Corp. Derivative Litig., 2008 WL 1859067, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2008) (“[A] request to seal all or part of a complaint must clearly meet the ‘compelling reasons’ standard and not the ‘good cause’ standard. While a complaint is not, per se, the actual pleading by which a suit may be B. Applying the “Compelling Reasons” Standard In considering motions to seal, courts recognize “a strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (cleaned up). A request to seal may be supported by compelling reasons if the documents or portions of documents at issue are “sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097; see also Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. “The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant's embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Confidential business information in the form of “license agreements, financial terms, details of confidential licensing negotiations, and business strategies” can be “compelling reasons” to prevent competitors from leveraging this information to harm the designating parties in future negotiations. See Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-cv-04810-HSG, 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (citation omitted); In re Qualcomm Litig., No. 3:17-cv-0108-GPC-MDD, 2017 WL 5176922, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 2017). If publicly disclosing that information would harm a designating party’s competitive standing and divulge terms of confidential contracts or contract negotiations, compelling reasons may exist to seal that information. See FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 17- cv-00220-LHK, 2019 WL 95922, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2019). However, the fact that documents are subject to a protective order, or labeled as confidential under a protective order, is not a compelling reason justifying continued sealing of the document if attached to a dispositive motion. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136; see also Est. of Nunez by & through Nunez v. Cnty. of San Diego, 386 F. Supp. 3d 1334 (S.D. Cal. 2019) (“[A] party does not satisfy the compelling reasons standard to justify sealing documents merely by labeling them as ‘CONFIDENTIAL.’”). II. DISCUSSION Under the compelling reasons standard, this Court proceeds to balance the interests of the public in access to judicial records against the parties’ interest in sealing those records. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1092. We find that the designating parties have satisfied the compelling reasons standard for some sealing requests but failed for others. As described below, the Court denies the requests in whole or in part where either Cisco or Dexon did not meet its burden to show that the at-issue portion could reveal competitively damaging information sufficient to outweigh the public’s presumption of public access to judicial records. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79; Epic Games, Inc., 2021 WL 1925460, at *1, 4. For example, the Court denies several requests where the designated material contains nothing more than conclusory allegations with no business information. Where the requests are overbroad, the Court orders the parties to tailor the redactions to the competitively damaging information and unseal the rest. A. Cisco’s Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 245) Cisco filed an administrative motion to seal confidential Dexon material in its second amended complaint. Dkt. 244. Dexon seeks sealing of fifty-two of those statements.3 Dkt. 252. The Court’s rulings on these requests are as follows: Portions of Materials Designating Reasons Proffered Ruling Requested to be Sealed Party for Sealing Portions of ¶ 33 Dexon Proprietary Business GRANTED. Record, containing sales information Portions of ¶ 35 Dexon Proprietary Business DENIED. Dexon did Record, containing not meet its burden of supplier information showing competitive harm. Portions of ¶ 37 Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED only as Communications consistent with the redactions proposed in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines 23–28. Entirety of ¶ 38 Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED only as Communications consistent with the
3 To the extent that Dexon does not seek sealing of any statement for which it is the redactions proposed in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines 23–28. Entirety of footnote 1 Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED. Communications Entirety of ¶ 40 Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED only as Communications consistent with the redactions proposed in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines 23–28. Entirety of ¶ 41 Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED only as Communications consistent with the redactions proposed in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines 23–28. Heading (4) and entirety Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED only as of ¶ 60 Communications consistent with the redactions proposed in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines 23–28. Portions of ¶ 80 Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED only as Communications consistent with the redactions proposed in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines 23–28. Portions of ¶ 81 Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED only as Communications consistent with the redactions proposed in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines 23–28. Portions of ¶ 82 Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED only as Communications consistent with the redactions proposed in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines 23–28. Entirety of ¶ 84 Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED only as Communications consistent with the redactions proposed 23–28. Portions of ¶ 85 Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED only as Communications consistent with the redactions