Splunk Inc. v. Cribl, Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: February 13, 2024
• Docket: 3:22-cv-07611
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

10 SPLUNK INC., 11 Plaintiff, No. C 22-07611 WHA

12 v.

13 CRIBL, INC. and CLINT SHARP, ORDER RE RULE 12 AND DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF 14 Defendants. SEALING MOTIONS 15

16 17 This order addresses administrative motions to seal filed in association with Rule 12 motions 18 and discovery letter briefs in this action (Dkt. Nos. 89, 91, 94, 98). 19 There is a strong public policy in favor of openness in our court system and the public is 20 entitled to know to whom we are providing relief (or not) and why. See Kamakana v. City & 21 Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–80 (9th Cir. 2006). Consequently, access to motions 22 and their attachments that are “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be 23 sealed only upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. 24 Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially 25 related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. The 26 compelling reasons standard applies to most judicial records. Evidentiary motions, such as 27 motions in limine and Daubert motions, can be strongly correlative to the merits of a case. Id. 1 In addition, sealing motions filed in this district must contain a specific statement that 2 explains: (1) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing; (2) the injury that 3 will result should sealing be denied; and (3) why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is not 4 sufficient. The material requested to be sealed must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the 5 sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c). For example, “[t]he publication of materials that could 6 result in infringement upon trade secrets has long been considered a factor that would 7 overcome [the] strong presumption” in favor of access and provide compelling reasons for 8 sealing. Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011). Compelling reasons 9 may also warrant sealing for “sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s 10 competitive standing,” especially where the public has “minimal interest” in the information. 11 See Nixon v. Warner Comms., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). 12 Finally, “[s]upporting declarations may not rely on vague boilerplate language or 13 nebulous assertions of potential harm but must explain with particularity why any document or 14 portion thereof remains sealable under the applicable legal standard.” Bronson v. Samsung 15 Elecs. Am., Inc., 2019 WL 7810811, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 28, 2019) (citing Civ. L.R. 79-5). 16 “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain 17 documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are 18 sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c). 19 1. PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS. 20 With its opposition to defendants’ motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, plaintiff 21 submitted a motion to consider whether portions of its opposition and four exhibits for which 22 defendants claimed confidentiality should be sealed (Dkt. Nos. 89-3, 89-4, 89-5, 89-6, 89-7). 23 Defendants provide the same boilerplate justification for sealing in each instance: that the 24 material “reveals Cribl’s internal strategies and business practices for operating and 25 maintaining many of its important services,” and “public disclosure of such confidential and 26 proprietary information could affect Cribl’s competitive standing as competitors may alter their 27 systems and practices relating to competing products” (Dkt. No. 93 at 1–2). This vague 1 assertion is untethered to specific passages in these documents and is insufficient justification 2 under Kamakana and Civil Local Rule 79-5. It remains unclear how specific passages in these 3 documents could cause competitive harm. Indeed, it appears that this sealing request is really 4 meant to hide unflattering statements related to claims and defenses in this litigation, which is 5 certainly not the competitive harm Kamakana and Civil Local Rule 79-5 envision. For 6 example, defendants seek to seal Cribl’s statement instructing its employees to “minimize 7 talking about” Cribl’s S2S integration, emphasizing “[w]e don’t want to rock the boat by 8 dickswinging our s2s integration as we don’t have time or resources to even entertain just the 9 talk of legal risk let alone deal with it in the event that they decide to dig in” (Dkt. Nos. 89-3 10 at 9, 89-5 at 5). Meanwhile, the identity of the customer that defendants communicated with 11 and seek to seal is already in the public record (see Dkt. No. 105 at 18). Defendants have not 12 demonstrated that the potential for harm exceeds the public interest in this material. The 13 motion is DENIED. 14 2. DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS. 15 Defendants seek to seal passages from their reply summarizing documents that the judge 16 ordered unsealed above (Dkt. No. 91-4). Again, vague assertions of competitive harm — here, 17 based on these passages “reveal[ing] Cribl’s internal business strategies, system designs, and 18 business practices for operating and maintaining many of its important services while 19 complying with legal and privacy obligations” (Dkt. No. 91 at 2) — simply do not fit what has 20 been redacted, which is merely unflattering statements related to claims and defenses in this 21 litigation. The public deserves to know that Cribl, inter alia, “instruct[ed] employees to 22 ‘minimize promoting or talking about’ Cribl’s ‘S2S integration’ due to ‘legal risk’” (Dkt. 23 No. 91-4 at 11 n.10). The motion is DENIED. 24 3. PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF. 25 With its discovery letter brief and associated exhibits, plaintiff submitted a motion to 26 consider whether parts of that letter and six documents for which defendants claimed 27 confidentiality should be sealed (Dkt. Nos. 94-3, 94-4, 94-5, 94-6, 94-7, 94-8, 94-9). Some of 1 these documents have already been ruled upon (compare, e.g., Dkt. No. 89-6, with Dkt. 2 No. 94-4). In any event, defendants have again provided the same inadequate boilerplate 3 justification for sealing in each instance: that the material “reveals Cribl’s internal strategies 4 and business practices for operating and maintaining many of its important services,” and 5 “public disclosure of such confidential and proprietary information could affect Cribl’s 6 competitive standing as competitors may alter their systems and practices relating to competing 7 products” (Dkt. No. 93 at 1-3). For the same reasons stated above, that will not cut it here. 8 This material goes to the heart of the discovery dispute, which was discussed in open court (see 9 Dkt. No. 105 at 6-26), and defendants have not demonstrated that the potential for harm 10 exceeds the public interest in this material. The motion is DENIED. 11 Note, however, that plaintiff's request to produce the document that defendants’ 12 allegedly improperly redacted for privilege was denied without prejudice to plaintiff moving 5 13 again on a better record (Dkt. Nos. 103 at 2, 105 at 25-26; see Dkt. No. 101). 14 4. DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF. 15 Defendants seek to seal passages from their response to plaintiffs discovery letter brief, 16 as well as the entirety of one exhibit and portions from another (Dkt. Nos. 98-4, 98-6, 98-8), 3 17 once more with vague assertions of competitive harm flowing from disclosure of “internal 18 business strategies, system designs, and business practices for operating and maintaining many 19 of its important services while complying with legal and privacy obligations” (Dkt. No. 98 20 at 3). The judge need not rehash why these vague assertions prove inadequate here. The 21 details are either in the public record already or have not been shown to cause competitive 22 harm. The motion is DENIED. 23 All documents shall be refiled in full compliance with this order no later than MARCH 29, 24 2024, at 12:00 P.M. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: February 13, 2024. 27 Al - Pee ILLIAM ALSUP 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE