Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc.

Filing 101

ORDER GRANTING #88 SEALING MOTION. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 9/1/2016.blflc4S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/1/2016)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

FINJAN, INC.,

Case No. 15-cv-03295-BLF

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER GRANTING SEALING
MOTION

9
10

BLUE COAT SYSTEMS, INC.,

[Re: ECF 88]

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
Before the Court is Defendant’s administrative motion to file under seal portions of their

12
13
14
15

briefing and exhibits. ECF 88. For the reasons stated below, the motion is GRANTED.
I.

LEGAL STANDARD
“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records

16

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of

17

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435

18

U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are

19

“more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of

20

“compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092,

21

1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed

22

upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097.

23

In addition, sealing motions filed in this district must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing

24

only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). A party moving to seal a document in whole or in

25

part must file a declaration establishing that the identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79 -

26

5(d)(1)(A). “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain

27

documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are

28

sealable.” Id.

1

II.

DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed Defendant’s sealing motion and declarations in support thereof.

2
The Court finds that Defendant has articulated compelling reasons to seal the submitted
3

documents. The proposed redactions are also narrowly tailored. The Court’s ruling on the sealing

4
request is set forth in the table below:
5
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

Identification of Documents
to be Sealed
Defendant Blue Coat Systems,
Inc.’s Motion to Strike
Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s Patent
L.R. 3-1 Infringement
Contentions Regarding U.S.
Patent Nos. 6,154,844;
6,965,968; and 7,418,731
(“Blue Coat’s Motion to
Strike”), redacted at 11:4-16,
21-23.
Ex. 1 to Declaration of Gina H.
Cremona in Support of Blue
Coat’s Motion to Strike
Infringement Contentions
(“Cremona Declaration”),
redacted portions at pp. 9, 11,
12, 26, 27, 32, 34, 35, 39, 43,
44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 53-55, 58,
65, 68, 74, 82, 83.
Ex. 2 to Cremona Declaration,
redacted portions at pp. 3-5,
12-13, 15-21, 24-26, 29, 30,
35-40, 43, 44, 47-53, 57-60,
63, 64, 67-77, 80-84, 87-91,
97, 99-103, 110, 111, 113, 114,
118, 119, 126-129.
Ex. 3 to Cremona Declaration,
redacted portions at pp. 1, 30,
35, 42, 43.
Ex. 4 to Cremona Declaration,
redacted portions at pp. 30, 35,
47.
Ex. 5 to Cremona Declaration,
redacted portions at pp. 1, 8,
15, 21, 22, 26, 27, 38, 42, 44,
56, 65, 66, 72, 73, 78.
Ex. 6 to Cremona Declaration,
redacted portions at pp. 4, 710, 12, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29,
38, 39, 40-42, 50, 53, 54, 56,
57.
Ex. 7 to Cremona Declaration,

Description of Documents

Court’s Order

References to Blue Coat’s
highly confidential information
regarding products and
functionality, operation,
architecture, and development
thereof, including reference to
portions of Blue Coat’s source
code (“technical information”).

GRANTED.

References to Blue Coat’s
highly confidential technical
information.

GRANTED.

References to Blue Coat’s
highly confidential technical
information.

GRANTED.

References to Blue Coat’s
highly confidential technical
information.
References to Blue Coat’s
highly confidential technical
information.
References to Blue Coat’s
highly confidential technical
information.

GRANTED.

References to Blue Coat’s
highly confidential technical
information.

GRANTED.

References to Blue Coat’s

GRANTED.

2

GRANTED.
GRANTED.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

redacted portions at pp. 1, 11,
62, 63, 81, 82, 107, 108, 120,
126
Ex. 8 to Cremona Declaration,
redacted portions at pp. 13, 33,
39, 40, 53, 54, 60, 61, 70, 71,
92, 93, 100, 110.
Ex. 9 to Cremona Declaration,
redacted portions at pp. 3-5,
12, 14-25, 30, 34-36, 38, 39,
40-51, 54-64, 68- 74, 77-78,
80-82, 86-96, 98, 99, 100-106,
108-109, 113-119.

highly confidential technical
information.
References to Blue Coat’s
highly confidential technical
information.

GRANTED.

References to Blue Coat’s
highly confidential technical
information.

GRANTED.

8
9
10

III.

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motion at ECF 88 is GRANTED.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14
15
16

Dated: September 1, 2016
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3