Finjan, Inc. v. Sonicwall, Inc.

Filing 149

Order by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi re 111 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, 117 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, 119 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. Revised redacted briefs due by 5/23/2019. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/16/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

FINJAN, INC.,
Plaintiff,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Case No.17-cv-04467-BLF (VKD)
ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS TO SEAL

v.
SONICWALL, INC.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 111, 117, 119

Defendant.
In connection with defendant SonicWall, Inc.’s motion to compel supplemental

14

infringement contentions (Dkt. No. 112), the parties filed administrative motions to file portions of

15

their briefing under seal. Dkt. Nos. 111, 117, 119. Having considered those motions, as well as

16

the parties’ responses to the Court’s order concerning redactions of its decision on SonicWall’s

17

motion to compel (Dkt. Nos. 143, 144), the Court grants in part and denies in part the

18

administrative motions, as set forth below.

19

There is a strong presumption in favor of access by the public to judicial records and

20

documents accompanying dispositive motions that can be overcome only by a showing of

21

“compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of

22

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

23

However, the presumption does not apply equally to a motion addressing matters that are only

24

“tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d

25

1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied sub nom. FCA U.S. LLC v. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 137 S. Ct.

26

38 (2016). A litigant seeking to seal documents or information in connection with such a motion

27

must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

28

Id. at 1098–99; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80.

1

The parties’ respective motions to seal concerns matters that are before the Court in

2

connection with SonicWall’s motion to compel supplemental infringement contentions. The

3

underlying motion papers does not address the merits of the parties’ claims or defenses, but rather

4

whether plaintiff Finjan, Inc. has disclosed its infringement in compliance with the requirements

5

of the Patent Local Rules. The material to be sealed is related to the merits of the case, but only to

6

the extent that Finjan’s contentions frame the scope of the parties’ dispute on questions of

7

infringement. The Court therefore applies the “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c).

8
9

Most of the material proposed to be filed under seal constitutes technical information
concerning the SonicWall products and services at issue in the action. SonicWall represents that
much of this material is confidential or highly confidential information that, if disclosed to the

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

public, would cause competitive harm to SonicWall. However, the parties acknowledge that not

12

all of the material proposed to be sealed per their respective motions requires sealing, and they

13

have both indicated that the material to which the Court has referred in its order deciding the

14

motion to compel may be filed publicly. See Dkt. Nos. 139, 143, 144, 146. The Court has taken

15

these representations into account in considering the pending motions.

16

Accordingly, the Court finds good cause to seal the following material:

17
Document

Portions to be Sealed

18
19
20

Declaration of Robin McGrath in Support of
SonicWall, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Further
Supplemental Infringement Contentions (Dkt.
No. 112-1)

Exhibits 3-15

SonicWall Inc.’s Motion to Compel Further
Supplemental Infringement Contentions (Dkt.
No. 112)

Pg. 10, lines 14-20
Pg. 12, lines 6-11
Pg. 13, lines 12-15, 21-22
Pg. 14, lines 19-23
Pg. 15, lines 7-9, 20-27
Pg. 17, lines 27-28
Pg. 18, lines 1-6, 24-25, 27-28
Pg. 19, lines 5-11
Pg. 20, lines 3-11, 13-20, 21-28
Pg. 21, lines 6-9, 12-19
Pg. 22, lines 17-22, 28

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

Pg. 23, lines 1, 18-20

1
2
3
4

Finjan Inc.’s Opposition to Defendant
SonicWall’s, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Further
Supplemental Infringement Contentions (Dkt.
No. 118)

Pg. 3, lines 14-23
Pg. 5, lines 22-26
Pg. 6, lines 14-23
Pg. 9, lines 1-9, 20-27
Pg. 10, lines 23-24
Pg. 11, lines 1-4, 7-8, 15-19, 28
Pg. 12, lines 1, 13-25
Pg. 13, lines 12-13
Pg. 14, lines 1-9, 18-22
Pg. 15, lines 15-19
Pg. 16, lines 25-27
Pg. 17, lines 1-4, 19-23
Pg. 18, lines 1-13, 21-27
Pg. 19, lines 1-2, 5-11, 13-16
Pg. 20, lines 11-13, 16-22, 25-27
Pg. 21, lines 1-4, 10-25, 27
Pg. 22, lines 1-2, 8-9, 16-17, 26-27
Pg. 23, lines 1-5, 16-19, 23-26
Pg. 24, lines 2-11
Pg. 26, lines 17-21

SonicWall, Inc.’s Reply in Support of Motion
to Compel Further Supplemental Infringement
Contentions (Dkt. No. 120)

Pg. 10, lines 8-9, 21-22
Pg. 11, lines 12-14
Pg. 12, lines 7-8, 10-11

5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

The Court finds that there is not good cause to seal the remainder of the material, which

18

refers to Finjan’s contentions and the bases for those contentions at a high level of generality, such

19

that no confidential information of SonicWall is disclosed. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-

20

5(f)(3), the parties shall file revised redacted versions of their briefs that comply with this order by

21

May 23, 2019.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 16, 2019

24
25
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI
United States Magistrate Judge

26
27
28
3