Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Shenzhen Usource Technology Co.
- Edward Davila
- 5:20-cv-04773
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Cisco Systems v. Shenzhen Usource, Judge Davila granted in part and denied in part Cisco’s request to seal filings, requiring narrower redactions.
Cisco Systems, Inc. and Cisco Technology, Inc. must file narrower redacted versions of the specified filings. The ruling also protects the identities of two proposed defendants and certain Cisco confidential information from public disclosure.
What happened
In Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Shenzhen Usource Technology Co., Cisco asked to temporarily and then permanently seal filings connected to its proposed second amended complaint and request for a temporary restraining order. The court had already denied those underlying motions.
The court found that Cisco had not shown compelling reasons to seal the requested documents in their entirety. But it found sufficient justification to keep Cisco’s confidential information and the identities of two proposed defendants from public view.
The court granted in part and denied in part Cisco’s sealing motion. Judge Edward J. Davila ordered Cisco to file revised redacted versions of the filings and supporting documents by June 3, 2021.
The detailed version
- Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Shenzhen Usource Technology Co. · No. 5:20-cv-04773
- Edward Davila
- May 27, 2021
Background
Cisco Systems, Inc. and Cisco Technology, Inc., referred to together as Cisco, filed an administrative motion to seal documents connected to two other motions: a request to file a second amended complaint and a request for a temporary restraining order. Cisco initially sought to seal the related motions, proposed complaint, proposed order, and accompanying materials in their entirety for 15 days, followed by permanent sealing of portions of those documents.
The court noted that it had denied Cisco’s motion to amend and temporary-restraining-order motion. It therefore evaluated the sealing request in light of those denials.
Legal standard and analysis
Judicial records generally carry a strong presumption of public access when they are more than tangentially related to the merits of a case. A party seeking to overcome that presumption must identify compelling reasons, supported by specific facts, for sealing the material. The court also noted that courts have allowed sealing of trade secrets, marketing strategies, product-development plans, detailed product-specific financial information, customer information, internal reports, and similar material that could harm a party’s competitive position.
The court found that Cisco’s request did not comply with the requirement that sealing requests be narrowly tailored. In particular, Cisco had not provided compelling reasons to seal the documents in their entirety after the court denied the motion to amend and the temporary-restraining-order motion. The court nevertheless found sufficient justification to maintain Cisco’s confidential information under seal and to seal the identities of the two proposed defendants Cisco sought to add.
Disposition
The court granted in part and denied in part Cisco’s administrative motion to seal. It granted sealing of the proposed defendants’ names wherever they appeared in the specified motions, declarations, proposed second amended complaint, and proposed temporary-restraining-order materials. It also granted sealing of specified portions of the proposed second amended complaint and other listed documents.
By June 3, 2021, Cisco was required to file revised redacted versions of its motion to amend, temporary-restraining-order motion, and accompanying documents that complied with the court’s ruling.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.