Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Network, Inc.

Filing 675


Download PDF
Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 675 Filed 09/07/21 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 FINJAN, INC., Plaintiff, United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 No. C 17-05659 WHA v. JUNIPER NETWORK, INC., et al., ORDER RE MOTION TO SEAL Defendants. 15 16 17 18 19 Juniper Network, Inc. moves to seal three documents filed in conjunction with its objections to the special master’s report and recommendation on fees (Dkt. No. 660). There is a strong public policy in favor of openness in our court system and the public is 20 entitled to know to whom we are providing relief (or not). See Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 21 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–80 (9th Cir. 2006). To seal records in connection with a 22 “dispositive” motion, or one “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case,” requires 23 “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of 24 access and the public policies favoring disclosure”; sealing records connected with non- 25 dispositive motions requires a showing of good cause. See ibid. (quotations and citations 26 omitted); Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). A 27 classic example of a compelling reason is “business information that might harm a litigant’s 28 competitive standing.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1096–97 (9th Cir. Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 675 Filed 09/07/21 Page 2 of 2 1 2016) (quotations and citations omitted). “Supporting declarations may not rely on vague 2 boilerplate language or nebulous assertions of potential harm but must explain with 3 particularity why any document or portion thereof remains sealable under the applicable legal 4 standard.” Bronson v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., No. C 18-02300 WHA, 2019 WL 7810811, at 5 *1 (N.D. Cal. May 28, 2019) (citing Civ. L.R. 79-5). 6 First, Exhibit D to the declaration of Jonathan S. Kagan in support of Juniper’s request 7 for fees and expenses contains redactions of personal home addresses for attorneys and experts 8 involved in this litigation. This order finds these narrow redactions of private, personal 9 information compelling, and the motion to seal excerpts of Exhibit D is accordingly GRANTED. 10 Second, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e), Juniper conditionally filed under seal the United States District Court Northern District of California 11 entirety of Finjan’s brief regarding Juniper’s submission on fees and the declaration of Robert 12 Courtney supporting Finjan’s brief regarding Juniper’s submission on fees. Finjan has not 13 filed a declaration establishing that the designated material is sealable. Accordingly, the 14 motion to seal as to Finjan’s brief and the supporting Courtney declaration is DENIED. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 Dated: September 7, 2021 18 19 WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?