Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-02024/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-02024-60/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 COURT’S ORDERS

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 COURT’S ORDERS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 421, 460, 476, 610, 612, 613

Before the court are the following:

(1) F5’s proposed redactions to Dkt. No. 421, the February 2, 2016 Order Re: F5’s 

Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement (Dkt. No. 460);

(2) (A lack of) proposed redactions to Dkt. No. 476, the February 19, 2016 Order 

Regarding Motions For Summary Judgment On Second Hotfix Products; and 

(3) F5’s proposed redactions to Dkt. No. 609, the August 22, 2016 Order Regarding PostTrial Motions, Dkt. No. 610 (Dkt. No. 613). 

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 & County of 

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 618 Filed 09/12/16 Page 1 of 4
2

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

ORDER REGARDING PROPOSED REDACTIONS TO COURT’S ORDERS

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

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 

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).

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 618 Filed 09/12/16 Page 2 of 4
3

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

ORDER REGARDING PROPOSED REDACTIONS TO COURT’S ORDERS

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

II. ORDER

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

Motion Document to be Sealed or 

Proposed Redaction

Ruling Reason/Explanation

460 Declaration of Daniel T. 

Keese In Support Of F5’s 

Request to Redact Portions 

of the Court’s February 2, 

2016 Order (460-3)

Motion to seal declaration 

granted.

Sealing allowed by Dkt. 

No. 421 at 11-12.

460 F5 Proposed Redactions to 

Court’s February 2, 2016 

Order (460-4)

Motion to seal proposed 

redactions is GRANTED.

Proposed redactions are 

REJECTED on their merits. 

All of the information that 

F5 seeks to seal is also 

present in the court’s 

February 19, 2016 

summary judgment order, 

which F5 has not claimed 

contains confidential 

information. See Dkt. No. 

476 and ruling below.

N/A Feb. 19, 2016 Order 

Regarding Motions For 

Summary Judgment On 

Second Hotfix Products

(476)

No proposed redactions 

having been filed by March 

4, 2016, a copy of this order 

with all redactions removed 

will be made public.

Dkt. No. 476 at 8.

612 Declaration of Daniel T. 

Keese In Support Of F5’s 

Request to Redact Portions 

of the Court’s August 22, 

2016 Order Regarding PostTrial Motions (612)

Motion to seal declaration 

granted.

Sealing allowed by Dkt. 

No. 610 at 26.

613 F5 Proposed Redactions to 

Court’s August 22, 2016 

Order Regarding Post-Trial 

Motions (613)

Motion to seal proposed 

redactions is GRANTED.

Proposed redactions to 

number of GTM Total 

Devices Sold, Virtual 

Editions, Add-Ons and 

Total Units, consistent with 

Dkt. No. 609 at 20, are 

ACCEPTED.

Remaining redactions are 

REJECTED.

Sealing allowed by Dkt. 

No. 610 at 26.

Proposed redactions to 

detailed GTM sales 

figures are narrowly 

tailored to confidential 

business information. 

Remaining figures were 

revealed in public filings 

that F5 did not claim were 

confidential, e.g., Dkt. 

No. 584 at 3, or are easily 

derived from F5’s slides 

presented in open court at 

on Aug. 19, 2016.

The court will file versions of its February 2, 2016 and February 19, 2016 summary 

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 618 Filed 09/12/16 Page 3 of 4
4

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

ORDER REGARDING PROPOSED REDACTIONS TO COURT’S ORDERS

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

judgment orders and its August 22, 2016 order regarding post-trial motions with redactions 

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

Nos. 460-3, 460-4,612, and 613 will remain under seal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 12, 2016

______________________________________

Ronald M. Whyte

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 618 Filed 09/12/16 Page 4 of 4