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)

Download PDF
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?