Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc. et al
Filing
339
ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL Re: 308 , 311 , 320 , 322 , 328 , 331 . Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 4/6/2016. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/6/2016)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
FINJAN, INC.,
Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10
PROOFPOINT, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Case No. 13-cv-05808-HSG
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO
FILE UNDER SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 308, 311, 320, 322, 328, 331
12
The parties filed six administrative motions to file under seal in conjunction with the
13
parties’ motions for summary judgment. Dkt. Nos. 308, 311, 320, 322, 328, 331. No oppositions
14
to the motions to seal were filed, and the time to do so has passed.
15
I.
16
LEGAL STANDARD
Courts apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal documents
17
like the ones at issue here. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010). “This
18
standard derives from the common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents,
19
including judicial records and documents.’” Id. “[A] ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the
20
starting point.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). To
21
overcome this strong presumption, the moving party must “articulate compelling reasons supported by
22
specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring
23
disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Id. at 1178-79 (citations,
24
internal quotation marks, and alterations omitted). The Court must “balance the competing interests of
25
the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret. After considering these
26
interests, if the court decides to seal certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling
27
reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id.
28
at 1179 (internal quotation marks omitted).
1
Civil Local Rule 79-5 further supplements the compelling reasons standard. The party seeking
2
to file a document or portions of it under seal must “establish[ ] that the document, or portions thereof,
3
are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. . . .The
4
request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b).
5
II.
6
DISCUSSION
A.
7
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
1.
8
Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in Conjunction
with its Summary Judgment Motion
On February 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed an administrative motion to file under seal portions of
9
its motion for summary judgment; exhibits 6-12, 15-20, 24-30, 32, 35, 37-42 to the Declaration of
10
Paul Andre; and exhibit 21 in its entirety. Dkt. No. 308. The administrative motion covers
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
information that Defendants designated as “Highly Confidential - Attorneys’ Eyes Only” or
“Highly Confidential - Attorneys’ Eyes Only - Source Code.” In accordance with the local rules,
Defendants filed a declaration in support of Plaintiff’s motion to seal on February 26, 2016. Dkt.
14
No. 317.
15
16
17
The Court finds that Plaintiff’s motion is narrowly tailored to confidential business and
financial information and details regarding the technical operation of Proofpoint’s products
(including references to source code, internal engineering ‘wiki’ documents, and other technical
18
documents). See Digital Reg of Texas, LLC v. Adobe Sys., Inc., No. C 12-1971 CW, 2014 WL
19
6986068, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2014) (holding that discussions of Adobe’s proprietary
20
technological information, licensing agreements, and trade secrets were sealable information); Apple,
21
Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 6115623, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10,
22
2012) (“Confidential source code clearly meets the definition of a trade secret.”). The Court concludes
23
there are compelling reasons to file portions of the summary judgment motion and exhibits 6-12, 15-
24
20, 24-30, 32, 35, 37-42 under seal.
25
Although Plaintiff also moved to file exhibits 21 and 40 under seal, the Court denies Plaintiff’s
26
motion as to these exhibits as Defendants do not contend that exhibits 21 and 40 contain
27
confidential sealable information. See Dkt. No. 317 at 3. If Plaintiff would like the Court to
28
2
1
consider exhibits 21 and 40, Plaintiff should file unredacted versions of these exhibits within four
2
days of the date of this order.
3
4
5
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART. Dkt. No. 308.
2.
6
Defendants’ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in Conjunction
with its Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
On March 7, 2016, Defendants moved to file under seal portions of its opposition to
7
Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion and attached exhibits H, J, K, L, M, N, P, Q, and R. Dkt.
8
No. 322. Defendants contend that these documents disclose confidential information about the
9
operation of Defendants’ products, including technical information and source code in the expert
10
reports, deposition testimony, and internal company documents. Dkt. No. 322. The documents
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
reveal the identification, organization, and operation of Defendants’ proprietary products, and
could assist competitors in recreating features of Defendants’ products. The Court finds that there
13
is a compelling reason to file this information under seal, as its disclosure could result in
14
competitive harm. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion as to the highlighted
15
portions of the opposition brief, and exhibits H, J, K, L, M, N, P, Q, and R. See Network
16
Appliance Inc. v. Sun Microsystems Inc., No. C-07-06053 EDL, 2010 WL 841274, at *3-5 (N.D.
17
Cal. Mar. 10, 2010).
18
Additionally, Defendants seek to seal exhibit Z only because it contains information
19
Plaintiff designated as confidential. Dkt. No. 322 at 2. The Court DENIES Defendants’ motion
20
to file exhibit Z under seal. Plaintiff has failed to file a declaration within four days of the filing of
21
the motion to seal, as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7922
5(e)(2), Defendants may file an unredacted version of the document in the public record no earlier
23
than four days and no later than ten days after the date of this Order. The Court will be unable to
24
consider exhibit Z unless Defendants timely file an unredacted version.
25
26
27
28
3.
Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in Conjunction
with its Reply
On March 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed an administrative motion to file under seal portions of
its reply brief as well as attached exhibits 1-4, 6, 8-9. Dkt. No. 328. Plaintiff contends that these
3
1
documents contain information Defendants designated as confidential. In accordance with the
2
local rules, Defendants filed a declaration in support on March 18, 2016. Dkt. No. 333.
