Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

NetAPP, INC. v. NIMBLE STORAGE, INC., 5:13-cv-05058-LHK. (2015)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20150923910 Visitors: 5
Filed: Sep. 22, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 22, 2015
Summary: OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL (Re: Docket Nos. 143, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 157) PAUL S. GREWAL , Magistrate Judge . 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
More

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

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 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 Document to be Sealed Result Reason/Explanation to Seal 143 NetApp's Notice of Motion Designations highlighted in Only sealed portions and Motion to Enforce yellow at Docket No. 143-4 narrowly tailored to Settlement Agreement SEALED; all other designations confidential business UNSEALED. information. 143 Proposed Order Granting Docket No. 143-6 at 1:6-2:8 Only sealed portions NetApp's Motion to SEALED; all other designations narrowly tailored to Enforce Settlement UNSEALED. confidential business Agreement information. 143 Exhibit H to the SEALED Narrowly tailored to Khachatourian Declaration confidential business information. 143 Declaration of Richard Designations highlighted in Only sealed portions Cheng in Support of yellow at Docket No. 143-18 narrowly tailored to NetApp's Motion to SEALED; all other designations confidential business Enforce Settlement UNSEALED. information. Agreement 143 Declaration of Troy Designations highlighted in Only sealed portions Dunham in Support of yellow at Docket No. 143-20 narrowly tailored to NetApp's Motion to SEALED; all other designations confidential business Enforce Settlement UNSEALED. information. Agreement 143 Exhibit B to the Dunham SEALED Narrowly tailored to confidential business Declaration information. 143 Exhibit C to the Dunham SEALED Narrowly tailored to Declaration confidential business information. 143 Exhibit D to the Dunham SEALED Narrowly tailored to Declaration confidential business information. 143 Exhibit E to the Dunham SEALED Narrowly tailored to Declaration confidential business information. 143 Exhibit F to the Dunham SEALED Narrowly tailored to Declaration confidential business information. 147 NetApp's Motion for Designations highlighted in Only sealed portions Extension of Time yellow at Docket No. 147-4 narrowly tailored to SEALED, all other designations confidential business UNSEALED. information. 147 NetApp's Motion for Designations highlighted in Only sealed portions Expedited Briefing yellow at Docket No. 147-6 narrowly tailored to SEALED, all other designations confidential business UNSEALED. information. 147 Consolidated Declaration Designations highlighted in Only sealed portions of Karineh Khachatourian yellow at Docket No. 147-8 narrowly tailored to in Support of Motion for SEALED, all other designations confidential business Extension of Time and UNSEALED. information. Motion for Expedited Briefing 147 Exhibit B to the Designations highlighted in Only sealed portions Consolidated yellow at Docket No. 147-10 narrowly tailored to Khachatourian Declaration SEALED; all other designations confidential business UNSEALED. information. 148 Nimble Storage, Inc.'s Designations highlighted in Only sealed portions Opposition to Motion for yellow at Docket No. 148-4 narrowly tailored to Extension of Time SEALED; all other designations confidential business UNSEALED. information. 148 Declaration of Patrick Docket No. 148-6 SEALED; all Only sealed portions Premo in Support of other designations UNSEALED. narrowly tailored to Opposition to Motion for confidential business Extension of Time information. 148 Exhibit 1 to Premo SEALED Narrowly tailored to Declaration confidential business information. 148 Exhibit 2 to Premo SEALED Narrowly tailored to Declaration confidential business information. 149 NetApp's Reply in Support Designations highlighted in Only sealed portions of Motion for Extension of yellow at Docket No. 149-4 narrowly tailored to Time SEALED; all other designations confidential business UNSEALED. information. 150 Defendants' Opposition to Designations highlighted in Only sealed portions Motion to Enforce yellow at Docket No. 150-4 at narrowly tailored to Settlement Agreement 1:18-2:26, 3:7-7:8, 7:16-22; confidential business 7:25-13:2, 13:10-15:17, 16:4-6, information. 16:22-17:10, 17:25-18:27, 19:6-8 SEALED; all other designations UNSEALED. 150 Declaration of Patrick Designations highlighted in Only sealed portions Premo in Support of yellow at Docket No. 150-6 narrowly tailored to Opposition to Motion to SEALED; all other designations confidential business Enforce Settlement UNSEALED. information. Agreement 150 Exhibit 1 to Premo SEALED Narrowly tailored to Declaration confidential business information. 150 Exhibit 2 to Premo SEALED Narrowly tailored to Declaration confidential business information. 150 Exhibit 3 to Premo SEALED Narrowly tailored to Declaration confidential business information. 150 Exhibit 4 to Premo SEALED Narrowly tailored to Declaration confidential business information. 150 Exhibit 5 to Premo SEALED Narrowly tailored to Declaration confidential business information. 150 Exhibit 6 to Premo SEALED Narrowly tailored to Declaration confidential business information. 150 Declaration of Sebastian Designations highlighted in Only sealed portions Kaplan in Support of yellow at Docket No. 150-16 narrowly tailored to Opposition to Motion to SEALED; all other designations confidential business Enforce Settlement UNSEALED. information. Agreement 150 Exhibit 1 to Kaplan SEALED Narrowly tailored to Declaration confidential business information. 150 Exhibit 2 to Kaplan SEALED Narrowly tailored to Declaration confidential business information. 150 Declaration of Joel Designations highlighted in Only sealed portions Brillhart in Support of yellow at Docket No. 150-20 narrowly tailored to Opposition to Motion to SEALED; all other designations confidential business Enforce Settlement UNSEALED. information. Agreement 151 NetApp's Reply in Support Designations highlighted in Only sealed portions of Motion to Enforce yellow at Docket No. 151-4 narrowly tailored to Settlement Agreement SEALED; all other designations confidential business UNSEALED. information. 151 Supplemental Declaration Designations highlighted in Only sealed portions of Karineh Khachatourian yellow at Docket No. 151-9 at narrowly tailored to in Support of NetApp's 1:11-14, 1:25-4:19, 5:10-6:3 confidential business Motion to Enforce SEALED; all other designations information. Settlement Agreement UNSEALED. 151 Exhibit C to Supplemental SEALED Narrowly tailored to Khachatourian Declaration confidential business information. 151 Supplemental Declaration SEALED Narrowly tailored to of Troy Dunham in confidential business Support of NetApp's information. Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement 151 Supplemental Declaration SEALED Narrowly tailored to of Richard Cheng in confidential business Support of NetApp's information. Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement 157 Defendants' Objection to SEALED Narrowly tailored to Reply Evidence Lodged in confidential business Support of NetApp's information. Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement

SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


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.
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.").
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).
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer