Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Dexon Computer, Inc.

Background

Cisco Systems, Inc. and Dexon Computer, Inc. filed numerous administrative motions to seal portions of confidential or highly confidential materials. This order addressed sealing requests related to Cisco’s motion for a preliminary injunction and Cisco’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, along with supporting briefs, declarations, exhibits, responses, and a motion to strike.

Legal standard

The court explained that judicial records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. Under Ninth Circuit law, the court uses either the “good cause” standard for materials unrelated or only tangentially related to the merits, or the more demanding “compelling reasons” standard for materials supporting a dispositive motion or a motion more than tangentially related to the merits. The court held that the compelling-reasons standard applied because Cisco’s preliminary-injunction motion sought relief closely matching the ultimate relief requested in the complaint—an order preventing Dexon from selling counterfeit Cisco products. A protective order or a confidentiality label alone did not justify sealing.

Rulings

The court granted some sealing requests and denied others. It denied requests when the designating party did not show that disclosure would cause competitive harm, including requests involving information the court found unsupported by more than conclusory assertions. When requests were overbroad, the court required narrower redactions and public disclosure of the remaining material.

For many requests involving Dexon’s material, the court granted sealing only to the extent consistent with proposed redactions in Docket Nos. 208 or 209. Those redactions were limited to customer names and identifying information, vendor names and identifying information, and pricing details. The court also granted several requests involving Cisco’s executive-summary reports and details of a proprietary business tool.

The court denied the twenty requests concerning Cisco’s material in Dexon’s response to Cisco’s supplemental brief because Cisco did not file the required statement within seven days. It likewise ordered material designated only by Cisco in an exhibit to Dexon’s response to Cisco’s motion to strike to be unsealed because Cisco did not make the required filing. The court separately ruled on Dexon’s requests for its own material, granting some, denying others, and granting some only with the specified narrow redactions.

Disposition

The court’s detailed rulings appear in the order’s charts. It directed the moving parties to publicly file revised versions of the documents within 21 days under the order and Civil Local Rule 79-5(g). The order stated that it disposed of Docket Nos. 244, 246, 247, 256, 259, 261, 262, 271, and 273. Judge Charles R. Breyer did not decide the underlying claims or Cisco’s preliminary-injunction motion in this order; he resolved the administrative sealing requests.