Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-05058/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-05058-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Tort Action

---

1 

Case No. 5:13-cv-05058-LHK

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS 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

NETAPP, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

 v. 

NIMBLE STORAGE, INC., et al.

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 5:13-cv-05058-LHK

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS 

TO SEAL

(Re: Docket Nos. 143, 147, 148, 149, 150, 

151, 157) 

Before the court are several administrative motions to seal. “Historically, courts have 

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

records and documents.’”1 Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong 

presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.”2 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.3

 

1 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)). 

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

3 Id. at 1178-79. 

Case 5:13-cv-05058-LHK Document 159 Filed 09/22/15 Page 1 of 7
2 

Case No. 5:13-cv-05058-LHK

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS 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

 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.”4

 Records attached to nondispositive motions therefore are not subject 

to the strong presumption of access.5

 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).6 As with dispositive motions, the 

standard applicable to nondispositive motions requires a “particularized showing”7 that “specific 

prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed.8 “Broad allegations of harm, 

unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice.9

 A protective order 

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

cause exists to keep the documents sealed,10 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.11

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 

 

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

5 See id. at 1180. 

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

7 Id.

8 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). 

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

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

11 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.”).

Case 5:13-cv-05058-LHK Document 159 Filed 09/22/15 Page 2 of 7
3 

Case No. 5:13-cv-05058-LHK

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS 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

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).”12 “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.”13

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

Motion 

to Seal 

Document to be Sealed Result Reason/Explanation 

143 NetApp’s Notice of Motion 

and Motion to Enforce 

Settlement Agreement

Designations highlighted in 

yellow at Docket No. 143-4 

SEALED; all other designations 

UNSEALED.

Only sealed portions 

narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information. 

143 Proposed Order Granting 

NetApp’s Motion to 

Enforce Settlement 

Agreement

Docket No. 143-6 at 1:6-2:8 

SEALED; all other designations 

UNSEALED.

Only sealed portions 

narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information. 

143 Exhibit H to the 

Khachatourian Declaration

SEALED Narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information. 

143 Declaration of Richard

Cheng in Support of 

NetApp’s Motion to 

Enforce Settlement

Agreement

Designations highlighted in 

yellow at Docket No. 143-18 

SEALED; all other designations 

UNSEALED. 

Only sealed portions 

narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information. 

143 Declaration of Troy

Dunham in Support of 

NetApp’s Motion to 

Enforce Settlement

Agreement

Designations highlighted in 

yellow at Docket No. 143-20 

SEALED; all other designations 

UNSEALED.

Only sealed portions 

narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information. 

143 Exhibit B to the Dunham SEALED Narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

 

12 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 

“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.” 

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

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

Case 5:13-cv-05058-LHK Document 159 Filed 09/22/15 Page 3 of 7
4 

Case No. 5:13-cv-05058-LHK

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS 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

Declaration information.

143 Exhibit C to the Dunham 

Declaration

SEALED Narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information. 

143 Exhibit D to the Dunham 

Declaration

SEALED Narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information. 

143 Exhibit E to the Dunham 

Declaration

SEALED Narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information. 

143 Exhibit F to the Dunham 

Declaration

SEALED Narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information. 

147 NetApp’s Motion for 

Extension of Time 

Designations highlighted in 

yellow at Docket No. 147-4 

SEALED, all other designations 

UNSEALED.

Only sealed portions 

narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information. 

147 NetApp’s Motion for 

Expedited Briefing

Designations highlighted in 

yellow at Docket No. 147-6 

SEALED, all other designations 

UNSEALED.

Only sealed portions 

narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information. 

147 Consolidated Declaration

of Karineh Khachatourian

in Support of Motion for 

Extension of Time and 

Motion for Expedited 

Briefing

Designations highlighted in 

yellow at Docket No. 147-8 

SEALED, all other designations 

UNSEALED.

Only sealed portions 

narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information. 

147 Exhibit B to the 

Consolidated 

Khachatourian Declaration

Designations highlighted in 

yellow at Docket No. 147-10 

SEALED; all other designations 

UNSEALED.

Only sealed portions 

narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information. 

148 Nimble Storage, Inc.’s 

Opposition to Motion for 

Extension of Time 

Designations highlighted in 

yellow at Docket No. 148-4 

SEALED; all other designations 

UNSEALED.

