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

Filing 211

ORDER DENYING 205 BLUE COAT SYSTEMS LLC'S MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL CERTAIN EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF EXPERT REPORTS. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 4/28/2017. (patentlcsjS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/28/2017)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 SAN JOSE DIVISION 4 5 FINJAN, INC., Plaintiff, 6 v. 7 8 Case No. 15-cv-03295-BLF BLUE COAT SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendant. 9 ORDER DENYING BLUE COAT SYSTEMS LLC’S MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL CERTAIN EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF EXPERT REPORTS 10 Before the Court is Defendant Blue Coat Systems, LLC’s (“Blue Coat”) Administrative 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 Motion to File Under Seal Certain Exhibits in Support of Defendant Blue Coat Systems LLC’s Motion to Strike Portions of Expert Reports. ECF 754. For the reasons stated below, the motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. I. LEGAL STANDARD “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. In addition, sealing motions filed in this district must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). A party moving to seal a document in whole or in part must file a declaration establishing that the identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 795(d)(1)(A). “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are 1 2 sealable.” Id. II. DISCUSSION The Court has reviewed Blue Coat’s sealing motion (ECF 205) and its declaration in 3 4 support thereof (ECF 205-1). Blue Coat seeks to seal in their entirety Exhibits A-E and G-I to the 5 Marder Declaration in support of Blue Coat’s Motion to Strike Portions of Expert Reports, located 6 at ECF 205-4, -6, -8, -10, -12, -14, -16, and -18. According to Blue Coat, these documents 7 “contain highly confidential technical information regarding Blue Coat’s proprietary technology, 8 and confidential aspects of Blue Coat’s business.” Marder Decl. ISO Administrative Motion to 9 File Under Seal ¶ 3, ECF 205-1. Blue Coat also states that public disclosure of this information “would create substantial risk of serious harm to Blue Coat, including evasion of Blue Coat’s 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 malware analysis tools, disclosure to competitors regarding the scanning tools used in the accused 12 products, and Blue Coat’s approach to fixes in the products.” Id. ¶ 5. The Court finds that, although Blue Coat has articulated compelling reasons and good 13 14 cause to seal portions of the submitted documents, its request is not narrowly tailored. Blue Coat 15 seeks to seal each of the documents in their entirety, whereas Blue Coat’s statements regarding 16 confidentiality apply only to select portions of each of the documents. For this reason, the Court 17 DENIES Blue Coat’s sealing motion WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 18 III. 19 ORDER Blue Coat’s sealing motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. No later than 10 days 20 from the filing of this order, Blue Coat may renew its motion so as to more narrowly tailor its 21 request to seal and/or provide sufficient reasons in the supporting declaration to seal the 22 documents in their entirety. If Blue Coat does not renew its motion, it must, pursuant to Civil 23 Local Rule 79-5(e)(2), file the unredacted documents into the public record no earlier than 4 days 24 and no later than 10 days from the filing of this order. 25 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 28, 2017 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?