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

Filing 132

ORDER GRANTING #111 , #124 SEALING MOTIONS. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 10/24/2016. (blflc4S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/24/2016)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

SAN JOSE DIVISION

4
5

FINJAN, INC.,

Case No. 15-cv-03295-BLF

Plaintiff,
6
v.

ORDER GRANTING SEALING
MOTIONS

7
8

BLUE COAT SYSTEMS, LLC,

[Re: ECF 111, 124]

Defendant.
9
10
This order specifically addresses parties’ administrative motions to file under seal portions

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

of their briefing and exhibits in relation to Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction. For the

13

reasons stated below, the motions are GRANTED.

14
15

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. In addition, sealing motions filed in this

23

district must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b).

24

A party moving to seal a document in whole or in part must file a declaration establishing that the

25

identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). “Reference to a stipulation or

26

protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient

27

to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Id.

28

1

II.

DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed the parties’ sealing motions and respective declarations in support

2
thereof. The Court finds the parties have articulated compelling reasons to seal certain portions of
3

the submitted documents. The proposed redactions are also narrowly tailored. The Court’s

4
rulings on the sealing requests are set forth in the tables 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

A.
ECF 111
Identification of Documents
to be Sealed
Defendant Blue Coat Systems,
Inc.’s Opposition to Plaintiff
Finjan, Inc.’s Motion for
Preliminary Injunction
(“Opposition”)
Opposition

Description of Documents

Court’s Order

Sections 23:9-11 and 25:10-13
contain confidential product
and business information of
Blue Coat Systems, Inc.

GRANTED.

Sections 1:10-12, 5:19-21,
11:24-26, 14:24-26, 15:3-5,
15:12-13, 15:24, 16:1-3, 16:6,
18:2-5, 18:27, 19:1, 19:3-4,
and 22:10-11 contain
confidential technology and
business information of Finjan,
Inc.
Declaration of Dr. Azer
Sections 8:15-9:7, 15-20,10:8Bestavros in Support of
21, and 11:2-3 contain
Opposition (“Bestavros
confidential product and
Declaration”)
source code information of
Blue Coat Systems, Inc.
Declaration of Patrik Runald in Section 2:4-8 contains
Support of Opposition
confidential business and
(“Runald Declaration”)
product information of Blue
Coat Systems, Inc.
Ex. I to Declaration of Olivia
This exhibit contains Finjan,
M. Kim in Support of
Inc.’s confidential business
Opposition (“Kim
and technology information.
Declaration”), in its entirety.
Ex. J to Kim Declaration, in its This exhibit contains Finjan,
entirety.
Inc.’s confidential business
and technology information.
Ex. L to Kim Declaration, in
This exhibit contains Blue
its entirety.
Coat Systems, Inc.’s
confidential business and
technology information.
Ex. P to Kim Declaration, in
This exhibit contains Finjan,
its entirety.
Inc.’s confidential business
and technology information.
Ex. T to Kim Declaration, in
This exhibit contains Finjan,
2

GRANTED.

GRANTED.

GRANTED.

GRANTED.

GRANTED.

GRANTED.

GRANTED.

GRANTED.

1
2

its entirety.
Ex. W to Kim Declaration, in
its entirety.

3
4

Ex. X to Kim Declaration, in
its entirety.

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

B.
ECF 124
Identification of Documents
to be Sealed
Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s Reply in
Further Support of its Motion
for Preliminary Injunction
(“Reply”)

Inc.’s confidential business
and technology information.
This exhibit contains Finjan,
Inc.’s confidential license
agreement.
This exhibit contains Finjan,
Inc.’s confidential license
agreement.
Description of Documents

Sections 8:16-26; 11:8-9;
11:17-18; 12:8-11; 13: 7-9;
and 14:24-25 contain Finjan,
Inc.’s confidential business
and product information, as
well as Blue Coat Systems,
Inc.’s confidential product
information.
Exhibit 1 to Declaration of
Sections 66:1-7; 70:4-12;
Cristina Martinez in Support of 71:25; 72:1-6; 96:1-9; 96:14Reply (“Martinez Decl.”)
98:1; 110:5-12; 137:8-138:2;
139:22-140:25; 146:14-19;
151:17-152:15; and 153:2-15
contain Finjan, Inc.’s
confidential business,
financial, and technical
information.
Exhibit 2 to Martinez Decl.
Sections 75:1-15; 75:17-79:19;
113:2-8; 113:15-117:25;
119:1-20; 121:5-11; 121:1325; 128:2-20; and 170:15-171:
22 contain Finjan, Inc.’s
confidential business,
financial, and technical
information.

GRANTED.

GRANTED.

Court’s Order
GRANTED.

GRANTED.

GRANTED.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25
26
27

Dated: October 24, 2016
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

28
3