Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc.

Filing 61

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 56 CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 7/28/2017. (patentlcsjS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/28/2017)

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 CISCO SYSTEMS INC., 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 17-cv-00072-BLF ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL Defendant. 12 Before the Court is Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc.’s (“Cisco”) administrative motion to 13 14 file under seal certain portions of its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s Second Amended 15 Complaint for Failure to State a Claim for Willful Infringement and exhibits filed in connection 16 therewith. ECF 56. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED WITHOUT 17 PREJUDICE. 18 19 I. LEGAL STANDARD “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 20 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of 21 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 22 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are 23 “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of 24 “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 25 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed 26 upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. In addition, sealing motions filed in this 27 district must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). 28 A party moving to seal a document in whole or in part must file a declaration establishing that the 1 identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). “Reference to a stipulation or 2 protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient 3 to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Id. 4 II. DISCUSSION The Court has reviewed Cisco’s motion and its declaration submitted in support thereof. 6 According to Cisco’s declaration, all of the material sought to be sealed has been designated by 7 Plaintiff Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”) as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” 8 pursuant to the terms of the parties’ Interim Protective Order. ECF 56-1 at 1-2. Thus, pursuant to 9 Civil L.R. 79-5(e)(1), Finjan was required to file a declaration establishing that the designated 10 material is sealable within four days of the filing of Cisco’s motion. Finjan has not done this. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 5 However, pursuant to Civil L.R. 79-5(e), Cisco was required to serve its declaration in support of 12 sealing (i.e., ECF 56-1) on Finjan on the same day it was filed and file proof of such service. 13 Cisco has not filed proof of such service, so it is not clear that Finjan has received Cisco’s 14 declaration in support of sealing. Accordingly, the Court will DENY Cisco’s motion WITHOUT 15 PREJUDICE in order to afford the parties sufficient time to comply with Civil L.R. 79-5. 16 III. 17 ORDER Cisco’s motion at ECF 56 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Cisco shall, pursuant to 18 Civil L.R. 79-5(e), serve its declaration in support of sealing on Finjan and file proof of such 19 service no later than July 31, 2017. Finjan shall, pursuant to Civil L.R. 79-5(e)(1), file a 20 declaration establishing whether and the extent to which the designated material is sealable (if at 21 all) no later than August 4, 2017. 22 23 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 28, 2017 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 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?