3
Defendants’ declaration confirmed that highlighted portions of the reply brief, as well as
4
exhibits 1-4 in their entirety, contain confidential information and that Plaintiff’s request is
5
narrowly tailored. Id. The Court finds that the documents reference source code, diagrams,
6
technical information, and internal engineering documents related to Defendants’ products, and
7
that there is a compelling reason to file such information under seal. With respect to exhibit 6, the
8
Court grants Defendants’ request to tailor the redaction to the specific confidential information
9
located on pages 127 and 255. See Dkt. No. 333 at 1; Dkt. No. 334. Moreover, Defendants do not
contend that exhibits 8 and 9 contain confidential information; accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion as
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
to these exhibits is denied. Should Plaintiff want the Court to consider exhibits 8 and 9, Plaintiff
12
must file an unredacted version with four days of this order.
13
14
15
16
17
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART. Dkt. No. 328.
B.
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
1.
Defendants’ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in Conjunction
with its Summary Judgment Motion
On February 22, 2016, Defendants filed an administrative motion to file under seal
18
portions of its summary judgment motion and attached exhibits A, B, D, E, F, G, O, R, T, X, BB,
19
DD, and HH. Dkt. No. 311. The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion, finding it is narrowly
20
tailored to sealable information, including product source code, the technical operation and
21
schematics of the products, and financial information relating to prices, customers, and forecasts.
22
Defendants additionally seek to seal highlighted portions of pages 14 and 23-24 of its
23
motion as well as exhibits V, Y, and AA because Plaintiff has designated them as confidential.
24
Dkt. No. 311 at 2; Dkt. No. 311-1 at 2. On February 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed a declaration in
25
support of exhibit AA only, see Dkt. No. 318. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants
26
motion to file under seal exhibits V and Y, as well as portions of pages 14 and 23-24 of the
27
summary judgment motion. Should Defendants want the Court to consider exhibits V and Y,
28
4
1
Defendants should file unredacted copies within four days of this order. Additionally, Defendants
2
should file a copy of its summary judgment motion that does not redact the relevant portions of
3
page 14 and pages 23-24. With respect to exhibit AA, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request to
4
file the more narrowly tailored version of exhibit AA, which redacts only the sealable information
5
as opposed to the entire document, see Dkt. No. 318.
6
2.
7
Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in Conjunction
with its Opposition to Defendants’ Summary Judgment Motion
On March 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed an administrative motion to file under seal portions of its
8
opposition to Defendants’ summary judgment motion, portions of exhibit 9, and exhibits 10-15,
9
19-22, 24-28, and 39 to the Hannah Declaration. Dkt. No. 320.
10
Exhibit 9 contains excerpts from the deposition of Finjan’s President and CEO Phil
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Hartstein. The Court finds that the redaction is narrowly tailored to confidential, sealable
12
information as required by the local rules. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion as to
13
exhibit 9.
14
The redacted portions of the opposition, as well as exhibits 10-15, 19-22, 24-28, and 39 to
15
16
17
the Hannah Declaration, contain information Defendants designated as “Highly ConfidentialAttorneys’ Eyes Only.” Dkt. No. 320-1 at 2. On March 11, 2016, Defendants filed a declaration
in support of Plaintiff’s administrative motion to file under seal. Dkt. No. 326. Defendants’
18
declaration confirmed that the highlighted portions of the opposition as well as exhibits 10-12, 1419
15, 19-22, 25-28 contained sealable information, such as strategic business considerations and
20
confidential business information about the decision to acquire Armorize and Armorize
21
technology, analyses of other businesses and their effect on Defendants’ business strategy, and
22
information on the types of technology Defendants wanted to acquire and integrate into products.
23
With respect to exhibits 13 and 24, Defendants’ agree that the exhibits contain confidential
24
information, but request that both exhibits be further tailored to only the sealable information.
25
Specifically, the redactions on exhibit 13 should be tailored to the highlighted portions on pages
26
61, 96, and 159, and the redactions on exhibit 24 should be tailored to the highlighted portions on
27
page 127. The Court agrees that these specific portions contain confidential information and that
28
5
1
there are compelling reasons to file them under seal. Thus, the Court GRANTS the administrative
2
motion to file under seal, including the more narrowly tailored versions of exhibits 13 and 24.
3
3.
4
Defendants’ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in Conjunction
with its Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition
On March 14, 2016, Defendants filed an administrative motion to file under seal portions
5
of their reply brief, portions of the Hamstra Declaration, as well as attached exhibits PP, TT, and
6
WW. Dkt. No. 331-1. Having reviewed these documents, the Court finds that they contain
7
confidential information and that the request is narrowly tailored to the sealable information. The
8
documents contain information regarding the operation of Defendants’ products, including
9
technical information and source code. If such information were disclosed, there could be a risk
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
that competitors would reproduce or recreate features of Defendants’ products. See Nixon v.
Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598-99 (1978) (recognizing that access to judicial records
may be denied where it “might harm a litigant’s competitive standing”). Because there is a
13
compelling reason to seal the specific portions of the reply brief and Hamstra Declaration, as well
14
as the three attached exhibits, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to file under seal. Dkt.
15
No. 331.
16
17
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the parties’ administrative motions to file under seal are
18
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
Dated: 4/6/2016
21
22
23
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
24
25
26
27
28
6
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?