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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?