Splunk Inc. v. Cribl, Inc.

Nature of the order

This order resolved all pending administrative motions to seal and supporting declarations identified by the court. The motions concerned filings and exhibits connected to the parties’ summary-judgment motions, motions to exclude expert opinions, motions in limine, trial briefs, proposed final pretrial orders, trial exhibit lists, and trial exhibits. The order did not decide the underlying contract, copyright, or other merits disputes.

Legal standard

The court emphasized the strong public policy favoring open court records and the public’s interest in knowing what relief the court provides. Materials more than tangentially related to the merits could be sealed only upon a showing of compelling reasons. Materials only tangentially related to the merits could be sealed upon a showing of good cause.

The court also required sealing requests to be narrowly tailored. Under the Northern District of California’s local rules, a party seeking to seal material had to identify each document or passage, state the private or public interests supporting secrecy, explain the injury that would result from disclosure, explain why less restrictive alternatives would not suffice, and provide evidentiary support when necessary. The court warned that noncompliant submissions could be denied or stricken.

The court recognized that redaction may be appropriate for trade secrets, business information that could harm competitive standing, and personal information whose disclosure could lead to annoyance or abuse. But vague assertions, boilerplate language, reliance solely on a protective order, and unsupported claims of possible harm were insufficient.

Court’s analysis

The court found that the parties had repeatedly failed to comply fully with the required procedures, including by failing to timely refile every corrected copy and, in some instances, filing copies with more redactions rather than fewer. The court nevertheless proceeded in part to avoid prejudice to third parties.

Across the numerous filings, the court generally denied requests to redact information that had already been disclosed in open court, admitted as an unredacted trial exhibit, appeared in public filings or on a party’s website, or was too general to create a credible risk of competitive harm. The court also denied requests supported only by general references to trade secrets, source code, confidential business information, customer information, or competitive standing without a specific explanation tied to the passage at issue.

The court granted or partly granted requests involving specific nonpublic source-code fragments, code-related identifiers, repository and file information, technical implementation details, certain confidential financial information, customer lists, customer names appearing together with confidential technical or financial details, and personal contact information. The court often concluded that these redactions protected parties or third parties without preventing the public from understanding the dispute.

The court repeatedly distinguished isolated customer names from lengthy customer lists or customer names linked to confidential information. It often denied redaction of names disclosed in court or public materials, while granting redaction where a collection of names could create a usable customer list or associate customers with confidential technical, financial, or service information.

For financial information, the court generally denied redaction of high-level figures that were discussed in court, appeared in public-company filings, or helped explain the parties’ damages arguments. It granted some redactions for more detailed, nonpublic financial information, including private-company financial statements, detailed projections, financial ratios, and information whose disclosure could reveal confidential business trends without materially improving public understanding.

For trial exhibits, the court allowed redactions of portions containing commercially sensitive technical details while leaving public an overview of the material and its relationship to the case. For one document concerning reverse engineering of the Splunk-to-Splunk version 4 protocol, the court denied some proposed redactions so the public could see the document’s outline and granted redactions for the remaining details.

Disposition

The court’s conclusion states: “The administrative motions to seal are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.” The parties were ordered to refile all relevant documents in full compliance with the order by September 30, 2024. The district court retained jurisdiction to ensure compliance.