Splunk Inc. v. Cribl, Inc.
- William Alsup
- 3:22-cv-07611
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Splunk v. Cribl, Judge Alsup deferred sealing rulings, warned overbroad requests could be denied entirely, and ordered both sides to send missing copies.
Splunk Inc., Cribl, Inc., Clint Sharp, their counsel, and members of the public seeking access to the court filings.
What happened
In Splunk Inc. v. Cribl, Inc. and Clint Sharp, the parties filed nearly 3,000 pages of exhibits under conditional seal while preparing summary-judgment and expert-witness motions. The court said many requests appeared far too broad and that the parties had disregarded earlier instructions to use limited redactions.
The court also said both sides failed to send the unredacted paper copies and electronic courtesy copies required by an earlier order. It noted that the public has a strong interest in court proceedings being open and that sealing requests must be narrowly supported.
Judge William Alsup did not rule immediately on the sealing requests. Instead, he ordered the parties to wait for their broader sealing motions and warned that overbroad requests would be denied entirely. He also ordered both sides to provide the missing copies by specified deadlines and required lead counsel to submit sworn declarations about future copies.
The detailed version
- Splunk Inc. v. Cribl, Inc. · No. 3:22-cv-07611
- William Alsup
- Feb. 14, 2024
Background
The parties submitted a late stipulation proposing procedures for filing documents connected to upcoming summary-judgment and expert-witness motions. Under the proposed procedure, a party could publicly file a redacted document or a one-page placeholder while filing an unredacted version temporarily under seal. The parties would later submit broader motions explaining why particular material should remain sealed.
The court had previously approved the procedure as amended, but rejected a proposed five-page limit for the later sealing motions. The earlier order warned that redactions should be limited, that placeholder filings should rarely be used, and that overbroad sealing requests could be denied entirely.
The parties then filed almost 3,000 pages of exhibits conditionally under seal. The order described several examples of apparently excessive requests. Defendants filed an entire 315-page expert rebuttal report under seal, and Splunk filed an entire 57-page deposition excerpt under seal. Splunk stated that, apart from bank-account information in one exhibit, its motions and exhibits did not contain material it believed needed sealing. The order also stated that defendants did not clearly identify which party or third party sought sealing for the materials associated with their motions.
Court’s concerns
The court said counsel had failed to follow the governing appellate standard, the district court’s local rule on sealing, and the court’s earlier order. It emphasized the strong public interest in open judicial proceedings and relied on the requirement that sealing requests be narrowly tailored and supported.
The court also found that both sides violated the earlier order by failing to provide unredacted chambers copies of the motions and exhibits. They also violated the court’s standing order concerning hyperlinked electronic courtesy copies.
Ruling and orders
The court considered immediately denying all sealing motions because of their breadth. It did not do so at this stage because Splunk or a third party might later identify particular material that could properly be sealed. Instead, the court deferred ruling until the parties filed their omnibus sealing motions. It warned that if those requests remained overbroad, they would be denied in their entirety, and stated that the judge and staff would not search thousands of pages to locate material that might have qualified for sealing if the requests had been properly tailored.
The court ordered both sides to send unredacted chambers copies of documents already filed with this round of dispositive motions by February 15, 2024, at 4:00 p.m. It required later unredacted chambers copies by noon on the day after submission. It also ordered hyperlinked electronic courtesy copies of already-filed documents by February 16, 2024, at 4:00 p.m., with later electronic copies due by noon on the day after submission. For later filings, lead counsel must attach a sworn declaration stating that the required copies had been sent or would be sent promptly.
This order did not decide the parties’ summary-judgment motions, expert-witness motions, or the merits of any sealing request.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.