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

Filing 223

ORDER GRANTING 222 MOTION TO SEAL AN EXHIBIT IN SUPPORT OF REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF EXPERT REPORTS. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 5/15/2017. (blflc4S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/15/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 FINJAN, INC., 8 Plaintiff, v. 9 10 BLUE COAT SYSTEMS, LLC, 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 15-cv-03295-BLF Defendant. ORDER GRANTING BLUE COAT SYSTEMS LLC’S MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL AN EXHIBIT IN SUPPORT OF ITS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF EXPERT REPORTS 12 13 14 Before the Court is Defendant Blue Coat Systems, LLC’s (“Blue Coat”) Administrative Motion to File Under Seal an Exhibit in Support of Defendant Blue Coat System LLC’s Reply in 15 Support of Motion to Strike Portions of Expert Reports. ECF 222. For the reasons stated below, 16 the motion is GRANTED. 17 18 19 20 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 21 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are 22 23 “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, 24 1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed 25 26 27 28 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 1 part must file a declaration establishing that the identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79- 2 5(d)(1)(A). “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain 3 documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are 4 sealable.” Id. 5 6 II. DISCUSSION Blue Coat moves to seal in its entirety Exhibit A to Declaration of Eugene Marder in 7 Support of Blue Coat Systems LLC’s Reply in Support of Motion to Strike Portions of Expert 8 Reports (ECF 221). According to Blue Coat, this document contains highly confidential technical 9 information regarding Blue Coat’s proprietary technology, and confidential aspects of Blue Coat’s business. Marder Decl. ISO Administrative Motion to File Under Seal ¶ 3, ECF 222-1. This 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 includes information relating to details of the internal operation of Blue Coat’s SSL Visibility 12 Appliance and ProxySG devices, as well as those devices’ interoperation and Blue Coat’s 13 confidential business operations. Id. ¶ 5. Blue Coat also states that public disclosure of this 14 information “would create substantial risk of serious harm to Blue Coat, including evasion of Blue 15 Coat’s malware analysis tools, disclosure to competitors regarding the scanning tools used in the 16 accused products, and Blue Coat’s approach to fixes in the products.” Id. ¶ 6. The Court finds 17 that Blue Coat has articulated compelling reasons and good cause to seal the submitted documents. 18 In addition, the Court finds the sealing request to be narrowly tailored. Accordingly, the Court 19 GRANTS Blue Coat’s motion to seal. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 23 24 Dated: May 15, 2017 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 25 26 27 28 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?