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)

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