proposed in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines 23–28. Portions of ¶ 87 Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED. Communications Entirety of footnote 7 Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED only as Communications consistent with the redactions proposed in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines 23–28. Portions of ¶ 88 Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED only as Communications consistent with the redactions proposed in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines 23–28. Portions of ¶ 89 Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED only as Communications consistent with the redactions proposed in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines 23–28. Entirety of ¶ 90 Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED only as Communications consistent with the redactions proposed in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines 23–28. Entirety of footnote 8 Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED only as Communications consistent with the redactions proposed in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines 23–28. Portions of ¶ 91 Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED only as Communications consistent with the redactions proposed in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines 23–28. Communications the number of licenses listed in line 17 and in line 18. DENIED as to the rest of ¶ 100. Dexon did not meet its burden of showing competitive harm. Portions of ¶ 101 Dexon Confidential Client DENIED. Dexon did Communications not meet its burden of showing competitive harm. Entirety of ¶ 102 Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED only as Communications consistent with the redactions proposed in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines 23–28. Entirety of ¶ 103 Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED only as Communications consistent with the redactions proposed in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines 23–28. Portions of ¶ 104 Dexon Confidential Client DENIED. Dexon did Communications not meet its burden of showing competitive harm. Portions of ¶ 105 Dexon Confidential Client DENIED. Dexon did Communications not meet its burden of showing competitive harm. Entirety of ¶ 107 Dexon Confidential Internal DENIED. Dexon did Business not meet its burden of Communications showing competitive harm. Entirety of ¶ 108 Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED only as Communications consistent with the redactions proposed 23–28. Entirety of ¶ 109 Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED only as Communications consistent with the redactions proposed in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines 23–28. Portions of ¶ 110 Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED only as Communications consistent with the redactions proposed in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines 23–28. Portions of ¶ 111 Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED only as Communications consistent with the redactions proposed in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines 23–28. Entirety of ¶ 115 Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED only as Communications consistent with the redactions proposed in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines 23–28. Entirety of ¶ 116 Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED only as Communications consistent with the redactions proposed in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines 23–28. Entirety of ¶ 117 Dexon Confidential Client DENIED. Dexon did Communications not meet its burden of showing competitive harm. Entirety of ¶ 118 Dexon Confidential Client DENIED. Dexon did Communications not meet its burden of showing competitive harm. Entirety of ¶ 119 Dexon Confidential Client DENIED. Dexon did Communications not meet its burden of showing competitive harm. Communications consistent with the redactions proposed in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines 23–28. Entirety of ¶ 121 Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED only as Communications consistent with the redactions proposed in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines 23–28. Entirety of ¶ 122 Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED only as Communications consistent with the redactions proposed in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines 23–28. Entirety of ¶ 123 Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED only as Communications consistent with the redactions proposed in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines 23–28. Entirety of ¶ 127 Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED only as Communications consistent with the redactions proposed in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines 23–28. Entirety of ¶ 128 Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED only as Communications consistent with the redactions proposed in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines 23–28. Entirety of ¶ 129 Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED only as Communications consistent with the redactions proposed in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines 23–28. Entirety of ¶ 130 Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED only as Communications consistent with the redactions proposed in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines Entirety of ¶ 131 Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED only as Communications consistent with the redactions proposed in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines 23–28. Portions of ¶ 132 Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED only as Communications consistent with the redactions proposed in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines 23–28. Entirety of ¶ 135 Dexon Proprietary Business GRANTED only for Record, containing the number of supplier information SMARTNet Contracts listed in line 21.
