Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-02021/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-02021-26/pdf.json

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

---

1

Case No.: 13-CV-02021

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

RADWARE LTD., an Israeli Company; 

RADWARE, INC., a New Jersey Corporation, 

 Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendants,

v.

A10 NETWORKS, INC., a California 

Corporation,

 Defendant and Counter-Claimant.

Case No. C-13-02021-RMW

ORDER RE: SEALING MOTIONS

[Docket Nos. 254, 256, 258, 259, 260]

Before the court are five administrative motions to seal documents. The entirety of the 

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portions of Radware’s Reply in Support of its Motion to 

Dismiss, Dkt. No. 259, is denied as moot as Radware withdrew and re-filed the document with 

additional redactions at A10’s request. See Dkt. No. 260 at 2. The court addresses the remaining 

four motions, Dkt. Nos. 254, 256, 258, and 260, below. 

A. Legal Standard

“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 

Case 5:13-cv-02021-RMW Document 275 Filed 02/09/15 Page 1 of 4
2

Case No.: 13-CV-02021

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL

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

For the Northern District of California

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.

However, “while protecting the public’s interest in access to the courts, we must remain 

mindful of the parties’ right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm 

their competitive interest.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228-29 

(Fed. Cir. 2013). 

Pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a trial court has broad 

discretion to permit sealing of court documents for, inter alia, the protection of “a trade secret or 

other confidential research, development, or commercial information.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G). 

The Ninth Circuit has adopted the definition of “trade secrets” set forth in the Restatement of Torts, 

holding that “[a] trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of 

information which is used in one’s business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an 

advantage over competitors who do not know or use it.” Clark v. Bunker, 453 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th 

Cir. 1972) (quoting Restatement of Torts § 757, cmt. b). “Generally it relates to the production of 

goods. . . . It may, however, relate to the sale of goods or to other operations in the business. . . .” 

Id. In addition, the Supreme Court has recognized that sealing may be justified to prevent judicial 

documents from being used “as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s 

competitive standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598.

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 

Case 5:13-cv-02021-RMW Document 275 Filed 02/09/15 Page 2 of 4
3

Case No.: 13-CV-02021

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL

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

For the Northern District of California

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

document that have been omitted from the redacted version.”).

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

B. Sealing Order

Motion 

to Seal

Document to be Sealed Ruling Reason/Explanation

254-3 A10’s Notice of Motion and 

Motion for Order Enforcing 

Settlement

Agreement and Dismissing 

Claims

GRANTED in part 

and DENIED in 

part

GRANTED as to portions of the 

motion which set forth portions of 

the settlement agreement and term 

sheet: 2:9–2:19. DENIED as to the 

rest of the document. 

254-5 Exhibit 1 to the Declaration 

Dean G. Dunlavey

(Settlement Agreement)

GRANTED Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

254-6 Exhibit 2 to the Declaration 

Dean G. Dunlavey 

(Attorney emails)

DENIED Not privileged as the 

communications included opposing 

counsel; contains no specific terms 

from confidential documents.

254-7 Exhibit 3 to the Declaration 

Dean G. Dunlavey 

(Attorney emails)

DENIED Not privileged as the 

communications included opposing 

counsel; contains no specific terms 

from confidential documents.

256-3 Radware’s Motion to 

Dismiss, at 1:16–1:18 and 

2:9–2:10.

GRANTED Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

256-9 Exhibit 3 to Radware’s 

Notice of Motion and 

Motion to Dismiss 

(Settlement Agreement)

GRANTED Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

258-3 A10’s Opposition to 

Radware’s Motion to 

Dismiss

GRANTED in part 

and DENIED in 

part

GRANTED as to portions of the 

motion which set forth portions of 

the settlement agreement and term 

sheet: 1:6–1:7 (after “on dismissal 

that” until “(D.I. 256-3 at 2).”); 

2:14–2:21; 3:26–4:1 (until “Neither 

the”); 4:2–4:3 (after “Agreement” 

until “This is”); 6:16–6:18 (after 

“Agreement” until “As the 

parties”); 7:2–7:11 (after 

“Agreement” until the end of line 

11); 7:12–7:13 (after “parties’ 

agreement” until the end of line 

13); 8:3–8:5 (after “claims that” 

until “(D.I. 256-3 at 1).”); 8:6–8:7 

(after “agreement” until “(See 

generally”); 8:11–8:12 (after 

“agreement,” until the end of line 

12); 8:14–8:18 (from the beginning 

of line 14 until “Consistent”); 8:19– 8:27 (after “provision” until the end 

of line 27); 9:3 (after “Cannot” 

Case 5:13-cv-02021-RMW Document 275 Filed 02/09/15 Page 3 of 4
4

Case No.: 13-CV-02021

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL

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

For the Northern District of California

until the end of line 3); 9:4–9:5 

(after “argues” until “which states 

that”). DENIED as to the rest of the 

document. 

258-5 Exhibit 1 to the Declaration 

Dean G. Dunlavey (Term 

Sheet)

GRANTED Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

258-6 Exhibit 2 to the Declaration 

Dean G. Dunlavey 

(Attorney emails)

DENIED Not privileged as the 

communications included opposing 

counsel; contains no specific terms 

from confidential documents.

258-7 Exhibit 3 to the Declaration 

Dean G. Dunlavey 

(Attorney emails)

DENIED Not privileged as the 

communications included opposing 

counsel; contains no specific terms 

from confidential documents.

260-3 Radware’s Reply in Support 

of its Motion to Dismiss, at 

1:2–1:4; 1:17–1:19; 1:20–

1:21; 1:21–1:24.

GRANTED Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

260-3 Radware’s Reply in Support 

of its Motion to Dismiss, at 

1:29–2:1.

DENIED Not narrowly tailored to 

confidential business information.

260-3 Radware’s Reply in Support 

of its Motion to Dismiss, at 

2:1–2:2.

GRANTED Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

260-3 Radware’s Reply in Support 

of its Motion to Dismiss, at 

2:3–2:4.

DENIED Not narrowly tailored to 

confidential business information.

260-3 Radware’s Reply in Support 

of its Motion to Dismiss, at 

2:8–2:10; 2:12–2:16; 2:17–

3:11; 3:21–3:24; 4:1–4:13; 

4:13–4:16; 4:17–5:5; 5:5–

5:7.

GRANTED Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

260-3 Radware’s Reply in Support 

of its Motion to Dismiss, at 

5:7–5:9.

GRANTED in part 

and DENIED in 

part

GRANTED as to yellow- highlighted redactions, which are 

narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information. DENIED as 

to green-highlighted redactions, 

which are not.

260-3 Radware’s Reply in Support 

of its Motion to Dismiss, at 

5:10–5:15; 6:1–6:5; 6:11– 6:18.

GRANTED Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

The court will file redacted versions of the above documents unless either party objects and 

files a motion for reconsideration within 5 days of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9, 2015 _________________________________

RONALD M WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-02021-RMW Document 275 Filed 02/09/15 Page 4 of 4