Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-04426/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-04426-21/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Symantec Corporation
Counter-defendant
Zscaler, Inc.
Counter-claimant

Document Text:

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

SYMANTEC CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

ZSCALER, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-04426-JST

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 

DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO 

FILE UNDER SEAL

Re: ECF Nos. 308, 315

Defendant Zscaler, Inc. moves to file under seal portions of its Motion for Relief from 

Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge (“Motion”) and Exhibit A to its Motion. ECF 

No. 310. Plaintiff Symantec Corp. moves to file under seal portions of Exhibit A to Zscaler’s 

Motion. ECF No. 315. Both Zscaler and Symantec have filed declarations in support of sealing. 

ECF Nos. 308-1, 315-1. The Court will grant in part and deny in part Zscaler’s motion. The 

Court will grant Symantec’s motion. Symantec is the designating party as to all material sought to 

be sealed.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

A party seeking to seal a document filed with the court must (1) comply with Civil Local 

Rule 79-5; and (2) rebut the “a strong presumption in favor of access” that applies to all 

documents other than grand jury transcripts or pre-indictment warrant materials. Kamakana v. 

City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation and internal quotations 

omitted).

With respect to the first prong, Local Rule 79-5 requires, as a threshold, a request that 

(1) “establishes that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged, protectable as a trade secret 

or otherwise entitled to protection under the law”; and (2) is “narrowly tailored to seek sealing 

only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). An administrative motion to seal must also fulfill 

Case 3:17-cv-04426-JST Document 327 Filed 08/16/19 Page 1 of 3
2

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

the requirements of Civil Local Rule 79-5(d). “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.” Civil L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A).

With respect to the second prong, the showing required to overcome the strong 

presumption of access depends on the type of motion to which the document is attached. “[A] 

‘compelling reasons’ standard applies to most judicial records. This standard derives from the 

common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records 

and documents.’” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting 

Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 n.7 (1978)). To overcome this strong 

presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record must “articulate compelling reasons 

supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public 

policies favoring disclosure.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79 (internal citations omitted). 

On the other hand, records attached to motions that are only “tangentially related to the 

merits of a case” are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. 

Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, a party need only make a 

showing under the good cause standard of Rule 26(c) to justify the sealing of the materials. Id. at 

1097. A court may, for good cause, keep documents confidential “to protect a party or person 

from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

A district court must “articulate [the] . . . reasoning or findings underlying its decision to 

seal.” Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 

2374 (2012).

II. DISCUSSION

Because the parties move to file under seal documents connected with a motion for relief 

from a nondispositive order regarding discovery, the court will apply the “good cause” standard. 

See Ctr. For Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097 (“Applying the good cause standard from Rule 26(c) as 

an exception for discovery-related motions makes sense, as the private interests of litigants are 

‘the only weights on the scale.’” (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180)). 

Zscaler moves to file under seal portions of its Motion and Exhibit A to its Motion. The 

Case 3:17-cv-04426-JST Document 327 Filed 08/16/19 Page 2 of 3
3

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

redacted portions of the Motion contain technical, financial, and sales information that Symantec

designated as confidential. ECF No. 308 at 2. Good cause exists to seal the redacted portions of 

the Motion, and this request is narrowly tailored. See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097, 1101. 

The Court accordingly grants the motion to file portions of its Motion under seal. 

Zscaler also moves to seal the entirety of Exhibit A, which consists of 57 pages of 

deposition excerpts. Because some of the proffered testimony appears not to be privileged, 

protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law, however, the Court 

cannot conclude the request is narrowly tailored. See Civil L.R. 79-5(b); see also, e.g., ECF No. 

308-5 at 34 (containing colloquy between counsel about whether a document had been previously 

produced); id. at 51 (same). The Court accordingly denies the motion to file the entirety of 

Exhibit A under seal.

Symantec moves to file under seal portions of Exhibit A to Zscaler’s Motion. The Court 

finds that good cause exists for sealing the identified portions of this document. See Ctr. for Auto 

Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097, 1101. The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored. See

Civil L.R. 79-5(b). The Court accordingly grants Symantec’s motion.

CONCLUSION

The Court grants in part and denies in part Zscaler’s administrative motion to file under 

seal. The Court grants Symantec’s motion to file under seal. 

For the Motion, the “document filed under seal will remain under seal and the public will 

have access only to the redacted version, if any, accompanying the motion.” Civil L.R. 79-5(f)(1). 

For Exhibit A to the Motion, Zscaler shall file the redacted form of Exhibit A, ECF No. 

315-3, within seven days. Civil L.R. 79-5(f)(3).

The briefing schedule on the underlying motion shall remain as originally set.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 16, 2019

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-04426-JST Document 327 Filed 08/16/19 Page 3 of 3