Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-02024/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-02024-59/pdf.json

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

---

1

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

OMNIBUS ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS TO SEAL

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 

OMNIBUS ORDER REGARDING 

MOTIONS TO SEAL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 263, 274, 277, 283, 289, 290, 

296, 302, 304, 310, 313, 323, 329, 330, 331, 

361, 363, 366, 368, 376, 378, 389, 394, 396, 

398, 401, 409, 413, 414, 443, 445, 448, 450, 

504, 580, 581, 592, 596

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.’” 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. Because the public’s interest in 

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 617 Filed 09/12/16 Page 1 of 13
2

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

OMNIBUS ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS TO SEAL

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

non-dispositive motions is relatively low, a party seeking to seal a document attached to a nondispositive motion need only demonstrate “good cause.” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 

665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010).

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

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 compelling reasons or 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 

“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.”). “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.

//

//

//

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 617 Filed 09/12/16 Page 2 of 13
3

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

OMNIBUS ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS TO SEAL

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

Motion 

to Seal

Document to be Sealed Ruling Reason/Explanation

263 Radware Motion for Leave 

to File Motion for 

Reconsideration (263-4)

DENIED. Contains no confidential 

information. Radware publicly 

revealed content of survey in Dkt. 

No. 205 at 23-24. See Dkt. No. 

292 at 5.

263 Exhibit A: Malackowski 

Rep. Excerpts (263-6)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

263 Exhibit B: Rubin Rep. 

Excerpts (263-7)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

263 Exhibit C: Alexander Dep. 

Excerpts (263-8)

DENIED. Not narrowly tailored to 

confidential business information. 

263 Exhibit D: Stamm Dep. 

Excerpts (263-9)

DENIED. Contains no confidential 

information.

274 Motion for 

Reconsideration re Lost 

Profits (274-4)

DENIED as to 

proposed redactions 

at 7:27-8:8; 9:21-25; 

10:11-17; 11:12-14; 

11:24-12:1. 

GRANTED as to 

remaining proposed 

redactions 

(highlights).

Radware publicly revealed 

content of survey in Dkt. No. 205 

at 23-24. See Dkt. No. 292 at 5.

Remaining proposed redactions 

are narrowly tailored to 

confidential business information.

274 Malackowski Decl. ISO 

Motion for 

Reconsideration (274-5)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

274 Marino Decl. Ex. A: 

Malackowski Rep. 

(274-17)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

274 Marino Decl. Ex. B: 

Stamm Rep. Excerpts 

(274-18)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

274 Marino Decl. Ex. C: 

Moshe Dep. Excerpts 

(274-19)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

274 Marino Decl. Ex. H: F5 

Internal Document 

(F5 062427) (274-20)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 617 Filed 09/12/16 Page 3 of 13
4

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

OMNIBUS ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS TO SEAL

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

Motion 

to Seal

Document to be Sealed Ruling Reason/Explanation

277 F5 Renewed Motion for 

Summary Judgment of 

Non-Infringement (277-2)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

(highlights).

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

277 Declaration of Peter M. 

Thornewell ISO F5's 

Renewed Motion (277-3)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

(highlights).

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

277 Keese Dec. Ex. 1: 

Thornewell Dep. Excerpts 

(277-4)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

283 F5’s Opposition to 

Radware’s Motion for 

Reconsideration (283-4)

DENIED as to 

proposed redactions 

at 5:25-6:2; 7 n.3. 

GRANTED as to 

remaining proposed 

redactions 

(highlights).

Radware publicly revealed 

content of survey in Dkt. No. 205 

at 23-24. See Dkt. No. 292 at 5.

Remaining proposed redactions 

are narrowly tailored to 

confidential business information.

289 Radware’s Opposition to 

F5’s Renewed MSJ 

(289-4)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

(highlights).

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

289 Ex. 1: Thornewell Dep. 

Excerpts (289-6)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

289 Ex. 2: F5 Source Code 

F5N_SC_00002499-2506 

(289-7)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

289 Ex. 3: F5 Source Code 

F5N_SC_00002487-2498 

(289-8)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

289 Ex. 7: F5 Source Code 

F5N_SC_00002620-2634 

(289-12)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

290 Radware’s Reply in 

Support of Motion for 

Reconsideration (290-4)

DENIED as to 

proposed redactions 

at i; 3:15-16; 13:1-10.

GRANTED as to 

remaining proposed 

redactions 

(highlights).

Radware publicly revealed 

content of survey in Dkt. No. 205 

at 23-24. See Dkt. No. 292 at 5.

Remaining proposed redactions 

are narrowly tailored to 

confidential business information.

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 617 Filed 09/12/16 Page 4 of 13
5

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

OMNIBUS ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS TO SEAL

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

Motion 

to Seal

Document to be Sealed Ruling Reason/Explanation

296 Rubin Declaration (296-1) GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

302 F5 Reply ISO Renewed 

Motion for Summary 

Judgment (302-4)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

(highlights).

