Case Name: Cisco Systems, Inc., et al. v. Hewlett-Packard Company
Case No.: 2015-1-CV-284707

This action arises from a dispute over the calculation of “cancellation credit” owed by plaintiffs and cross-defendants Cisco Systems, Inc. and Cisco Systems Capital Corporation (collectively, “Cisco”) under contracts with defendant and cross-complainant HP, Inc., formerly known as Hewlett-Packard Company (“HP”). HP alleges that its rights under the contracts have been assigned to cross-complainant DXC Technology Company (“DXC”).

Before the Court is HP/DXC’s motion to seal portions of the Court’s April 26th, 2018 tentative ruling and resulting order, which was issued conditionally under seal on May 3, 2018. Their motion is unopposed.

I. Legal Standard

“The court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish: (1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; (4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).)

“Courts have found that … various statutory privileges, trade secrets, and privacy interests, when properly asserted and not waived, may constitute overriding interests” that justify sealing. (In re Providian Credit Card Cases (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 292, 298, fn. 3.) In addition, confidential matters relating to the business operations of a party may be sealed where public revelation of the information would interfere with the party’s ability to effectively compete in the marketplace. (See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (Unity Pictures Corp.) (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1285-1286.)

Where some material within a document warrants sealing, but other material does not, the document should be edited or redacted if possible, to accommodate both the moving party’s overriding interest and the strong presumption in favor of public access. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d)(4), (5).) In such a case, the moving party should take a line-by-line approach to the information in the document, rather than framing the issue to the court on an all-or-nothing basis. (In re Providian, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at p. 309.)

II. Analysis

The Court has previously granted several motions to seal in this action and found that materials reflecting or discussing confidential terms of the parties’ agreement were appropriately filed under seal. In the instant motion, it appears that HP/DXC move to seal the same or similar information. However, they have made no attempt to narrowly tailor their request by redacting the confidential business information at issue from the Court’s tentative ruling and order. The Court will not seal these documents until appropriately redacted public versions are submitted.

The hearing on this matter is accordingly CONTINUED TO JUNE 8, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 1. By June 4, HP/DXC shall provide to Cisco proposed public versions of the Court’s April 26th tentative ruling and resulting order, from which only confidential terms of the parties’ agreements or discussion thereof are redacted. The parties shall meet and confer regarding HP/DXC’s redactions, and by June 6, they shall either (1) file a joint statement attaching proposed public versions of the tentative and order to which all parties agree or (2) file or lodge a joint statement setting forth the parties’ respective positions regarding any disputed redactions and attaching their respective proposed public versions of the documents at issue.

The Court will prepare the order.