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)

Download PDF
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

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?