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

302 Thornewell Decl. ISO 

Reply (302-6)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

(highlights).

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

302 Brewer Decl. ISO Reply 

(302-8)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

(highlights).

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

302 Brewer Decl. Ex. 1: 

Spreadsheet (302-10)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

304 Radware Motion for Leave 

to File Surreply (304-4)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

(highlights).

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

304 Radware Surreply 

Regarding Summary 

Judgment (304-6)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

(highlights).

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

304 Supplemental Rubin Decl. 

(304-7)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

310 and 

329

Stamm Rep. - Versions of 

204-27 with Radware’s 

proposed redactions 

highlighted (310-3) and 

F5’s proposed redactions 

highlighted (329-28)

GRANTED as to the 

proposed redactions 

to Stamm Report.

Radware shall 

prepare and file in the 

public docket a 

version of the report 

with the redactions 

that both parties 

submitted.

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

313 F5 Response to Radware 

Mot. to File Surreply 

(313-2)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

(highlights).

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

323 Malackowski Depo. 

Excerpts (Radware 

Proposed Redactions to 

204-31) (323-4)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

(highlights).

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 617 Filed 09/12/16 Page 5 of 13
6

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

OMNIBUS ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS TO SEAL

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

Motion 

to Seal

Document to be Sealed Ruling Reason/Explanation

329 Radware’s MSJ of 

Infringement (179-4) 

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

at Dkt. No. 329-3.

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

329 Exhibit 7: F5 email (179-7) GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

329 Portions of Exhibit 8: 

Needham deposition 

(179-8)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

at Dkt. No. 329-4.

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

329 Exhibit 14: F5 email 

(179-13)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

329 Exhibit 15: Needham email 

(179-14)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

329 Exhibit 16: Needham email 

(179-15)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

329 Exhibit 17: F5 email 

(179-16)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

329 Portions of Exhibit 19: 

Thornewell deposition 

(179-18)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

at Dkt. No. 329-5.

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

329 Portions of Exhibit 25: 

Masters deposition 

(179-20)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

at Dkt. No. 329-6.

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

329 Portions of Exhibit 28: F5 

interrogatory response 

(179-23)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

at Dkt. No. 329-7.

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

329 Portions of Exhibit 1 to the 

Rubin Declaration 

(179-26)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

at Dkt. No. 329-8.

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

329 Portions of Exhibit 10: 

Malackowski Rep. 

Excerpts (185-3)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

at Dkt. No. 329-9.

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

329 Portions of Exhibit A: 

Alexander Deposition 

(200-6)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

at Dkt. No. 329-10.

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

329 Portions of Radware 

Opposition to F5 MSJ 

Invalidity (202-4)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

at Dkt. No. 329-11.

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

329 Portions of Radware’s 

Opposition to F5’s MSJ on 

Damages (204-4)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

at Dkt. No. 329-12 .

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

329 Exhibit 9: Skene email 

(204-10)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 617 Filed 09/12/16 Page 6 of 13
7

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

OMNIBUS ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS TO SEAL

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

Motion 

to Seal

Document to be Sealed Ruling Reason/Explanation

329 Portions of Exhibit 10: 

Campa Depo. (204-11)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

at Dkt. No. 329-13.

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

329 Portions of Exhibit 11: 

Campa email (204-12)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

at Dkt. No. 329-14.

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

329 Portions of Exhibit 12: 

Campa email (204-16)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

at Dkt. No. 329-15.

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

329 Exhibit 13: Campa email 

(204-17)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

329 Portions of Exhibit 15: F5 

Interrogatory responses 

(204-19)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

at Dkt. No. 329-16.

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

329 Portions of Exhibit 16: 

Campa letter (204-20)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

at Dkt. No. 329-17.

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

329 Portions of Exhibit 18: 

Campa email (204-21)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

at Dkt. No. 329-18.

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

329 Portions of Exhibit 19: 

Campa email (204-22)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

at Dkt. No. 329-19.

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

329 Portions of Exhibit 20: 

Campa email (204-23)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

at Dkt. No. 329-20.

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

329 Exhibit 23: F5 CAT email 

(204-24)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

329 Portions of Exhibit 28: 

Brewer Depo. (204-29)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

at Dkt. No. 329-21.

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

329 Exhibit 31: Brewer email 

(204-32)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

329 Exhibit 33: Brewer email 

(204-34)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

329 Exhibit 34: Brewer email 

(204-35)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

329 Exhibit 35: Brewer email 

(204-36)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

329 Portions of Exhibit 36: 

Rubin depo. (204-37)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

at Dkt. No. 329-22.

