Teradata Corporation v. SAP SE

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 TERADATA CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 18-cv-03670-WHO (JCS)

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER REGARDING 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 10 SAP SE, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 339 Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiffs Teradata Corporation; Teradata US, Inc.; and Teradata Operations, Inc. 14 (collectively, “Teradata”) moved to file under seal exhibits to a joint letter brief. Defendants SAP 15 SE; SAP of America, Inc.; and SAP Labs, LLC (collectively, “SAP”) filed a responsive 16 declaration withdrawing some of SAP’s assertions of confidentiality but supporting sealing some 17 of the material at issue. 18 In civil action in federal court, a party generally must show “compelling reasons” to file a 19 document under seal rather than in the public record. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 20 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016). Where discovery documents designated as confidential 21 under a protective order are filed in connection with a motion that is not “more than tangentially 22 related to the underlying cause of action,” however, a lower standard of “good cause” may suffice 23 to warrant sealing. See id. at 1097, 1101. The “good cause” standard is often applied to 24 “discovery-related motions,” and is appropriate here. See id. at 1097. 25 Most of the material that Teradata initially sought to seal was based solely on SAP’s 26 designations of confidentiality, which SAP withdrew in its response. The remaining material 27 consists of portions of Exhibits 6, 15, and 17. Teradata seeks to seal a several-page portion of ] made public, would reveal confidential commercial information and may negatively impact 2 Teradata’s relationship with customers, potential customers, or partners,” and “could harm 3 Teradata’s competitive standing by revealing confidential commercial information and may 4 negatively impact Teradata’s relationship with other parties.” Prendergast Decl. (dkt. 339-1) [Jj 2— 5 3. SAP seeks to seal portions of Exhibits 6 and 15 on the basis that they “consist of unproven 6 allegations by Teradata’s counsel (e.g., that certain information constitutes Teradata’s ‘trade 7 secrets,’ or that certain acts constitute ‘misappropriation’) that are not mentioned in the joint 8 discovery letter or in Teradata’s amended complaints” and “draw inferences about employees’ 9 intentions that have not been proven.” Lanier Decl. (dkt. 342) § 8. 10 The Court has reviewed the material at issue, in which counsel for both parties accuse their 11 opponents’ employees of stealing or misusing trade secrets and other confidential information. 12 The confidential information is not itself included in these letters. Parties’ “unproven allegations” 13 are routinely disclosed in litigation, and neither party cites authority for sealing such allegations 14 under comparable circumstances.' Teradata’s administrative motion to file under seal is therefore 3 15 || DENIED in its entirety, and Teradata shall file all of the documents at issue in the public record no 16 later than February 1, 2021. IT ISSO ORDERED. l Datea: January 26, 2021 J PH C. SPERO 20 ief Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 07 ' Neither party’s declaration seeks to seal the party’s own allegations against its opponent, and the Court does not reach the question of whether the outcome might differ if both parties had 28 ee sealing particular communications between counsel that were intended to remain