Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-01300/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-01300-26/pdf.json

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

---

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CHRIMAR SYSTEMS INC, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CISCO SYSTEMS INC, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 13-cv-01300-JSW 

ORDER REGARDING 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL 

Re: Docket No. 293 

On January 5, 2016, Plaintiffs, ChriMar Systems Inc. d/b/a CMS Technologies and 

ChriMar Holding company, LLC (collectively “ChriMar”), filed a motion to seal portions of its 

motion for leave to amend its answer to the counterclaims asserted by Defendants Cisco Systems 

(“Cisco”), Inc. and Hewlett Packard Co. (“HP”) and exhibits to a declaration supporting that 

motion. 

Cisco filed a declaration in support of the motion, and ChriMar has filed a supplemental 

declaration in support of the motion. (See Docket Nos. 301, 305.) According to ChriMar, HP 

designated portions of Exhibit 4 as highly confidential. HP has not filed a declaration pursuant to 

Northern District Civil Local Rule 79-5. 

The Court denies the motion, in part, to the extent it requests to seal citations to the record, 

which do not reveal any confidential information. ChriMar’s motion is overly broad in that 

respect. Therefore, to the extent the Court ultimately grants the motion to seal, ChriMar shall not 

redact the citations to the record. 

The Court tentatively denies the request to seal page 3 lines 3-5, of the motion, as well as 

page 23 lines 6-9 of the Jones Deposition, because it appears that those portions of the record do 

not reveal any confidential information. The Court will give the parties leave to further support 

Case 4:13-cv-01300-JSW Document 313 Filed 01/13/16 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

the

Ord

and

mo

Exh

Exh

hav

any

“co

Au

Da

eir request to

der. 

The Co

d ChriMar to

otion that hav

hibit 1 need 

hibit 1 (and 

ve designate

y additional 

Finally,

ompelling re

to Safety v. C

All resp

IT IS S

ated: January

o seal those p

ourt RESERV

o submit furt

ve been reda

not be filed 

Exhibit 4, if

d this inform

declarations

, the Court O

easons” or th

Chrysler Gro

ponses to thi

SO ORDER

y 13, 2016 

portions of th

VES RULIN

ther declarat

acted, as wel

under seal, 

f appropriate

mation as con

s will be filed

ORDERS all

he “good cau

oup, No. 15-

is Order shal

RED. 

2

he record in 

NG on the rem

tions support

ll as the exhi

ChriMar sha

e), that it con

nfidential, C

d in support 

l parties to ad

use” standard

-55084, Slip

ll be due by 

the supplem

mainder of t

ting their req

ibits. In add

all identify b

ntends must 

ChriMar shou

of the motio

ddress wheth

d to resolve t

p. Op. at 11-

no later than

JE

Un

mental declar

the motion, a

quests to sea

dition, becau

by page and 

be sealed. I

uld also advi

on to seal. 

her the Cour

the motion. 

12, 17-18 (9

n January 26

EFFREY S. W

nited States D

rations perm

and it ORDE

al the portion

use Cisco con

line the port

If third or no

ise the Court

rt should app

See, e.g., Ce

9th Cir. Jan. 

6, 2016. 

WHITE 

District Judg

mitted by this

ERS Cisco 

ns of the 

ntends that 

tions of 

on-parties 

t whether 

ply the 

Center for 

11, 2016). 

ge 

Case 4:13-cv-01300-JSW Document 313 Filed 01/13/16 Page 2 of 2