Optrics Inc v. Barracuda Networks Inc
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:17-cv-04977
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Optrics Inc. v. Barracuda Networks Inc., Judge Hixson denied one sealing motion and granted the other two in part while requiring public filings.
Optrics Inc. and Barracuda Networks Inc. were required to make specified filings public, while nonparties CloudNine Discovery and j2 Global were involved in the confidentiality designations; Exhibit 7 remained sealed for j2’s asserted confidentiality interest.
What happened
Optrics Inc. v. Barracuda Networks Inc. involved three requests to keep documents secret in connection with Barracuda’s sanctions motion. The documents included information labeled confidential by the parties or by outside companies.
The court denied Barracuda’s first request because Optrics and CloudNine Discovery did not file the required declarations. It granted Optrics’ request in part and denied it in part, requiring footnote 1 of Optrics’ opposition to be public. It also granted Barracuda’s second request in part and denied it in part, keeping one exhibit sealed but requiring the reply and another exhibit to be filed publicly.
Judge Hixson ruled that confidential business information could be sealed when there was good cause, but that material involving the merits of the trademark dispute could not be kept secret without a demonstrated risk of harm.
The detailed version
- Optrics Inc v. Barracuda Networks Inc · No. 3:17-cv-04977
- Richard Seeborg
- June 16, 2020
Background
The court considered three administrative motions to file documents under seal. Barracuda’s first motion concerned materials that Optrics or nonparty CloudNine Discovery had designated as “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” or “Confidential” under the case’s protective order. Optrics’ motion concerned portions of its opposition to Barracuda’s sanctions motion and a supporting declaration. Barracuda’s second motion concerned portions of its reply and exhibits to a supporting declaration, including materials designated by Optrics or nonparty j2 Global.
For documents connected to a nondispositive motion, the court applied the “good cause” standard. Under that standard, confidential business information may be sealed when disclosure could cause harm and the request is appropriately limited.
Barracuda’s February 25 Motion
The court stated that a party or nonparty that designated information as confidential had to file a declaration supporting sealing within four days of the sealing motion. Neither Optrics nor CloudNine filed the required responsive declaration. The court therefore DENIED Barracuda’s first motion to file under seal and directed Barracuda to file the referenced documents in the public record no earlier than June 20 and no later than June 24, 2020.
Optrics’ May 21 Motion
Barracuda filed a declaration supporting the sealing of most of the material Optrics sought to protect, but it did not request sealing of footnote 1 of Optrics’ opposition. The court found that most of the motion concerned confidential business information and was narrowly tailored. It found, however, that footnote 1 contained factual allegations concerning the merits of the trademark dispute and did not contain confidential business information or information whose disclosure would create a risk of harm.
The court therefore GRANTED in part and DENIED in part Optrics’ motion. Optrics was ordered to file a revised redacted opposition by June 23, 2020, leaving footnote 1 unredacted.
Barracuda’s June 4 Motion
Barracuda stated that it had no confidentiality interest in the portions of its reply and exhibits at issue and did not itself request that they remain sealed. Optrics opposed sealing the reply portions and one exhibit. j2 stated that it was unaware of confidential information in the cited reply portions, but asserted that Exhibit 7 contained a confidential internal email discussion about its information-technology infrastructure. j2 said disclosure could create a risk of competitive injury or other harm, including by revealing sensitive details that could be used to harm its infrastructure. j2 also stated that the documents had been produced in another case under a protective order.
The court found good cause to seal Exhibit 7 because it had been produced under a protective order in another case. It found that the remaining materials did not warrant sealing. The court therefore GRANTED in part and DENIED in part Barracuda’s second sealing motion. Barracuda was ordered to file an unredacted version of its reply and an unredacted version of Exhibit 2 to its counsel’s declaration by June 23, 2020. Exhibit 7 was to remain under seal.
Result
The order addressed access to court filings and did not decide the underlying trademark dispute or Barracuda’s sanctions motion. United States Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson entered the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.