Case Name: Cisco Systems, Inc., et al. v. HP, Inc.
Case No.: 1-15-CV-284707

There are two separate Motions to Seal before the Court: (1) Cross-Complainant HP, Inc.’s Motion to Seal Portions of HP, Inc.’s Cross-Complaint; and (2) Plaintiffs Cisco Systems Inc. and Cisco Systems Capital Corporation’s Motion to Seal Portions of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and Accompanying Exhibit. Both Motions are unopposed.

Analysis: “A record must not be filed under seal without a court order. The court must not permit a record to be filed under seal based solely on the agreement or stipulation of the parties.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(a).) “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).) Where some material within a document warrants sealing, but other material does not, the document should be edited or redacted if possible, to accommodate 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 Credit Card Cases (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 292, 309.)

“The party requesting that a record be filed under seal must lodge it with the court under (d) when the motion or application is made, unless good cause exists for not lodging it or the record has previously been lodged under (3)(A)(i). Pending the determination of the motion or application, the lodged record will be conditionally under seal.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(4).) “If necessary to prevent disclosure, any motion or application, any opposition, and any supporting documents must be filed in a public redacted version and lodged in a complete version conditionally under seal.” (Id. at (b)(5).)

“Courts have found that, under appropriate circumstances, various statutory privileges, trade secrets, and privacy interests, when properly asserted and not waived, may constitute overriding interests.” (In re Providian Credit Card Cases, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at p. 298 fn. 3; NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV) vs. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1222, fn. 46.) Financial information involving 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 and there is a substantial probability that their revelation would prejudice the foregoing legitimate interests of the party. (See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1285-1286.)

A party moving to seal a record must file a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(1).) A declaration supporting a motion to seal should be specific, not conclusory, as to the facts supporting the overriding interest. If the court finds that the supporting declarations are conclusory or otherwise unpersuasive, it may conclude that the moving party has failed to demonstrate an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access. (In re Providian Credit Card Cases, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at 301, 305.)

Further, where some material within a document warrants sealing but other material does not, the document should be edited or redacted if possible, to accommodate the moving party’s overriding interest and the strong presumption in favor of public access. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(e)(1)(B); See In re Providian Credit Card Cases, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at p. 309.) 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. (See In re Providian Credit Card Cases, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at p. 309.)

HP, Inc.’s Motion to Seal Portions of the Cross-Complaint:
The Court has reviewed the moving papers as well as the Declaration of Caroline McIntyre and has conducted an in camera reviewed of the sealed portions of the Cross-Complaint. The Court finds that the standards for sealing set forth above have been met and the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored and there is an overriding interest in keeping the sealed materials confidential. Accordingly, HP, Inc.’s Motion to Seal is GRANTED.

Cisco Systems, Inc. and Cisco Systems Capital Corporation’s Motion to Seal Portions of the First Amended Complaint and Accompanying Exhibit:
The Court has similarly reviewed the moving papers, the Declaration of Seth Cohen and conducted an in camera review of the sealed portions of the First Amended Complaint. The Court finds that the moving party has met its burden is showing that there is an overriding interest in keeping the redacted information confidential and sealed and that the standards set forth above have been met. Accordingly, Cisco’s Motion to Seal is GRANTED.