DENIED for the rest of ¶ 135. Dexon did not meet its burden of showing competitive harm. Portions of ¶ 136 Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED only as Communications consistent with the redactions proposed in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines 23–28. Portions of ¶ 165 Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED. Communications Portions of ¶ 180 Dexon Confidential Client DENIED. Dexon did Communications not meet its burden of showing competitive harm. Entirety of ¶ 184, Dexon Confidential Client DENIED. Dexon did subparagraphs (i)-(vii) Communications not meet its burden of showing competitive harm. Portions of ¶ 184, Dexon Confidential Client DENIED. Dexon did subparagraph (viii) Communications not meet its burden of showing competitive Portions of ¶ 185, Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED only as subparagraphs (i)-(ii) Communications consistent with the redactions proposed in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines 23–28. For the rulings that reference Dkt. 208, Cisco shall revise the corresponding designated material to redact only customer names (and identifying information), vendor names (and identifying information), and pricing details. B. Cisco’s Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction (dkt. 248) Cisco filed an administrative motion to seal confidential Dexon material in its supplemental brief in support of its motion for preliminary judgment (dkt. 247). Dexon seeks sealing of eight of those statements (dkt. 255). The Court’s rulings on these requests are as follows: Portions of Materials Designating Reasons Proffered Ruling Requested to be Sealed Party for Sealing Page 4, lines 19–28 Dexon Confidential Client DENIED. Dexon Communications did not meet its burden of showing competitive harm. Page 5, portions of line Dexon Proprietary Business GRANTED. 6 Records Page 5, portions of line Dexon Proprietary Business GRANTED. 10 Records Page 5, portions of line Dexon Proprietary Business GRANTED. 13 Records Page 5, portions of line Dexon Proprietary Business GRANTED. 14 Records Page 5, portions of line Dexon Proprietary Business DENIED. Dexon 15 Records did not meet its burden of showing competitive harm. Page 5, portions of lines Dexon Proprietary Business GRANTED only as 18–19 Records consistent with the redactions proposed lines 24–28. Page 6, portions of line Dexon Proprietary Business GRANTED. 2 Records For the rulings that reference Dkt. 209, Cisco shall revise the corresponding designated material to redact only customer names (and identifying information), vendor names (and identifying information), and pricing details. C. Heidecker Declaration (dkt. 249) Cisco filed an administrative motion to seal its own confidential material in Exhibit 1 to the declaration of Michael Heidecker, which is attached to Cisco’s supplemental brief in support of its motion for preliminary judgment (dkt. 246). The Court’s ruling on that one request is as follows: Portions of Materials Designating Reasons Proffered Ruling Requested to be Sealed Party for Sealing Entirety of Exhibit 1 Cisco Executive Summary GRANTED. Reports D. Nelson Declaration (dkt. 250) Cisco filed administrative motions to seal its own confidential material (dkt. 246) and confidential Dexon material (dkt. 247) in the declaration of Richard J. Nelson, which is attached to Cisco’s supplemental brief in support of its motion for preliminary judgment. Cisco seeks sealing of seven of those statements (dkt. 246). Dexon seeks sealing of fourteen of those statements (dkt. 255). The Court’s rulings on these requests are as follows: Portions of Materials Designating Reasons Proffered Ruling Requested to be Sealed Party for Sealing Portions of ¶ 4 Dexon Proprietary Business GRANTED only as Records consistent with the redactions proposed in Dkt. 209 at 2, lines 24–28. Portions of ¶ 5 Dexon Proprietary Business GRANTED only as Records consistent with the redactions proposed lines 24–28. Portions of ¶ 6 Dexon Proprietary Business GRANTED. Records Portions of ¶ 7 Dexon Proprietary Business GRANTED. Records Portions of ¶ 9 Dexon Proprietary Business GRANTED. Records Portions of ¶ 10 Dexon Proprietary Business GRANTED. Records Page 4, Entirety of Dexon Proprietary Business GRANTED. Table Records Page 5, Entirety of Dexon Proprietary Business GRANTED. Table Records Portions of ¶ 14 Dexon Confidential Client DENIED. Dexon Communications did not meet its burden of showing competitive harm. Portions of ¶ 15 Dexon Confidential