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

Filing 209

ORDER GRANTING #150 FINJAN, INC.'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen on 4/27/2017. (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/27/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
FINJAN, INC.,

7

Plaintiff,

8
v.

9

BLUE COAT SYSTEMS, LLC,

10

ORDER GRANTING FINJAN, INC.’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL
Re: Dkt. No. 150

Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 15-cv-03295-BLF (SVK)

Before the Court is Finjan, Inc.’s (“Finjan”) Administrative Motion to Seal (ECF 150).

12
13

Finjan’s motion seeks to seal confidential technical information belonging to Blue Coat Systems,

14

LLC (“Blue Coat”) that the parties submitted to the Court in connection with Finjan’s discovery

15

submissions seeking to compel supplemental document production from Blue Coat filed

16

November 23, 2016. (ECF 151.)1 The Court grants Finjan’s motion to seal.
Courts recognize a “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents,

17
18

including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. Of Honolulu, 447 F.3d

19

1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communs., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7

20

(1978)). A request to seal court records therefore starts with a “strong presumption in favor of

21

access.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d

22

1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). The standard for overcoming the presumption of public access to

23

court records depends on the purpose for which the records are filed with the court. A party

24

seeking to seal court records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially related to the

25

underlying cause of action” must demonstrate “compelling reasons” that support secrecy. Ctr. For

26
27
28

1

This case was reassigned to the undersigned for discovery proceedings on January 20, 2017.
(ECF 172.) The Court ruled on Finjan’s motion to compel on January 31, 2017. (ECF 178.) Due
to a clerical oversight, this Court did not rule on the administrative motion to seal at that time.

1

Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016). For records attached to

2

motions that re “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits of the case,” the lower

3

“good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) applies. Id.; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. A party

4

moving to seal court records must also comply with the procedures established by Civil Local

5

Rule 79-5.

6

Here, the “good cause” standard applies because Finjan seeks to seal information that it

7

submitted to the Court in connection with a discovery dispute, rather than a motion that concerns

8

the merits of the case. Having considered the Motion, the declarations submitted in support

9

thereof, the pleadings on file, and the parties’ efforts to narrowly tailor their sealing requests to

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

specific items of technical information, the Motion is hereby granted.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the following materials should be sealed and that
counsel for Finjan may file the following materials under seal:

13
14
15
16
17

Document
Discovery Dispute
Joint Report

Text to be Sealed
Redacted portions at 3:910; 7:20-24; 8:19-24

Exhibit 5 to the
Discovery Dispute
Joint Report

Entire exhibit containing
Blue Coat’s Second
Supplemental Responses to
Finajan’s First Set of
Interrogatories

18
19
20

Basis for Sealing Portion of Document
References to Blue Coat’s highly
confidential product, business, and financial
information.
References to Blue Coat’s highly
confidential product, business, and
financial information.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 27, 2017

21
22
SUSAN VAN KEULEN
United States Magistrate Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
2