Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Network, Inc.

Filing 675

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 660 MOTION TO SEAL. SIGNED BY JUDGE ALSUP. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/7/2021)

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