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

Filing 258

OMNIBUS ORDER REGARDING #245 , #249 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL DOCUMENTS. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 6/13/2017. (blflc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/13/2017)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

FINJAN, INC.,
Plaintiff,

8

BLUE COAT SYSTEMS, LLC,

[Re: ECF 245, 249]

Defendant.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

OMNIBUS ORDER RE SEALING
MOTIONS

v.

9
10

Case No. 15-cv-03295-BLF

12
Before the Court are two administrative motions to file under seal, one from Plaintiff

13
14

Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”) and one from Defendant Blue Coat Systems, LLC (“Blue Coat”). ECF

15

245, 249. Both relate to the reply briefing on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment.

16

See ECF 245, 249. For the reasons set forth below, the parties’ motions are GRANTED.

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 & 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. In addition, sealing motions filed in this

26

district must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b).

27

A party moving to seal a document in whole or in part must file a declaration establishing that the

28

identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). “Reference to a stipulation or

1

protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient

2

to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Id.

3

II.

DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed the parties’ sealing motions and the declarations submitted in

4
5

support thereof. The Court finds that the parties have articulated compelling reasons and good

6

cause to seal certain portions of the submitted documents. The proposed redactions are also

7

narrowly tailored. The Court’s rulings on the sealing requests are set forth in the tables below:

8
9
10

A.
ECF
No.
245-2

ECF 245
Document to
be Sealed
Blue Coat’s
Reply in
Support of its
Motion for
Summary
Judgment

245-4

Ex. B to Marder
Declaration in
Support of Blue
Coat’s Reply in
Support of its
Motion for
Summary
Judgment, ECF
247 (“Marder
Decl.”)
Ex. C to Marder
Decl.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

245-6

21

Result
GRANTED as
to highlighted
portions.

GRANTED as
to highlighted
portions.

Contains references to highly confidential Blue
Coat information regarding products and
functionality, research projects, product
architecture and operations, network infrastructure,
and development thereof, including reference to
Blue Coat’s backend systems. Marder Blue Coat
Sealing Decl.¶ 11.

Result

Reasoning

23
24

26

B.
ECF
No.

ECF 249
Document to
be Sealed

Contains information relating to details of the
internal operation of Blue Coat’s products,
including backend systems related to those
products, as well as Blue Coat’s confidential
business operations. Declaration of Eugene
Marder in Support of Administrative Motion to
File Under Seal, ECF 245-1 (“Marder Blue Coat
Sealing Decl.”) ¶¶ 5-9.
Contains references to highly confidential Blue
Coat information regarding the ProxySG and
SSLV products and their functionality,
interoperability, operation, and architecture.
Marder Blue Coat Sealing Decl.¶ 10.

GRANTED as
to highlighted
portions.

22

25

Reasoning

27
28
2

1

249-4

Finjan’s Reply
in Support of its
Motion for
Summary
Judgment

GRANTED as
to highlighted
portions.

249-

Ex. 1 to
Martinez
Declaration in
Support of
Finjan’s Reply
in Support of its
Motion for
Summary
Judgment, ECF
250-1
(“Martinez
Decl.”)
Ex. 2 to
Martinez Decl.

GRANTED.

249-

Ex. 3 to
Martinez Decl.

GRANTED.

249-

Ex. 4 to
Martinez Decl.

GRANTED.

249-

Ex. 5 to
Martinez Decl.

GRANTED.

249-

Ex. 6 to
Martinez Decl.

GRANTED.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

249-

12
13

GRANTED.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Contains highly confidential technical information
regarding Blue Coat’s proprietary technology, and
confidential aspects of Blue Coat’s business.
Declaration of Eugene Marder in Support of
Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, ECF
253 (“Marder Finjan Sealing Decl.”) ¶ 5.
Contains highly confidential technical information
regarding Blue Coat’s proprietary technology, and
confidential aspects of Blue Coat’s business.
Marder Finjan Sealing Decl. ¶ 6.

Contains highly confidential business information
regarding Blue Coat’s offerings. Marder Finjan
Sealing Decl. ¶ 7.
Contains highly confidential technical information
regarding Blue Coat’s proprietary technology, and
confidential aspects of Blue Coat’s business.
Marder Finjan Sealing Decl. ¶ 8.
Contains highly confidential technical information
regarding Blue Coat’s proprietary technology, and
confidential aspects of Blue Coat’s business.
Marder Finjan Sealing Decl. ¶ 9.
Contains highly confidential technical information
regarding Blue Coat’s proprietary technology, and
confidential aspects of Blue Coat’s business.
Marder Finjan Sealing Decl. ¶ 10.
Contains highly confidential technical information
regarding Blue Coat’s proprietary technology, and
confidential aspects of Blue Coat’s business.
Marder Finjan Sealing Decl. ¶ 11.

22
III.
23
24
25
26
27

ORDER
For the reasons set forth below, the parties’ motions are GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2017
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

28
3