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

Filing 134

Order by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd granting Dkt. Nos. #106 and #118 , Administrative Motions to File Under Seal. (hrllc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2016)

1
E-filed 11/2/2016

2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

FINJAN, INC.,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Case No.15-cv-03295-BLF (HRL)
ORDER GRANTING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO
FILE UNDER SEAL

v.
BLUE COAT SYSTEMS, LLC,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 106, 118

Defendant.

Pending before this Court are the Administrative Motions by Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.

13

(“Finjan”) and Defendant Blue Coat Systems, LLC (“Blue Coat”) to file under seal certain

14

portions of Finjan’s Opposition to Blue Coat’s Motion to Strike Finjan’s Infringement Contentions

15

(and the exhibits thereto) and portions of Blue Coat’s Reply. Dkt. Nos. 106, 118. For the reasons

16

stated below, the motions are GRANTED.
LEGAL STANDARD

17
18

The courts recognize a common-law right of access to public records, and a strong

19

presumption in favor of public access exists. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d

20

1122, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2003). This right of access, however, is not absolute and can be

21

overridden. Id. at 1135. The party seeking to seal judicial records bears the burden of overcoming

22

the presumption in favor of access. Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,

23

1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006).

24

The court applies one of two standards in evaluating motions to seal: the lower good cause

25

standard, which applies to non-dispositive matters, and the more stringent compelling reasons

26

standard, which applies to dispositive matters. See Luo v. Zynga, Inc., No. 13-cv-00186 NC, 2013

27

WL 5814763, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 29, 2013). Under the good cause standard, the party must

28

make a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the document is

1

not filed under seal. Id. at *1 (quoting San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court. N. Dist.

2

(San Jose), 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999)). Under the compelling reasons standard, the

3

party seeking disclosure must “‘articulate[] compelling reasons supported by specific factual

4

findings’ . . . that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring

5

disclosure . . . .” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.

6

Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted).
DISCUSSION

7

A motion to strike infringement contentions is a non-dispositive motion, and so the less

8

stringent good cause standard applies to these motions to seal. Finjan Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No.

10

13-cv-05808, 2015 WL 9023164, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2015); ASUS Computer Int’l v. Round

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

Rock Research, LLC, No. 12-cv-02099 JST (NC), 2014 WL 465363, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 3,

12

2014).

13

The Court has reviewed the parties’ sealing motions and their supporting declarations and

14

finds that the parties have shown good cause to seal certain portions of the submitted documents.

15

The Court also finds that the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored. Thus, the Court GRANTS

16

the parties’ motions to seal the following:

17

1. Dkt. No. 106:

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Document/Section to be Sealed
Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s Opposition to Blue
Coat Systems, Inc.’s Motion to Strike
Finjan’s Infringement Contentions
(“Opposition”) at 8:7-11, 13-18, 21-22,
24-25; 9:1; 11:23-26; 12:1-2; 13:17-25;
14:1, 3-5.
Declaration of James Hannah in Support
of Finjan’s Opposition (“Hannah Decl.”),
Exhibits 6 and 15 in their entirety.
Hannah Decl., Exhibit 16 at pg. 1, ¶1:1, 3;
¶4:1; pg. 2, ¶1:2-3.

26
27
28
2

Description of Document/Section
The specified sections contain
confidential technical and business
information regarding Blue Coat’s
products.
These Exhibits disclose Blue Coat’s
confidential technical information.
The specified sections contain
confidential technical and business
information regarding Blue Coat’s
products.

1

Hannah Decl., Exhibit 17 at pg. 1, ¶ 1:4,
12.

2
3
4
5

Hannah Decl., Exhibit 18, at 24:1-25;
25:1-25; 106:1-25.
Hannah Decl., Exhibit 19 at 259:1-25.

6
7

Hannah Decl., Exhibit 21 at 16:1-25;
17:1-25.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

The specified sections contain
confidential technical and business
information regarding Blue Coat’s
products.
The specified sections disclose Blue
Coat’s confidential information
concerning its products and services.
The specified section discloses Blue
Coat’s confidential information
concerning its products and services.
The specified sections disclose Blue
Coat’s confidential information
concerning its products and services.

2. Dkt. No. 118:
Document/Section to be Sealed
Reply in Support of 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 Reply”), redacted
at 2:2-3, 23, 26-28; 3:4-5; 7:8-10.

Description of Document/Section
The specified sections contain references
to highly confidential Blue Coat
information regarding products and
functionality.

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 11/2/2016

18
19
HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3