Juniper Networks Inc. v. Swarm Technology LLC ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JUNIPER NETWORKS INC., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-03137-JD 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE SEALING v. 9 Re: Dkt. No. 45 10 SWARM TECHNOLOGY LLC, Defendant. 11 12 13 The Court has addressed in other orders the standards for sealing requests in conjunction 14 with case filings, see In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2021 WL 15 4190165, (N.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2021), and that discussion is incorporated here. In pertinent 16 summary, “judicial records are public documents almost by definition, and the public is entitled to 17 access by default.” Id. at *1 (quoting Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 18 1180 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 19 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (when considering a request to seal, “we start with a strong presumption in 20 favor of access to court records.”) (quotation omitted). The party seeking to seal a document bears 21 the burden of articulating “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh 22 the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Id. (quotation and 23 citation omitted). General assertions of potential competitive or commercial harm are not enough 24 to establish good cause for sealing court records, and the “fact that the parties may have 25 designated a document as confidential under a stipulated protective order is also not enough to 26 justify sealing.” Id. (citation omitted). 27 The documents proposed for sealing were produced by Swarm during the course of 1 to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. See Dkt. No. 46. As required by Civil Local Rule 79- 2 || 5, Juniper filed the initial notice of sealing for documents obtained during discovery that Swarm 3 || had designated as confidential under the protective order entered in this case. Dkt. No. 45 at 1. 4 || Juniper further indicated its belief that “Swarm [would] determine the information Swarm 5 believe[d] should remain under seal and file the required supporting declarations and proposed 6 order.” Id. Civil Local Rule 79-5 required Swarm to state why the documents should be sealed, 7 and propose ways of tailoring sealing to the narrowest possible scope. 8 Swarm did not file a declaration or other response to Juniper’s motion to file under seal, 9 || and so did not carry its burden under Civil Local Rule 79-5. Nothing was adduced to show that 10 || Swarm might be harmed by the public disclosure of these documents. Consequently, the “default 11 posture of public access prevails.” In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 12 || 2021 WL 4190165 at *3 (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1182). Juniper is directed to file 13 unredacted versions of the opposition to the motion to dismiss and supporting exhibits on ECF 14 || within 7 days of this order. Civil L.R. 79-5(f). 3 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. a 16 Dated: December 21, 2021 18 JAMES MONATO 19 United Ptates District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28