Only sealed portions 

narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information. 

148 Declaration of Patrick

Premo in Support of 

Opposition to Motion for 

Extension of Time 

Docket No. 148-6 SEALED; all 

other designations UNSEALED. 

Only sealed portions 

narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information. 

148 Exhibit 1 to Premo 

Declaration

SEALED Narrowly tailored to

confidential business 

information. 

Case 5:13-cv-05058-LHK Document 159 Filed 09/22/15 Page 4 of 7
5 

Case No. 5:13-cv-05058-LHK

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS 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

148 Exhibit 2 to Premo 

Declaration

SEALED Narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information. 

149 NetApp’s Reply in Support 

of Motion for Extension of 

Time

Designations highlighted in 

yellow at Docket No. 149-4 

SEALED; all other designations 

UNSEALED.

Only sealed portions 

narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information. 

150 Defendants’ Opposition to 

Motion to Enforce 

Settlement Agreement

Designations highlighted in 

yellow at Docket No. 150-4 at 

1:18-2:26, 3:7-7:8, 7:16-22; 

7:25-13:2, 13:10-15:17, 16:4-6, 

16:22-17:10, 17:25-18:27, 19:6-

8 SEALED; all other 

designations UNSEALED. 

Only sealed portions 

narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information. 

150 Declaration of Patrick 

Premo in Support of 

Opposition to Motion to 

Enforce Settlement 

Agreement

Designations highlighted in 

yellow at Docket No. 150-6 

SEALED; all other designations 

UNSEALED.

Only sealed portions 

narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information. 

150 Exhibit 1 to Premo 

Declaration

SEALED Narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information. 

150 Exhibit 2 to Premo 

Declaration

SEALED Narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information. 

150 Exhibit 3 to Premo 

Declaration

SEALED Narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information. 

150 Exhibit 4 to Premo 

Declaration

SEALED Narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information. 

150 Exhibit 5 to Premo 

Declaration

SEALED Narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information. 

150 Exhibit 6 to Premo 

Declaration

SEALED Narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information. 

150 Declaration of Sebastian 

Kaplan in Support of 

Opposition to Motion to 

Enforce Settlement 

Agreement

Designations highlighted in 

yellow at Docket No. 150-16 

SEALED; all other designations 

UNSEALED.

Only sealed portions 

narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information. 

Case 5:13-cv-05058-LHK Document 159 Filed 09/22/15 Page 5 of 7
6 

Case No. 5:13-cv-05058-LHK

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS 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

150 Exhibit 1 to Kaplan 

Declaration

SEALED Narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information. 

150 Exhibit 2 to Kaplan 

Declaration

SEALED Narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information. 

150 Declaration of Joel

Brillhart in Support of 

Opposition to Motion to 

Enforce Settlement 

Agreement

Designations highlighted in 

yellow at Docket No. 150-20 

SEALED; all other designations 

UNSEALED.

Only sealed portions 

narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information. 

151 NetApp’s Reply in Support 

of Motion to Enforce 

Settlement Agreement

Designations highlighted in 

yellow at Docket No. 151-4 

SEALED; all other designations 

UNSEALED.

Only sealed portions 

narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information. 

151 Supplemental Declaration

of Karineh Khachatourian

in Support of NetApp’s 

Motion to Enforce 

Settlement Agreement

Designations highlighted in 

yellow at Docket No. 151-9 at 

1:11-14, 1:25-4:19, 5:10-6:3 

SEALED; all other designations 

UNSEALED.

Only sealed portions 

narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information. 

151 Exhibit C to Supplemental 

Khachatourian Declaration

SEALED Narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information. 

151 Supplemental Declaration 

of Troy Dunham in 

Support of NetApp’s 

Motion to Enforce 

Settlement Agreement

SEALED Narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information. 

151 Supplemental Declaration 

of Richard Cheng in 

Support of NetApp’s 

Motion to Enforce 

Settlement Agreement

SEALED Narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information. 

157 Defendants’ Objection to 

Reply Evidence Lodged in 

Support of NetApp’s 

Motion to Enforce 

Settlement Agreement

SEALED Narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information. 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 22, 2015 

Case 5:13-cv-05058-LHK Document 159 Filed 09/22/15 Page 6 of 7
Case 5:13-cv-05058-LHK Document 159 Filed 09/22/15 Page 7 of 7