Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc.

Filing 65

ORDER MODIFYING 61 ORDER REGARDING 56 CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 8/8/2017. (patentlcsjS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/8/2017)

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 Defendant. ORDER MODIFYING ORDER RE CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL [Re: ECF 56, 64] 12 Before the Court is Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s (“Finjan”) declaration in support of a motion to 13 14 file under seal certain exhibits in connection with Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc.’s (“Cisco”) 15 Motion to Dismiss Finjan’s Second Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim for Willful 16 Infringement and exhibits filed in connection therewith. ECF 64. For the reasons discussed 17 below, the Court MODIFIES its prior order at ECF 61, which disposed of the original motion to 18 seal at ECF 54. See ECF 61. 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 & Cnty. 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)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are 24 “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of 25 “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 26 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed 27 upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. In addition, sealing motions filed in this 28 district must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). 1 A party moving to seal a document in whole or in part must file a declaration establishing that the 2 identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). “Reference to a stipulation or 3 protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient 4 to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Id. 5 II. DISCUSSION The Court has reviewed the declaration submitted by Finjan. ECF 94. The Court finds 6 7 that Finjan has articulated compelling reasons to seal certain portions of the submitted documents. 8 The proposed redactions are also narrowly tailored. The Court rules as follows on the various 9 exhibits sought to be sealed which the Court had previously denied sealing: 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 12 ECF No. 56-4 Document to be Sealed Cisco’s Motion to Dismiss 56-6 Ex. C to Salceda Decl. 56-8 11 Ex. D to Salceda Decl. 56-10 Ex. E to Salceda Decl. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 III. Result Reasoning DENIED. Finjan, the designating party, has not provided any declaration in support of sealing. See Hannah Decl. ¶¶ 3-5, ECF 94. GRANTED. Contains confidential information regarding Finjan’s intellectual property and business strategy, including terms of preferred stock purchase agreements between Finjan and Cisco. Hannah Decl. ¶ 4. GRANTED. Contains confidential information regarding Finjan’s intellectual property and business strategy, including terms of preferred stock purchase agreements between Finjan and Cisco. Hannah Decl. ¶ 4. GRANTED. Contains confidential information regarding Finjan’s intellectual property and business strategy, including information relating to business negotiations regarding Finjan’s products. Hannah Decl. ¶ 5. ORDER For the foregoing reasons, the Court MODIFIES its order at ECF 61. Cisco’s motion at ECF 54 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Under Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(2), for any request that has been denied because the party designating a document as confidential or subject to a protective order has not provided sufficient reasons to seal, the submitting party must file the unredacted (or lesser redacted) documents into the public record no earlier than 4 days and 2 1 no later than 10 days from the filing of this order. Alternatively, this motion may be renewed so to 2 provide sufficient reasons in the supporting declarations no later than 10 days from the filing of 3 this order. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 7 8 Dated: August 8, 2017 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 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 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?