Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc.
Filing
267
ORDER GRANTING #260 BLUE COAT SYSTEMS LLC'S MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF ITS AMENDED REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 6/19/2017. (patentlcsjS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/19/2017)
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,
Defendant.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No. 15-cv-03295-BLF
ORDER GRANTING BLUE COAT
SYSTEMS LLC’S MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF ITS
AMENDED REPLY
[Re: ECF 260]
12
13
Before the Court is Defendant Blue Coat Systems LLC’s (“Blue Coat”) administrative
14
motion to file under seal portions of its Amended Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary
15
Judgment (“Amended Reply”). ECF 260. For the reasons set forth below, Blue Coat’s motion is
16
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
4
II.
DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed Blue Coat’s sealing motion and the declaration submitted in
5
support thereof. According to Blue Coat, the portions of the Amended Reply for which sealing is
6
requested contain information which relates to the operation and infrastructure of backend systems
7
and services and other highly confidential information about the operation and development of the
8
accused products. Declaration of Robin L. Brewer in Support of Administrative Motion to File
9
Under Seal, ECF 260-1 ¶¶ 4-8. These portions also contain information relating to Blue Coat’s
highly confidential business operations. Id. The Court finds that Blue Coat has articulated
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
compelling reasons and good cause for sealing. The proposed redactions are also narrowly
12
tailored. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Blue Coat’s motion to seal.
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15
16
17
Dated: June 19, 2017
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
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?