Teradata Corporation v. SAP SE ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TERADATA CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 18-cv-03670-WHO (JCS) 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER REGARDING 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 10 SAP SE, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 296 Defendants. 11 12 13 Plaintiffs Teradata Corporation; Teradata US, Inc.; and Teradata Operations, Inc. 14 (collectively, “Teradata”) moved to file under seal exhibits to a joint letter brief. Defendants SAP 15 SE; SAP of America, Inc.; and SAP Labs, LLC (collectively, “SAP”) filed a responsive 16 declaration in support of sealing some of the material at issue. 17 In civil action in federal court, a party generally must show “compelling reasons” to file a 18 document under seal rather than in the public record. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 19 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016). Where discovery documents designated as confidential 20 under a protective order are filed in connection with a motion that is not “more than tangentially 21 related to the underlying cause of action,” however, a lower standard of “good cause” may suffice 22 to warrant sealing. See id. at 1097, 1101. The “good cause” standard is often applied to 23 “discovery-related motions,” and is appropriate here. See id. at 1097. Requests to file under seal 24 “must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material,” which often requires 25 redactions rather than sealing of documents in their entirety. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). 26 Teradata moves to seal Exhibit 2 based on SAP’s designation of confidentiality. In his 27 responsive declaration, SAP’s attorney Tharan Gregory Lanier asserts only that the portions of ] page 36, should be sealed to protect technical details of SAP’s proprietary products. See Lanier 2 || Decl. (dkt. 300) 42. The Court has reviewed that material and finds good reason for sealing those 3 || narrowly-tailored portions of Exhibit 2. Teradata’s motion is GRANTED as to those portions of 4 || the exhibit, and DENIED as to the remainder of Exhibit 2. Teradata shall file a public version of 5 || Exhibit 2 no later than October 8, 2020, redacting only the portions identified in Lanier’s 6 || declaration. 7 Teradata moves to seal the entirety of Exhibit 8 based on its attorney Mary Prendergast’s 8 declaration that the exhibit “describes in detail the trade secrets that SAP misappropriated from 9 || Teradata based on Teradata’s investigation to date, and therefore includes highly sensitive trade 10 || secret information that, if made public, would significantly prejudice Teradata.” Prendergast Decl. 11 (dkt. 296-1) § 2. Although much of the exhibit consists of technical details and internal 12 || discussions regarding product development, which the Court finds good cause to seal, the exhibit 13 also includes other material such as interrogatories posed by SAP, legal objections by Teradata, 14 || and basic descriptions of Teradata’s business model that do not appear to include sensitive 3 15 information. The Court is therefore not persuaded that the request to seal the entire exhibit is 16 || narrowly tailored as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(b). Teradata is ORDERED TO SHOW 17 || CAUSE why its motion to seal Exhibit 8 should not be denied, by filing a response no later than 18 October 8, 2020 identifying the sensitive portions of that exhibit that warrant sealing. 19 Teradata moves to seal Exhibit 9 based on SAP’s designation of confidentiality. Lanier’s 20 || responsive declaration states that SAP does not seek to seal this exhibit. Lanier Decl. 3. 21 Teradata’s motion is therefore DENIED as to Exhibit 9, and Teradata shall file that exhibit 22 || unredacted in the public record no later than October 8, 2020. 23 IT ISSO ORDERED. 24 Dated: October 1, 2020 25 CZ J PH C. SPERO 26 ief Magistrate Judge 27 28