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

Opinion

1 2 3 7 CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., et al., 8 Case No. 5:20-cv-04773-EJD Plaintiffs, 9 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND v. DENYING IN PART 10 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE SHENZHEN USOURCE TECHNOLOGY UNDER SEAL 11 CO., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 43 12 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 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 10 information, internal reports and other such materials that could harm a party's competitive 11 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 Document Portions to be Sealed Cisco’s Motion for Leave to File Second Names of the Proposed Defendants wherever 25 Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 44) they appear throughout the entire document 26 27 Declaration of Stephen Steinberg in Support of Names of the Proposed Defendants wherever 1 Cisco’s Motion for Leave to File Second they appear throughout the entire document 2 Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 44-1)

3 [Proposed] Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. Names of the Proposed Defendants wherever No. 44-2) they appear throughout the entire document 4 Pg. 9, lines 3-15 Pg. 10, lines 7-9, 11-14 5 Pg. 15, lines 10-25 6 Pg. 17, lines 9-11, 15-21 Pg. 16, lines 18-24 7 Pg. 18, lines 14-23 Pg. 20, lines1-2, 6-13 8 Cisco’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Names of the Proposed Defendants wherever 9 Order (Dkt. No. 45) they appear throughout the entire document 10 Pg. 7, line 25 Pg. 8, lines 1-11 11 Pg. 13, lines 7-9 Pg. 24, lines 3-4 12

13 Declaration of First Witness in Support of Names of the Proposed Defendants wherever Cisco’s Motion for Temporary Restraining they appear throughout the entire document 14 Order (Dkt. No. 45-1) Pg. 1, line 1 Pg. 8, line 10 15 Declaration of Second Witness in Support of Names of the Proposed Defendants wherever 16 Cisco’s Motion for Temporary Restraining they appear throughout the entire document 17 Order (Dkt. No. 45-5) Pg. 1, lines 1, 11 Pg. 3, lines 1-2, 21-26, 28 18 Pg. 4, lines 1-4, 6-7, 22-23, 25-26 Pg. 5, lines 4, 7-9, 15-16, 22-27 19 Pg. 6, line 15

20 Declaration of Third Witness in Support of Names of the Proposed Defendants wherever 21 Cisco’s Motion for Temporary Restraining they appear throughout the entire document Order (Dkt. No. 45-6) Pg. 1, lines 1, 24-28 22 Pg. 2, lines 1-7, 9 Pg. 8, lines 2-3, 18 23 24 [Proposed] Order Granting Cisco’s Motion for Names of the Proposed Defendants wherever Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. No. 45-8) they appear throughout the entire document 25 26 /// 27 /// 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). 5 || Dated: May 27, 2021 6 EDWARD J. DAVILA 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12

Z 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