Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc.

Filing 339

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEAL AT ECF 315 . Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 09/03/2019.

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 SAN JOSE DIVISION 8 9 FINJAN, INC., Plaintiff, 10 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEAL AT ECF 315 v. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 17-cv-00072-BLF 12 CISCO SYSTEMS INC., 13 Defendant. [Re: ECF 315] 14 Before the Court is Defendant’s administrative motion to file under seal portions of the 15 16 briefing and exhibits submitted in connection with Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Expert 17 Reports on Infringement (ECF 312). ECF 315. For the reasons that follow, the motion to seal is 18 GRANTED. 19 20 I. LEGAL STANDARD “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 21 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. Of 22 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 23 U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong 24 presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 25 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to 26 motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden 27 of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of 28 access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. Parties moving to seal documents must also comply with the procedures established by 2 3 Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request 4 that establishes the document is “sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or 5 otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek 6 sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). 7 In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the submitting party to attach a “proposed order that is narrowly 8 tailored to seal only the sealable material” which “lists in table format each document or portion 9 thereof that is sought to be sealed,” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an “unredacted version of the document” that indicates “by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 have been omitted from the redacted version.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d). “Within 4 days of the 12 filing of the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a 13 declaration as required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material 14 is sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). 15 16 II. DISCUSSION The Court has reviewed Defendant’s sealing motion and the declaration of the designating 17 party submitted in support thereof. The Court finds that Defendant has articulated compelling 18 reasons to seal certain portions of the requested documents. The proposed redactions are narrowly 19 tailored. The Court’s rulings on the sealing requests are set forth in the table below. 20 ECF No. Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning 21 315-4 Cisco Systems, Inc.’s Motion to Strike Finjan’s Expert Reports on Infringement in View of the Orders Dated June 11, 2019 and July 7, 2019 (“Cisco’s Motion ”). GRANTED as to the highlighted portions at pg. 1, at line 13; pg. 2, at lines 22-23; pg. 2, at line 25, pg. 3, at line 9, pg. 3 at lines 17-21; pg. 4 at line 5-7; pg. 6 at line 6-12; pg. 8 at lines 1-2; pg. 10 at lines 7; pg. 10 at lines 10-11; and pg. 10 at lines 14-15. If filed publicly, this confidential information could be used to Cisco’s disadvantage by competitors, as it reveals the identification, organization, and/or operation of Cisco’s proprietary products. Bartow Decl. ¶¶ 3–5, ECF 315-1. In particular, Cisco’s competitors could use this confidential information to map proprietary features of Cisco’s products. Id. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 ECF No. 2 315-8 3 4 Document to be Sealed: Result Portions of Exhibit B to GRANTED as to the the Declaration of highlighted portions at Jarrad M. Gunther In pgs. 1-2. Support of Cisco’s Motion. If filed publicly, this confidential information could be used to Cisco’s disadvantage by competitors, as it reveals the identification, organization, and/or operation of Cisco’s proprietary products. Bartow Decl. ¶¶ 3–5. In particular, Cisco’s competitors could use this confidential information to map proprietary features of Cisco’s products. Id. 315-10 Portions of Exhibit C to GRANTED as to the the Declaration of 315- highlighted portions at Jarrad M. Gunther In pg. 1. Support of Cisco’s Motion. If filed publicly, this confidential information could be used to Cisco’s disadvantage by competitors, as it reveals the identification, organization, and/or operation of Cisco’s proprietary products. Bartow Decl. ¶¶ 3–5. In particular, Cisco’s competitors could use this confidential information to map proprietary features of Cisco’s products. Id. 315-12 Exhibit D to the GRANTED as to the Declaration of Jarrad entire document. M. Gunther In Support of Cisco’s Motion. (Excerpts of the February 19, 2019 Deposition Transcript of Matthew Watchinski – designated Highly Confidential – Attorneys Eyes Only) If filed publicly, this confidential information could be used to Cisco’s disadvantage by competitors, as it reveals the identification, organization, and/or operation of Cisco’s proprietary products. Bartow Decl. ¶¶ 3–5. In particular, Cisco’s competitors could use this confidential information to map proprietary features of Cisco’s products. Id. 315-14 Exhibit E to the GRANTED as to the Declaration of Jarrad entire document. M. Gunther In Support of Cisco’s Motion. (Excerpts of the Expert Report of Eric Cole, Ph.D. Regarding Infringement by Cisco Systems, Inc. of Patent Nos. 6,154,844 and 8,677,494 – designated If filed publicly, this confidential information could be used to Cisco’s disadvantage by competitors, as it reveals the identification, organization, and/or operation of Cisco’s proprietary products. Bartow Decl. ¶¶ 3–5. In particular, Cisco’s competitors could use this confidential information to map proprietary features of Cisco’s products. Id. 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Reasoning 3 1 ECF No. 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Result 316-1 Exhibit F to the GRANTED as to the Declaration of Jarrad entire document. M. Gunther In Support of Cisco’s Motion, in its entirety. (Excerpts of the Expert Report of Nenad Medvidovic, Ph.D. Regarding Infringement by Cisco Systems, Inc. of Patent No. 7,647,633 – designated Highly Confidential – Attorneys Eyes Only) If filed publicly, this confidential information could be used to Cisco’s disadvantage by competitors, as it reveals the identification, organization, and/or operation of Cisco’s proprietary products. Bartow Decl. ¶¶ 3–5. In particular, Cisco’s competitors could use this confidential information to map proprietary features of Cisco’s products. Id. 315-16 Exhibit G to the GRANTED as to the Declaration of Jarrad entire document. M. Gunther In Support of Cisco’s Motion, in its entirety. (Excerpts of the Expert Report of Michael Mitzenmacher, Ph.D. Regarding Infringement by Cisco Systems, Inc. of Patent Nos. 6,804,780 and 8,141,154 – designated Highly Confidential – Attorneys Eyes Only) If filed publicly, this confidential information could be used to Cisco’s disadvantage by competitors, as it reveals the identification, organization, and/or operation of Cisco’s proprietary products. Bartow Decl. ¶¶ 3–5. In particular, Cisco’s competitors could use this confidential information to map proprietary features of Cisco’s products. Id. 315-18 Exhibit H to the GRANTED as to the Declaration of Jarrad entire document. M. Gunther In Support of Cisco’s Motion, in its entirety. (Appendix D1– designated Highly Confidential – Attorneys Eyes Only) If filed publicly, this confidential information could be used to Cisco’s disadvantage by competitors, as it reveals the identification, organization, and/or operation of Cisco’s proprietary products. Bartow Decl. ¶¶ 3–5. In particular, Cisco’s competitors could use this confidential information to map proprietary features of Cisco’s products. Id. 315-20 Exhibit I to the Declaration of Jarrad M. Gunther In Support If filed publicly, this confidential information could be used to Cisco’s disadvantage by 25 26 27 28 Reasoning Highly Confidential – Attorneys Eyes Only) 3 4 Document to be Sealed: GRANTED as to the entire document. 4 1 ECF No. 2 Document to be Sealed: Result of Cisco’s Motion, in its entirety. (Appendix D1 Supplement– designated Highly Confidential – Attorneys Eyes Only) 3 4 5 Reasoning competitors, as it reveals the identification, organization, and/or operation of Cisco’s proprietary products. Bartow Decl. ¶¶ 3–5. In particular, Cisco’s competitors could use this confidential information to map proprietary features of Cisco’s products. Id. 6 7 8 9 10 III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant’s motion to seal at ECF 315. No further action is necessary. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 3, 2019 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5

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?