Ipsilium LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:17-cv-07179
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Ipsilium v. Cisco, Judge Gilliam granted both parties’ motions to seal confidential materials after settlement made them irrelevant to the pending motion.
Ipsilium LLC and Cisco Systems, Inc.; the identified portions of their briefs and exhibits will remain under seal.
What happened
In Ipsilium LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., the parties asked to seal portions of briefs and exhibits connected to Ipsilium’s motion to amend its infringement contentions. They identified confidential product information, trade secrets, and detailed source code.
The court applied the lower “good cause” standard because the materials concerned a motion that was not dispositive. It found that the documents contained proprietary information and were no longer relevant to the public’s understanding of the case because the parties had settled and the amendment motion had become moot.
Judge Gilliam granted the parties’ administrative motions to file under seal. Under the court’s order, the sealed documents will remain sealed.
The detailed version
- Ipsilium LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. · No. 4:17-cv-07179
- Haywood Gilliam
- Mar. 16, 2020
Background
The parties filed administrative motions seeking to seal portions of documents submitted in connection with Ipsilium LLC’s motion for leave to file amended infringement contentions. The supporting declarations stated that the identified material included confidential product information, trade secrets, and detailed source code.
The parties later executed a settlement agreement, and the motion to amend infringement contentions was terminated as moot. The court stated that it had not relied on the documents that were the subject of the sealing motions.
Legal standard
Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard to requests to seal judicial records. Civil Local Rule 79-5 also requires a sealing request to establish that the material is privileged, a trade secret, or otherwise legally protectable, and requires the request to be narrowly tailored.
For records connected to a nondispositive motion—a motion that does not resolve the claims or defenses—the court applied the lower “good cause” standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). That standard requires a particularized showing that specific harm or prejudice would result from disclosure; broad, unsupported allegations are insufficient.
Court’s analysis
The court found good cause to seal the documents. It reasoned that the documents disclosed proprietary and confidential information unrelated to the public’s understanding of the proceedings, and that the public’s interest in disclosure was minimal because the court would not rule on the now-moot motion.
Disposition
The court GRANTED the parties’ administrative motions to file under seal. It ordered that documents filed under seal under the granted motions would remain under seal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.