Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc. et al

Filing 302

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING AMENDED ( 299 , 301 ) ADMINSTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/16/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

FINJAN, INC.,
Plaintiff,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
v.

12
13

Case No. 13-cv-05808-HSG
ORDER GRANTING AMENDED
ADMINSTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 299, 301

PROOFPOINT, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

14

Plaintiff and Defendants have filed amended administrative motions to file under seal in

15
16

conjunction with Defendants’ motion to strike portions of Plaintiff’s expert report. Dkt. Nos. 299,

17

301. No opposition to the motion to seal was filed, and the time to do so has passed

18

I.

LEGAL STANDARD

19

Courts apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal documents

20

like the ones at issue here. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010). “This

21

standard derives from the common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents,

22

including judicial records and documents.’” Id. “[A] ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the

23

starting point.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). To

24

overcome this strong presumption, the moving party must “articulate compelling reasons supported by

25

specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring

26

disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Id. at 1178-79 (citations,

27

internal quotation marks, and alterations omitted). The Court must “balance the competing interests of

28

the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret. After considering these

1

interests, if the court decides to seal certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling

2

reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. at

3

1179 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Records attached to motions that are only “tangentially related to the merits of a case” are not

4

subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092,

6

1101 (9th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, parties moving to seal such records must meet the lower “good

7

cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 8-9. The “good cause”

8

standard requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the

9

information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–

10

11 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

5

harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus.,

12

Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).

13

Civil Local Rule 79-5 further supplements the compelling reasons standard. The party seeking

14

to file a document or portions of it under seal must “establish[ ] that the document, or portions thereof,

15

are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. . . .The

16

request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b).

17

II.

18

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff renews its request to file under seal portions of Exhibit 26 to Plaintiff’s opposition

19

to Defendants’ motion to strike. Having reviewed the amended request, the Court finds that the

20

redacted portions of Exhibit 26 are narrowly tailored to sealable information, including source

21

code directories and information relating to the operation of Defendants’ products. Accordingly,

22

the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s amended request to seal portions of Exhibit 26, Dkt. No. 299.

23

Defendants also renew their request to file under seal portions of the reply brief and

24

Exhibits K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, and R attached to the motion to strike. Having reviewed the

25

Defendants’ amended request, the Court finds that redacted portions of the exhibits and reply brief

26

are narrowly tailored to sealable information, including source code directories as well as

27

confidential information relating to product operations. Defendants state that they would suffer

28

significant competitive harm if such information were disclosed. Accordingly, the Court
2

1
2
3

GRANTS Defendants’ renewed request to file under seal, Dkt. No. 301.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 2/16/2016

4
5
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3