Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-05344/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-05344-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1126 Patent Infringement

---

1

Case No. 5:14-cv-05344-BLF

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION 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

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

ARISTA NETWORKS, INC.,

 Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 5:14-cv-05344-BLF

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART 

MOTION TO SEAL

(Re: Docket No. 76)

Before the court is one motion to file four documents under seal.1 “Historically, courts 

have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including 

judicial records and documents.’”2 Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong 

presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.”3 Parties seeking to seal judicial records 

 

1

See Docket No. 76.

2 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)).

3

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

Case 5:14-cv-05344-BLF Document 86 Filed 10/07/15 Page 1 of 4
2

Case No. 5:14-cv-05344-BLF

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION 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

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.4

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.”5 Records attached to nondispositive motions therefore are not subject 

to the strong presumption of access.6 Because the documents attached to nondispositive motions 

“are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,” parties moving 

to seal must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c).7 As with dispositive motions, the 

standard applicable to nondispositive motions requires a “particularized showing”8that “specific 

prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed.9 “Broad allegations of harm, 

unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice.10 A protective 

order sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court’s previous determination that 

good cause exists to keep the documents sealed,11 but a blanket protective order that allows the 

 

4

Id. at 1178-79.

5

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228-29 (Fed. Cir. 2013). 

6

See id. at 1180.

7

Id. at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

8

Id.

9

Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); 

see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

10 Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).

11 See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80.

Case 5:14-cv-05344-BLF Document 86 Filed 10/07/15 Page 2 of 4
3

Case No. 5:14-cv-05344-BLF

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION 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

parties to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to 

determine whether each particular document should remain sealed.12

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).”13 “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.”14

With these standards in mind, the courts rules on the instant motion as follows: 

Motion Document to be Sealed Result Reason/Explanation

Docket No. 

76-3

Cisco’s Opposition to

Arista’s Motion to

Compel Interrogatory

Responses

Designations 

highlighted in 

yellow at

3:26-4:7;

4:11-16 SEALED; 

remainder 

UNSEALED.

Only sealed portions narrowly 

tailored to confidential business 

information and supported by a 

declaration.

Docket No. 

76-5

Ex. 4 to Cannon Decl. in 

Support of Cisco’s 

Opposition

SEALED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information and 

supported by a declaration.

Docket No. 

76-7

Ex. 5 to Cannon Decl. in 

Support of Cisco’s 

UNSEALED. Not narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

 

12 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.”).

13 Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires 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,” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), 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.” 

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

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

Case 5:14-cv-05344-BLF Document 86 Filed 10/07/15 Page 3 of 4
4

Case No. 5:14-cv-05344-BLF

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION 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

Opposition information.

Docket No. 

76-9

Ex. 6 to Cannon Decl. in 

Support of Cisco’s 

Opposition

SEALED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information and 

supported by a declaration.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 7, 2015 

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:14-cv-05344-BLF Document 86 Filed 10/07/15 Page 4 of 4