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 617 Filed 09/12/16 Page 7 of 13
8

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

OMNIBUS ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS TO SEAL

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

Motion 

to Seal

Document to be Sealed Ruling Reason/Explanation

329 Portions of Exhibit 40: 

Brain depo. (204-39)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

at Dkt. No. 329-23.

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

329 Portions of Exhibit H: 

Malackowski Report 

(206-9)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

at Dkt. No. 329-24.

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

329 Portions of Exhibit 33: 

Alexander Dep. (210-7)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

at Dkt. No. 329-25.

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

329 Portions of Exhibit 4: 

Brewer Depo. (215-11)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

at Dkt. No. 329-26.

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

329 Portions of Exhibit 3: 

Brewer Depo. (218-7)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

at Dkt. No. 329-27.

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

330 Radware 4th Supp. Resp. 

to F5 Interrogatories Set 1 

(330-3)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

(highlights).

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

361 F5’s Motion in Limine No. 

2 (361-4)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions

(highlights).

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

363 F5’s Motion in Limine No. 

3 (363-4)

DENIED No supporting declaration filed 

by Radware.

363 Rubin Dep. Excerpts (Ex. 

3 to F5’s Motion in Limine 

No. 3) (363-6)

DENIED No supporting declaration filed 

by Radware.

366 Ex. B to Nguyen Decl.: 

Respondent Details for 

TechValidate Survey 

(366-2)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

368 Mot. in Limine No. 4 

(368-4)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

(highlights).

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

368 Ex. 1 to Mot. in Limine 

No. 4: Malackowski Dep. 

Excerpts (368-5)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

(highlights).

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 617 Filed 09/12/16 Page 8 of 13
9

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

OMNIBUS ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS TO SEAL

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

Motion 

to Seal

Document to be Sealed Ruling Reason/Explanation

376 Radware Daubert Motions 

(376-4)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

at 5:5-18 and 15:14-

23.

Otherwise DENIED.

F5’s supporting declaration only 

requested confidential treatment 

for redactions at 5:5-18 and 

15:14-23, Dkt. No. 386 at 4, and 

the court finds that these proposed

redactions are narrowly tailored 

to confidential business 

information.

376 Ex. 1: Alexander Dep. 

Excerpts (376-6)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

376 Ex. 2: Email from F5 to 

Radware Counsel (376-7)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

376 Ex. 3: Stamm Dep. 

Excerpts (376-8)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

376 Ex. 4: Brain Dep. Excerpts 

(376-9)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

376 Ex. 5: Brill Dep. Excerpts 

(376-10)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

378 Radware Mot. in Limine 1-

8 (378-4)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

at 3:18, 3:21-23, 

12:3-5, 13:26-28, 

15:16-23.

Otherwise DENIED.

F5’s supporting declaration only 

requested confidential treatment 

for redactions at 3:18, 3:21-23, 

12:3-5, 13:26-28, 15:16-23, Dkt. 

No. 386 at 5, and the court finds 

that these proposed redactions are 

narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

378 Radware Mot. in Limine 9-

16 (378-6)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

at 3:21-23 and 3:25-

26.

Otherwise DENIED.

F5’s supporting declaration only 

requested confidential treatment 

for redactions at 3:21-23 and 

3:25-26, Dkt. No. 386 at 5, and 

the court finds that these proposed 

redactions are narrowly tailored 

to confidential business 

information.

378 Ex. 2: Darwin Dep. 

Excerpts (378-9)

DENIED. No supporting declaration filed 

by F5.

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 617 Filed 09/12/16 Page 9 of 13
10

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

OMNIBUS ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS TO SEAL

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

Motion 

to Seal

Document to be Sealed Ruling Reason/Explanation

378 Ex. 3: Thornewell Dep. 

Excerpts (378-10)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

378 Ex. 4: Skene Dep. Excerpts 

(378-11)

DENIED. No supporting declaration filed 

by F5.

378 Ex. 5: Malackowski Dep. 

Excerpts (378-12)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

378 Ex. 6: Melton Dep. 

Excerpts (378-13)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

378 Ex. 7: Delgadillo Dep. 

Excerpts (2014) (378-14)

DENIED. No supporting declaration filed.

378 Ex. 8: Delgadillo Dep. 

Excerpts (2012) (378-15)

DENIED. No supporting declaration filed.

389 F5 Response to Radware 

Daubert / Motions in 

Limine (389-4)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

(highlights).

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

394 F5 Reply. In Support of 

Mot. in Limine No. 1 

(394-4)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

(highlights).

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

396 F5's Opp. to Plaintiffs’

Motions In Limine Nos. 9-

16 (396-4)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

(highlights).

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

398 F5's Opp. to Plaintiffs’

Motions In Limine Nos. 1-

8 (398-4)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

(highlights).

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

401 Radware's Opposition to 

F5's MIL No. 2 (401-4)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

(highlights).

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

401 Radware's Opposition to 

F5's MIL No. 4 (401-6)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

(highlights).

