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

Filing 218

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 212 FINJAN, INC.'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 5/9/2017. (patentlcsjS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/9/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 FINJAN, INC., Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 BLUE COAT SYSTEMS, LLC, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART FINJAN, INC.’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL Defendant. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 15-cv-03295-BLF 12 Before the Court is Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s (“Finjan”) administrative motion to file under 13 14 seal portions of its Opposition to Blue Coat’s Motion to Strike Portions of Expert Reports and 15 select exhibits to the Declaration of James Hannah in Support thereof. ECF 212. For the reasons 16 stated below, the motion at ECF 212 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 17 18 I. LEGAL STANDARD “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 19 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of 20 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 21 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are 22 “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of 23 “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 24 1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed 25 upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. 26 In addition, sealing motions filed in this district must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing 27 only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). A party moving to seal a document in whole or in 28 part must file a declaration establishing that the identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79- 1 5(d)(1)(A). “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain 2 documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are 3 sealable.” Id. 4 II. DISCUSSION The Court has reviewed Finjan’s sealing motion (ECF 212) and the parties’ declarations in 5 6 support thereof (ECF 212-1, 215). The Court finds that the parties have articulated compelling 7 reasons and good cause to seal the submitted documents. The Court’s rulings on the sealing 8 request are set forth in the table below: ECF Document to Result No. be Sealed 212-4 Finjan’s GRANTED as Opposition to to highlighted Blue Coat’s portions. Motion to Strike Portions of Expert Reports 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 212-6 15 16 17 18 19 20 212-8 Ex. 2 to Hannah GRANTED. Decl. ISO Opposition to Blue Coat’s Motion to Strike Portions of Expert Reports, ECF 213-1 (“Hannah Decl.”) Ex. 3 to Hannah GRANTED. Decl. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 212-10 Ex. 4 to Hannah Decl. GRANTED as to the second page of the exhibit, numbered page 44; DENIED as to the remainder. Reasoning Contains highly confidential technical information regarding Blue Coat’s proprietary technology, and confidential aspects of Blue Coat’s business, including information relating to Blue Coat’s source code, and the confidential operation of Blue Coat’s products, including backend systems. Marder Decl. ¶ 6, ECF 215. Contains highly confidential technical information regarding Blue Coat’s proprietary technology, and confidential aspects of Blue Coat’s business, including information relating to the confidential operation of Blue Coat’s SSL Visibility Appliance. Marder Decl. ¶ 7. Contains highly confidential technical information regarding Blue Coat’s proprietary technology, and confidential aspects of Blue Coat’s business, including information relating to the confidential operation of Blue Coat’s backend URL rating systems. Marder Decl. ¶ 8. Second page of the exhibit, numbered page 44, contains highly confidential technical information regarding Blue Coat’s proprietary technology, and confidential aspects of Blue Coat’s business, including information relating to the confidential operation of Blue Coat’s WebPulse service, including backend systems. Marder Decl. ¶ 9. No supporting declaration has been provided as to the remainder. 2 1 212-12 Ex. 5 to Hannah Decl. GRANTED. 2 3 4 5 6 III. Contains highly confidential technical information regarding Blue Coat’s proprietary technology, and confidential aspects of Blue Coat’s business, including information relating to the confidential operation of Blue Coat’s Content Analysis System and Malware Analysis Appliance, including backend systems. Marder Decl. ¶ 10. ORDER For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motion at ECF 212 is GRANTED IN PART and 7 DENIED IN PART. Under Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(2), for any request that has been denied 8 because the party designating a document as confidential or subject to a protective order has not 9 provided sufficient reasons to seal, the submitting party must file the unredacted (or lesser redacted) documents into the public record no earlier than 4 days and no later than 10 days form 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 the filing of this order. Alternatively, the moving party may also renew the motion so to provide 12 sufficient reasons in the supporting declarations no later than 10 days form the filing of this order. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 16 17 Dated: May 9, 2017 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?