Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-02024/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-02024-33/pdf.json

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

---

1

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

ORDER REGARDING PROPOSED REDACTIONS TO OCTOBER 15, 2015 SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER

RS

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

RADWARE, LTD., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

F5 NETWORKS, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:13-cv-02024-RMW 

ORDER REGARDING PROPOSED 

REDACTIONS TO OCTOBER 15, 2015 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER

Re: Dkt. Nos. 261, 265

Before the court are proposed redactions to the court’s October 15, 2015 summary 

judgment order, Dkt. No. 256. “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 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.

A protective order sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court’s previous 

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 293 Filed 12/04/15 Page 1 of 3
2

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

ORDER REGARDING PROPOSED REDACTIONS TO OCTOBER 15, 2015 SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER

RS

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

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 “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.”). “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 motions as follows.

Mot. to 

Seal

Document to be Sealed or 

Proposed Redaction

Ruling Reason/Explanation

261 Declaration of Daniel T. 

Keese In Support Of F5’s 

Request to Redact Portions 

of the Court’s October 15, 

2015 Order (261-3)

GRANTED Allowed by Dkt. No. 256 

at 61.

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 293 Filed 12/04/15 Page 2 of 3
3

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

ORDER REGARDING PROPOSED REDACTIONS TO OCTOBER 15, 2015 SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER

RS

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

261 F5 Proposed Redactions to 

Court’s Oct. 15, 2015 Order 

(261-4)

GRANTED-IN-PART. 

Proposed redactions on pp.

4, 34, and 47 are accepted. 

Proposed redactions on pp.

38, 41, and 43 are modified 

or rejected.

While F5 has sufficiently 

shown that the operational 

details of its products are 

a trade secret, the general 

fact that some F5 

products contained 

accused (albeit disabled) 

code when shipped was 

revealed in F5’s public 

filings. See Dkt. No. 199 

at 4, 11.

265 Declaration of Teri H.P. 

Nguyen In Support of 

Radware’s Request to 

Redact Portions of the 

Court’s October 15, 2015 

Order (265-3)

GRANTED Allowed by Dkt. No. 256 

at 61.

265 Radware Proposed 

Redactions to Court’s Oct. 

15, 2015 Order (265-4)

GRANTED-IN-PART. 

Proposed redactions on p. 

50 regarding dates products 

were marked with patent 

numbers are rejected. 

Proposed redactions on pp. 

55-60 regarding lost profits 

are rejected. Other 

proposed redactions are 

accepted.

Marking with patent 

numbers would be visible 

to any Radware customer. 

Facts and arguments 

regarding lost profits were 

revealed in Radware’s 

public filing, Dkt. No. 

205 at 23-24. Other 

redactions are narrowly 

tailored to confidential 

business information.

The court will file a version of its October 15, 2015 summary judgment order with 

redactions consistent with the rulings above. The documents containing the parties’ proposed 

redactions, Dkt. Nos. 261-4 and 265-4 will remain under seal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 4, 2015

______________________________________

Ronald M. Whyte

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 293 Filed 12/04/15 Page 3 of 3