Client DENIED. Dexon Communications did not meet its burden of showing competitive harm. Portions of ¶ 16 Dexon Confidential Client DENIED. Dexon Communications did not meet its burden of showing competitive harm. Entirety of Exhibit 1 Cisco Executive Summary GRANTED. Reports Entirety of Exhibit 2 Cisco Executive Summary GRANTED. Reports Entirety of Exhibit 3 Cisco Executive Summary GRANTED. Reports Entirety of Exhibit 4 Cisco Executive Summary GRANTED. Reports Entirety of Exhibit 5 Cisco Executive Summary GRANTED. Reports Entirety of Exhibit 6 Cisco Executive Summary GRANTED. Reports Reports Entirety of Exhibit 10 Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED only as Communications consistent with the redactions proposed in Dkt. 209 at 2, lines 24–28. Entirety of Exhibit 11 Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED only as Communications consistent with the redactions proposed in Dkt. 209 at 2, lines 24–28. Entirety of Exhibit 12 Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED only as Communications consistent with the redactions proposed in Dkt. 209 at 2, lines 24–28. For the rulings that reference Dkt. 209, Cisco shall revise the corresponding designated material to redact only customer names (and identifying information), vendor names (and identifying information), and pricing details. E. Dexon’s Response to Cisco’s Supplemental Brief in Support of its Motion for Preliminary Judgment (dkt. 257) Dexon filed administrative motions to seal its own confidential material, as well as confidential Cisco material, in its response to Cisco’s supplemental brief in support of its motion for preliminary judgment. See Dkt. 256. Cisco did not file a statement within seven days of Dexon’s motion. See Civil L.R. 79-5. The sealing requests—twenty in total—are therefore denied as to Cisco. However, because Dexon designated its own confidential material in those same twenty statements, this Court will evaluate the requests as to Dexon, ruling as follows: Portions of Materials Designating Reasons Proffered Ruling Requested to be Sealed4 Party for Sealing
44 The page numbers in Dexon’s motion to seal do not match up with the redacted portions Page 1, portion of line Dexon Proprietary Business DENIED. Dexon did 18 Records not meet its burden of showing competitive harm. Page 1, portion of line Dexon Proprietary Business DENIED. Dexon did 22 Records not meet its burden of showing competitive harm. Page 2, portion of line Dexon Proprietary Business GRANTED. 19 Records Page 3, portion of Dexon Proprietary Business DENIED. Dexon did footnote 3 Records not meet its burden of showing competitive harm. Page 4, portion of line 4 Dexon Proprietary Business DENIED. Dexon did Records not meet its burden of showing competitive harm. Page 4, portion of line 7 Dexon Proprietary Business DENIED. Dexon did Records not meet its burden of showing competitive harm. Page 4, portion of line Dexon Proprietary Business DENIED. Dexon did 8–9 Records not meet its burden of showing competitive harm. Page 4, portion of line Dexon Proprietary Business DENIED. Dexon did 11 Records not meet its burden of showing competitive harm. Page 5, line 1 Dexon Proprietary Business DENIED. Dexon did Records not meet its burden of showing competitive harm. Page 5, portion of lines Dexon Proprietary Business DENIED. Dexon did 2–3 Records not meet its burden of showing competitive harm. Page 5, portion of 5–6 Dexon Proprietary Business DENIED. Dexon did Records not meet its burden of showing competitive harm. Page 5, portion of lines Dexon Proprietary Business DENIED. Dexon did 6–8 Records not meet its burden of showing competitive harm. Page 7, portion of line Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED only as 15 Communications or consistent with the Proprietary Business redactions proposed Records in Dkt. 209 at 2, lines 24–28. Page 8, portion of line 1 Dexon Confidential Client DENIED. Dexon did Communications or not meet its burden Proprietary Business of showing competitive harm. Records Page 8, portion of lines Dexon Confidential Client DENIED. Dexon did 4–6 Communications or not meet its burden Proprietary Business of showing competitive harm. Records Page 8, portion of 6–7 Dexon Confidential Client DENIED. Dexon did Communications or not meet its burden Proprietary Business of showing Records competitive harm. Page 8, portion of lines Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED only as 7–10 Communications or consistent with the Proprietary Business redactions