Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03236/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03236-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Fraud

---

1

5:14-cv-03236-RMW

ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF STMICROELECTRONICS, 

INC.’S COUNTER-COMPLAINT

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CISCO SYSTEMS INC,

Plaintiff,

v.

STMICROELECTRONICS INC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:14-cv-03236-RMW

ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 

PORTIONS OF 

STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.’S 

COUNTER-COMPLAINT

Re: Dkt. No. 129

Before the court is defendant STMicroelectronics, Inc.’s administrative motion to seal 

portions of its counter-complaint against plaintiff Cisco. “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 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 3:14-cv-03236-RS Document 140 Filed 01/13/16 Page 1 of 3
2

5:14-cv-03236-RMW

ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF STMICROELECTRONICS, 

INC.’S COUNTER-COMPLAINT

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 “unredacted 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 motion as follows.

Motion 

to Seal

Document to be Sealed Ruling Reason/Explanation

129 Defendant STMicroelectronics,

Inc.’s Amended Answer to Third 

Amended Complaint and Countercomplaint (129-4)

GRANTED as to 

proposed 

redactions 

(highlights). 

Narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information.

Case 3:14-cv-03236-RS Document 140 Filed 01/13/16 Page 2 of 3
3

5:14-cv-03236-RMW

ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF STMICROELECTRONICS, 

INC.’S COUNTER-COMPLAINT

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2016

______________________________________

Ronald M. Whyte

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-03236-RS Document 140 Filed 01/13/16 Page 3 of 3