Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-02024/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-02024-35/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

13-cv-02024-RMW

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL

FC

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RADWARE, LTD., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

F5 NETWORKS, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-cv-02024-RMW 

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 239, 243, 248, 249

Before the court are 4 administrative motions to seal 15 documents relating to Radware’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement. “Historically, courts have recognized a 

‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and 

documents.’” Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) 

(quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)). Accordingly, when 

considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id.

(quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties 

seeking to seal judicial records relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of overcoming the 

presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of access and the public 

policies favoring disclosure. Id. at 1178-79.

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 295 Filed 12/04/15 Page 1 of 4
13-cv-02024-RMW

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL

FC

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

A protective order sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court’s previous 

determination that good cause exists to keep the documents sealed, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 

1179-80, but a blanket protective order that allows the parties to designate confidential documents 

does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine whether each particular document should 

remain sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) (“Reference to a stipulation or protective order that 

allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a 

document, or portions thereof, are sealable.”).

In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal 

documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 

79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document is 

“sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under 

the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and 

must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b) (requiring the submitting party to attach 

a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” which “lists in table 

format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,” and an “unreadacted version 

of the document” that indicates “by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the 

document that have been omitted from the redacted version.”). “Within 4 days of the filing of the 

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as 

required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” 

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

With these standards in mind, the courts rules on the instant motions as follows.

Motion 

to Seal

Document to be Sealed Ruling Reason/Explanation

239 Radware’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment of 

Noninfringement (239-4)

GRANTED as to 3:27-28, 

4:19-29, 12:10-12, 16:1-

17, 16:21-24, 19:7-13, and

22-27. 

DENIED as to 5:22-25

and 15:24-27.

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

Information not sought to be 

sealed by Dkt. No. 118. 

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 295 Filed 12/04/15 Page 2 of 4
13-cv-02024-RMW

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL

FC

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

DENIED as to 18:22-23

and 19:1-5. 

Publicly disclosed at October 27, 

2015 hearing and at Dkt. No. 

288.

239 Declaration of Izhak 

Rubin (239-6)

DENIED as to paragraph 

3.

DENIED as to paragraphs

30, paragraph 31 at lines

8-13. and paragraphs 32

and 41.

DENIED as to paragraph 

34 at lines 6-9 and 

paragraph 36 at lines 20-

21. 

GRANTED as to 

remaining designations.

Not supported by declaration.

Publicly disclosed at Dkt. No. 

240 and October 27, 2015 

hearing.

Publicly disclosed at Dkt. No. 

288.

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

239 Exhibit A to Nyugen 

Declaration (239-7)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

239 Exhibit B to Nyugen 

Declaration (239-8)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

239 Exhibit C to Nyugen 

Declaration (239-9)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

239 Exhibit D to Nyugen 

Declaration (239-10)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

239 Exhibit E to Nyugen 

Declaration (239-11)

DENIED. Not narrowly tailored.

239 Exhibit F to Nyugen

Declaration (239-12)

DENIED. Not narrowly tailored. 

243 F5’s Opposition to 

Radware’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment of 

Noninfringement (243-4)

DENIED as to 7:13-15.

GRANTED as to 

remaining designations.

Publicly disclosed at Dkt. No. 

288.

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

243 Declaration of Peter 

Alexander (243-6)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

248 Radware’s Reply in 

Support of Motion for 

Summary Judgment of

Noninfringement (248-3)

DENIED as to 2:25-27

and 8:10-13.

DENIED as to 7:11-12 

and 9:3-5.

GRANTED as to 

remaining designations. 

See ruling on Dkt. No. 209-10.

Publicly disclosed at Dkt. No. 

240 and October 27, 2015 

hearing.

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

248 Declaration of Izhak 

Rubin (248-5)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

248 Exhibit A to Rubin

Declaration (248-6)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 295 Filed 12/04/15 Page 3 of 4
13-cv-02024-RMW

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL

FC

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

249 F5’s Motion for Leave to 

File Surreply (249-4)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

249 F5’s Surreply (249-6) GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

All denials are without prejudice. The parties shall file, within 14 days, (1) versions of 

documents with only the redactions approved by this order or (2) revised sealing motions for the 

court’s consideration addressing the court’s reasons for denial discussed above. Failure to comply 

with this order will result in the clerk unsealing the documents listed above for which a motion to 

seal has been denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 4, 2015

______________________________________

Ronald M. Whyte

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 295 Filed 12/04/15 Page 4 of 4