proposed Records in Dkt. 209 at 2, lines 24–28. Page 8, portion of lines Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED only as 10–12 Communications or consistent with the Proprietary Business redactions proposed Records in Dkt. 209 at 2, lines 24–28. Page 8, portion of line Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED only as 14 Communications or consistent with the Proprietary Business redactions proposed in Dkt. 209 at 2, lines Records 24–28. Page 8, portion of lines Dexon Confidential Client DENIED. Dexon did 20–21 Communications or of showing Proprietary Business competitive harm. Records For the rulings that reference Dkt. 209, Dexon shall revise the corresponding designated material to redact only customer names (and identifying information), vendor names (and identifying information), and pricing details. F. Lafeber Declaration, Exhibit A, Exhibit B (dkts. 257-1, 257-2, 257-3) Dexon filed an administrative motion to seal its own confidential material in the declaration of Michael Lafeber and Exhibits A and B, which are attached to its response to Cisco’s supplemental brief in support of its motion for preliminary judgment. Dkt. 256. The Court’s rulings on these requests are as follows: Portions of Materials Designating Reasons Proffered Ruling Requested to be Sealed Party for Sealing Lafeber Decl., portion Dexon Proprietary Business DENIED. Dexon did of ¶ 3 Records not meet its burden of showing competitive harm Exhibit A Dexon Proprietary Business GRANTED only as Records consistent with the redactions proposed in Dkt. 209 at 2, lines 24–28. Exhibit B Dexon Proprietary Business GRANTED only as Records consistent with the redactions proposed in Dkt. 209 at 2, lines 24–28. For the rulings that reference Dkt. 209, Dexon shall revise the corresponding designated material to redact only customer names (and identifying information), vendor names (and identifying information), and pricing details. G. Dexon’s Response to Cisco’s Revised Proposed Injunction (dkt. 260) Dexon filed an administrative motion to seal its own confidential material, as well as Cisco’s confidential material, in its response to Cisco’s revised proposed injunction. Dkt. 259. Cisco did not file a statement within seven days of Dexon’s motion, so the material designated by only Cisco shall be unsealed. See Civil L.R. 79-5. The Court’s rulings on Dexon’s three sealing requests are as follows: Portions of Materials Designating Reasons Proffered Ruling Requested to be Sealed Party for Sealing Page 10, portions of Dexon Proprietary Business GRANTED. lines 12–16 Records Page 11, portions of Dexon Proprietary Business DENIED. Dexon did lines 5–9 Records not meet its burden of showing competitive harm. Page 11, lines 9–12 Dexon Proprietary Business DENIED. Dexon did Records not meet its burden of showing competitive harm. H. Kaas Declaration (dkt. 260-1) Dexon filed an administrative motion to seal its own confidential material in the declaration of Leo Kaas, attached to its response to Cisco’s revised proposed injunction. Dkt. 259. The Court’s rulings on Dexon’s three requests are as follows: Portions of Materials Designating Reasons Proffered Ruling Requested to be Sealed Party for Sealing Page 2, ¶ 6 Dexon Proprietary Business GRANTED. Records Page 3, portions of ¶ 10 Dexon Proprietary Business DENIED. Dexon did Records not meet its burden of showing competitive harm. Page 3, ¶ 11 Dexon Proprietary Business DENIED. Dexon did Records not meet its burden of showing competitive harm. I. Cisco’s Motion to Strike (dkt. 263) Cisco filed an administrative motion to seal its own confidential material (dkt. 261), as well as confidential Dexon material (dkt. 262), in its motion to strike Dexon’s supplemental brief. Cisco seeks sealing of two of those statements. Dkt. 261. So does Dexon. Dkt. 267. The Court’s rulings on these requests are as follows: Portions of Materials Designating Reasons Proffered Ruling Requested to be Sealed Party for Sealing Page 3, lines 25–285 Cisco Details of Proprietary GRANTED. Business Tool Page 4, lines 1–206 Cisco Details of Proprietary GRANTED. Business Tool Page 5, portions of line Dexon Proprietary Business GRANTED. 27 Records Page 5, portions of line Dexon Proprietary Business GRANTED. 28 Records J. Nelson Declaration (dkt. 263-1) Cisco filed an administrative motion to seal its own confidential material in the declaration of Richard J. Nelson, attached to its motion to strike Dexon’s supplemental brief. Dkt. 261. The Court’s rulings on these nine requests are as follows: Portions of Materials Designating Reasons Proffered Ruling Requested to be Sealed Party for Sealing Entirety of ¶ 6(a) Cisco Details of Proprietary GRANTED. Business Tool Entirety of ¶ 6(b) Cisco Details of Proprietary GRANTED. Business Tool Entirety of ¶ 6(c) Cisco Details of Proprietary GRANTED. Business Tool Entirety of ¶ 6(d) Cisco Details of Proprietary GRANTED. Business Tool Entirety of ¶ 6(e) Cisco Details of Proprietary GRANTED. Business Tool Entirety of ¶ 6(f) Cisco Details of Proprietary GRANTED. Business Tool Entirety of ¶ 6(g) Cisco Details of Proprietary GRANTED. Business Tool