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

401 Radware's Opposition to 

F5's MIL No. 8 (401-10)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

(highlights).

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 617 Filed 09/12/16 Page 10 of 13
11

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

OMNIBUS ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS TO SEAL

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

Motion 

to Seal

Document to be Sealed Ruling Reason/Explanation

413 Radware’s Opposition to 

F5’s MIL Nos. 5-7 

(Corrected copy) (413-2)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

(highlights).

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

414 Radware Surreply in 

Opposition to F5 MIL 1 

(414-4)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

(highlights).

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

414 Ex. 2: F5’s responses to

Gartner’s Vendor 

Questionnaire (414-5)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

414 Ex. 3: three F5 white

papers and a screenshot 

from F5’s website (414-6)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

414 Ex. 4: F5’s internal

presentation, bearing 

production numbers 13-

02024_F5N_014212 

(414-7)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

414 Ex. 5: Underlying data

to the TechValidate survey 

(414-8)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

443 F5 Supplemental Brief 

Regarding Lost Profits 

Issues (443-4)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

at 12:12-13.

Otherwise, DENIED.

Content at 12:12-13 is narrowly 

tailored to F5 confidential 

business information.

No supporting declaration filed 

by Radware. Material was 

publicly disclosed in other filings.

445 Radware Supplemental 

Briefing Per Feb. 5, 2016 

Order (445-3)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

(highlights).

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

445 Ex. A: Malackowski Dep. 

Excerpts (445-5)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

445 Ex. B: Malackowski Rep. 

Ex. 3.1 (445-6)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

445 Ex. C: Malackowski Rep. 

Ex. 4.3.2 (445-7)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

448 F5 Motion for Summary 

Judgment of NonInfringement (448-4)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

(highlights).

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 617 Filed 09/12/16 Page 11 of 13
12

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

OMNIBUS ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS TO SEAL

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

Motion 

to Seal

Document to be Sealed Ruling Reason/Explanation

450 Radware's Motion for 

Summary Judgment of 

Infringement of Second 

Hotfix Products (450-4)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

(highlights).

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

504 F5 Motion to Exclude 

Radware’s Improper 

Damages Claims (504-4)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

(highlights).

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

504 Ex. A: (504-6) GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

504 Ex. B: (504-8) GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

504 Ex. C: (504-10) GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

580 Radware Mot. for 

Enhanced Damages & 

Attorney Fees (580-3)

DENIED Attorney fee amounts are not 

confidential in connection with a 

motion for fees.1

Trial Exhibits cited on pages 12-

13 were displayed in open court, 

and F5 filed no supporting 

declaration in support of sealing. 

581 Nguyen Decl. Ex. A: 

Letter from Radware to F5 

(581-5)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

581 James Malackowski’s 

Declaration In Support of 

Radware’s Motion for 

Accounting (581-7)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

592 F5 Opposition to Motion 

for Enhanced Damages & 

Attorney Fees (592-4)

DENIED. No supporting declaration filed 

by Radware.

 

1

Ferrington v. McAfee, Inc., No. 10-CV-01455-LHK, 2013 WL 3814474, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 

22, 2013) (“The Court is not persuaded that Pochis’ counsel's billing records are sealable under 

either the good cause or the compelling reason standard.”); Linex Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard 

Co., No. C 13-159 CW, 2014 WL 6901744, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2014) (“It is commonplace 

for the number of hours billed and the hourly rate of attorneys to be openly filed on court dockets; 

without this information the final fees award appears to be drawn from thin air.”).

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 617 Filed 09/12/16 Page 12 of 13
13

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

OMNIBUS ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS TO SEAL

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

Motion 

to Seal

Document to be Sealed Ruling Reason/Explanation

592 Peles Deposition Excerpts 

(Al-Salam Declaration Ex. 

A) (592-6)

DENIED. No supporting declaration filed 

by Radware.

592 Declaration of Chris 

Schmidt (592-8)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions

(yellow highlights).

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

596 F5 Opposition to 

Radware’s Motion for 

Accounting (596-3)

GRANTED as to 

proposed redactions 

(yellow highlights).

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

596 Declaration of Laura B. 

Stamm (596-5)

GRANTED. Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

Radware’s motions to remove incorrectly filed documents, Dkt. Nos. 331 & 409, are 

GRANTED. Docket entries 321-3, 401-7, and 404 shall be removed as requested.

All denials are without prejudice. The parties shall file, within 21 days, (1) versions of 

documents with only the redactions approved by this order or (2) revised sealing motions for the 

court’s consideration addressing the court’s reasons for denial discussed above. Failure to comply 

with this order will result in the clerk unsealing the documents listed above for which a motion to 

seal has been denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 12, 2016

______________________________________

Ronald M. Whyte

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 617 Filed 09/12/16 Page 13 of 13