Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc.

Filing 363

ORDER GRANTING 329 DEFENDANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL AT ECF 329. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 09/16/2019.(blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/16/2019)

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 CISCO SYSTEMS INC., 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 17-cv-00072-BLF Defendant. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL AT ECF 329 [RE: ECF 329] 12 Before the Court is Defendant’s administrative motion to file under seal portions of the 13 14 briefing and exhibits submitted in connection with Defendant’s Reply in Support of Its Motion to 15 Strike Finjan’s Expert Reports on Infringement (332). ECF 329. For the reasons that follow, the 16 motion to seal is 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 & Cty. 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)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong 22 presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 23 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to 24 motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden 25 of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of 26 access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 27 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. Parties moving to seal documents 28 must also comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 79- 1 5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document is “sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or 2 3 otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek 4 sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). 5 In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the submitting party to attach a “proposed order that is narrowly 6 tailored to seal only the sealable material” which “lists in table format each document or portion 7 thereof that is sought to be sealed,” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an “unredacted version of the 8 document” that indicates “by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that 9 have been omitted from the redacted version.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d). “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 declaration as required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material 12 is sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). 13 II. DISCUSSION 14 The Court has reviewed Defendant’s sealing motion and the declaration of the designating 15 party submitted in support thereof. The Court finds that Defendant articulated compelling reasons 16 to seal certain portions of the requested documents. The proposed redactions are narrowly 17 tailored. The Court’s rulings on the sealing requests are set forth in the table below. ECF No. Document to be Sealed Result Reasoning 18 19 20 21 329-4 (Corrected at ECF 334) Cisco Systems, Inc.’s Reply in Support of Its Motion to Strike Finjan’s Expert Reports on Infringement in View of the Orders Dated June 11, 2019 and July 7, 2019. GRANTED as to the highlighted portions at page 4, lines 11-14, 18-19, 27-28; page 5, lines 7-8. 329-7 Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of David C. Dotson (ECF 329-5) in Support of Cisco Systems, Inc.’s GRANTED as to the entire document. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 If filed publicly, this confidential information could be used to Cisco’s disadvantage by competitors, as it reveals Cisco’s confidential business information, including structure and operation of the accused products. See Bartow Decl. ¶¶ 2-5, ECF 329-1. This document contains Cisco confidential 1 ECF No. Result Reply in Support of Its Motion to Strike Finjan’s Expert Reports on Infringement in View of the Orders Dated June 11, 2019 and July 7, 2019. 2 3 4 5 Document to be Sealed 329-9 6 Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of David C. Dotson (332-1) in Support of Cisco Systems, Inc.’s Reply in Support of Its Motion to Strike Finjan’s Expert Reports on Infringement in View of the Orders Dated June 11, 2019 and July 7, 2019. 7 8 9 GRANTED as to the entire document. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 III. Reasoning information regarding structure and operation of the accused products. See Bartow Decl. ¶¶ 2-5, ECF 329-1. This document contains Cisco confidential information regarding structure and operation of the accused products. See Bartow Decl. ¶¶ 2-5, ECF 329-1. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant’s motion to seal at ECF 329. No further action is necessary. IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 17 18 Dated: September 16, 2019 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 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?