Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-00923/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-00923-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:2 Antitrust Litigation

---

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

ARISTA NETWORKS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

CISCO SYSTEMS INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-00923-BLF 

ORDER REGARDING 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO 

SEAL

[Re: ECF 47, 59]

Before the Court are the parties’ administrative motions to file under seal portions of their 

briefing and exhibits in connection with the motion to stay or dismiss. ECF 47 AND 59. For the 

reasons stated below, the motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

I. 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 and Cnty. 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)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are 

“more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of 

“compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 

1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed 

upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. 

In addition, sealing motions filed in this district must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing 

only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). A party moving to seal a document in whole or in 

part must file a declaration establishing that the identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-

5(d)(1)(A). “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain 

Case 5:16-cv-00923-BLF Document 94 Filed 08/17/16 Page 1 of 3
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

documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are 

sealable.” Id. 

II. DISCUSSION

The Court has reviewed the parties’ sealing motions and respective declarations in support 

thereof. The Court finds the parties have articulated compelling reasons to seal certain portions of 

most of the submitted documents. The proposed redactions are also narrowly tailored. The 

Court’s rulings on the sealing request are set forth in the tables below:

A. ECF 47

Identification of Documents 

to be Sealed

Description of Documents Court’s Order

Cisco’s Motion to 

Stay/Dismiss at p. 2 ln. 17, 18–

21, 22–24

Quote from or cite Exhibits 2 

and 3 below

GRANTED

Exhibit 2 Confidential Arista business 

information regarding Arista’s 

product development process, 

including details regarding 

Arista’s decision as to whether 

to implement certain features 

and comparisons between 

Arista’s and competitors’ 

products

GRANTED

Exhibit 3 Portions at 221-224 concern 

remarks made at conference 

and are not confidential. 

The remainder of the exhibit 

contains confidential Arista 

business information regarding

Arista’s product development 

process, including comparison 

of Arista’s and competitors’

products

GRANTED except to pages 

221-224.

Exhibit 11 The excerpted portions do not 

contain confidential Arista 

business information

DENIED because supporting 

declaration states that the 

excerpted portion does not 

contain confidential 

information.

Exhibit 13 at Pages 4−5, 

66−80, 83−85, 87−89, 

118−122, 126, 129, 146, 

173−184, 186−188, 190, 

196−198, 200, 202−203, 

251−253, 266, 273

Highly sensitive business 

information, including 

confidential details on the 

design and inner workings of 

the EOS operating system

GRANTED

Case 5:16-cv-00923-BLF Document 94 Filed 08/17/16 Page 2 of 3
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

B. ECF 59

Identification of Documents 

to be Sealed

Description of Documents Court’s Order

Arista’s Opposition of Arista 

Networks, Inc. to Cisco’s 

Motion to Stay or Dismiss, at 

1:9, 2:20-23, 7:26-27; and 

13:5-7

The Court previously found 

this information sealable as 

containing Cisco’s confidential 

business information

GRANTED

Exhibit D Designated as Confidential or 

Highly Confidential by Cisco.

DENIED because supporting 

declaration agrees that this is 

not sealable. 

III. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN 

PART. Under Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(2), for any request that has been denied because the party 

designating a document as confidential or subject to a protective order has not provided sufficient 

reasons to seal, the submitting party must file the unredacted (or lesser redacted) documents into 

the public record no earlier than 4 days and no later than 10 days form the filing of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 17, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-00923-BLF Document 94 Filed 08/17/16 Page 3 of 3