5 This page number is based on the redacted portions in Cisco’s motion to strike. Dkt. 263. Entirety of ¶ 6(h) Cisco Details of Proprietary GRANTED. Business Tool Entirety of ¶ 7 Cisco Details of Proprietary GRANTED. Business Tool K. Exhibit to Dexon’s Response to Cisco’s Motion to Strike (dkt. 274-4) Dexon filed an administrative motion to seal confidential Cisco material in Exhibit C to its response to Cisco’s motion to strike (dkt. 273).7 Cisco did not file Redaction Request by September 6, 2023. See Minute Order, Dkt. 265. Nor did it file a statement within seven days of Dexon’s motion. See Civil L.R. 79-5. Therefore, this material shall be unsealed. L. Dexon’s Partial Answer to Cisco’s Amended Complaint (dkt. 272) Dexon files an administrative motion to seal its own confidential material in its partial answer to Cisco’s second amended complaint. Dkt. 271. The Court’s rulings on Dexon’s ten requests are as follows: Portions of Materials Designating Reasons Proffered Ruling Requested to be Sealed Party for Sealing Page 8, lines 4–5 Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED only as Communications, consistent with the Proprietary Business redactions proposed Records, and in Dkt. 208 at 2, lines Confidential Internal 23–28. Business Communications Page 11, portions of Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED. lines 17–18 Communications, Proprietary Business Records, and Confidential Internal Business Communications Page 11, portions of Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED. lines 22–23 Communications, Proprietary Business Records, and Confidential Internal Business Communications Page 12, portions of line Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED. 1 Communications, Proprietary Business Records, and Confidential Internal Business Communications Page 12, portions of line Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED. 10 Communications, Proprietary Business Records, and Confidential Internal Business Communications Page 12, portions of line Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED. 21 Communications, Proprietary Business Records, and Confidential Internal Business Communications Page 14, portions of line Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED. 21 Communications, Proprietary Business Records, and Confidential Internal Business Communications Page 14, portions of line Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED. 25 Communications, Proprietary Business Records, and Confidential Internal Business 1 Page 15, portions of line | Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED. 2 Communications, 2 Proprietary Business 3 Records, and Confidential Internal 4 Business 5 Communications 6 Page 15, portions of line | Dexon Confidential Client GRANTED. 13 Communications, 7 Proprietary Business 8 Records, and 9 Confidential Internal Business 10 Communications 11 For the rulings that reference Dkt. 208, Dexon shall revise the corresponding 12 designated material to redact only customer names (and identifying information), vendor
= 13 |) names (and identifying information), and pricing details.
4 1. CONCLUSION 15 The Court’s rulings are reflected in the charts included throughout this Order.
q 16 The moving party shall publicly file revised versions of the documents pursuant to 5 17 |) this Order and Civil Local Rule 79-5(g) within 21 days of this Order. = 18 For each ruling that refers to Dkt. 208 or Dkt. 209, the revised designated material 19 ) shall only redact customer names (and identifying information), vendor names (and 20 identifying information), and pricing details. See sections A, B, D, E, F, and L. 21 This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 244, 246, 247, 256, 259, 261, 262, 271, and 22 273. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. Say 24 Dated: September 14, 2023 ZL CHARLES R. BREYER 25 United States District Judge 26 27 28