Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 187 Filed 10/28/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
`4576
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 23-758-JLH-SRF
`
`REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION
`
`)))))))))
`
`
`)
`
`ORCA SECURITY LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant
`
`v.
`
`WIZ, INC.,
`
`Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff.
`
`MOTION FOR REDACTION OF MEMORANDUM ORDER
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Memorandum Order (D.I. 169), Wiz, Inc. (“Wiz”) respectfully
`
`moves to redact 29 words of the Memorandum Order. Orca Security Ltd. (“Orca”) has stated that
`
`Orca takes no position on this motion.
`
`Although there is a presumptive right of public access to judicial proceedings (In re
`
`Avandia Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 924 F.3d 662, 672 (3d Cir. 2019)), that right
`
`is not absolute. Id. A party seeking to seal part of the judicial record bears the burden of showing
`
`“that the material is the kind of information that courts will protect and that disclosure will work a
`
`clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking closure.” Id. (citation omitted).
`
`Good cause must be demonstrated to justify redacting an order. Mosaid Techs. Inc. v. LSI
`
`Corp., 878 F. Supp. 2d 503, 507 (D. Del. 2012). In determining whether good cause exists, “courts
`
`weigh the harm of disclosing information against the importance of disclosure to the public.” Id.
`
`at 508 (citing Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 787 (3d Cir. 1994)). Courts have
`
`found good cause to redact “business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive
`
`standing.” Littlejohn v. BIC Corp., 851 F.2d 673, 678 (3d Cir. 1988). “[I]f a case involves private
`
`1
`
`
`4576
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 23-758-JLH-SRF
`
`REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION
`
`)))))))))
`
`
`)
`
`ORCA SECURITY LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant
`
`v.
`
`WIZ, INC.,
`
`Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff.
`
`MOTION FOR REDACTION OF MEMORANDUM ORDER
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Memorandum Order (D.I. 169), Wiz, Inc. (“Wiz”) respectfully
`
`moves to redact 29 words of the Memorandum Order. Orca Security Ltd. (“Orca”) has stated that
`
`Orca takes no position on this motion.
`
`Although there is a presumptive right of public access to judicial proceedings (In re
`
`Avandia Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 924 F.3d 662, 672 (3d Cir. 2019)), that right
`
`is not absolute. Id. A party seeking to seal part of the judicial record bears the burden of showing
`
`“that the material is the kind of information that courts will protect and that disclosure will work a
`
`clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking closure.” Id. (citation omitted).
`
`Good cause must be demonstrated to justify redacting an order. Mosaid Techs. Inc. v. LSI
`
`Corp., 878 F. Supp. 2d 503, 507 (D. Del. 2012). In determining whether good cause exists, “courts
`
`weigh the harm of disclosing information against the importance of disclosure to the public.” Id.
`
`at 508 (citing Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 787 (3d Cir. 1994)). Courts have
`
`found good cause to redact “business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive
`
`standing.” Littlejohn v. BIC Corp., 851 F.2d 673, 678 (3d Cir. 1988). “[I]f a case involves private
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 187 Filed 10/28/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
`4577
`
`
`
`litigants, and concerns matters of little legitimate public interest, that should be a factor weighing
`
`in favor of granting or maintaining an order of confidentiality.” Pansy, 23 F.3d at 788.
`
`Consistent with those standards, Wiz respectfully requests that the Court approve the
`
`limited redactions reflected in Exhibits A and B. Exhibit A contains as highlighted the information
`
`Wiz proposes to be redacted, and Exhibit B is the proposed redacted version that Wiz proposes to
`
`be filed on the docket. Wiz only seeks to redact 29 words in the Court’s 10-page Memorandum
`
`Order.
`
`Wiz proposes that references to the
`
`
`
`
`
` Declaration
`
`of Nir Dagan (“Dagan Decl.”), ¶ 2; D.I. 155-10 at ¶¶ 3, 16; see also D.I. 157 at 2-3.
`
` Dagan Decl., ¶ 3; D.I. 155-10, ¶ 12. Wiz therefore requests that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` be redacted from the Memorandum Order, as reflected
`
`in Exhibits A and B. See D.I. 157 at 2-3.
`
`Additionally, Wiz’s proposed redactions are very narrowly tailored and consist of only
`
`references
`
` Dagan Decl., ¶ 2.
`
`Finally, the public has little legitimate interest in this particularly confidential Wiz
`
`information, but the potential harm to Wiz, if the information is disclosed, is severe. Dagan Decl.,
`
`¶¶ 2, 3. Wiz therefore has shown good cause for the limited redactions.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 187 Filed 10/28/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
`4578
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Wiz respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion and
`
`direct the Clerk of the Court to docket the redacted version of the Order attached hereto as Exhibit
`
`B.
`
`Counsel for the parties met and conferred and Orca’s counsel stated that it takes no position
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Christine D. Haynes
`Frederick L. Cottrell, III (#2555)
`Kelly E. Farnan (#4395)
`Christine D. Haynes (#4697)
`RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.
`One Rodney Square
`920 N. King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 658-6541
`cottrell@rlf.com
`farnan@rlf.com
`haynes@rlf.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant and Counter-
`Plaintiff Wiz, Inc
`
`
`on this motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Jordan R. Jaffe
`Catherine Lacy
`Alex Miller
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH &
`ROSATI, P.C.
`One Market Plaza
`Spear Tower, Suite 3300
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`(415) 947-2000
`
`Lisa D. Zang
`Callie Davidson
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH &
`ROSATI P.C.
`1900 Avenue of the Stars, 28th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`(424) 466-6900
`
`Praatika Prasad
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH &
`ROSATI P.C.
`1301 Ave. of the Americas, 40th Fl.
`New York, NY 10019
`(212) 453-2803
`
`Dated: October 17, 2024
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 187 Filed 10/28/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
`4579
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on October 17, 2024, true and correct copies of the foregoing document
`
`were served, via e-mail, on the following:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BY E-MAIL
`
`Jack B. Blumenfeld
`Rodger D. Smith
`Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP
`1201 N. Market Street
`P. O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`
`
`
`
`
`VIA EMAIL
`
`Douglas E. Lumish
`Lucas Lonergan
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`140 Scott Drive
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`
`Blake R. Davis
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`
`Kristina D. McKenna
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`200 Clarendon Street
`Boston, MA 02116
`
`
`/s/ Christine D. Haynes
`Christine D. Haynes (#4697)
`haynes@rlf.com
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
