Finjan, Inc. v. Sonicwall, Inc.

Filing 201

Order by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi granting 163 169 173 182 184 Administrative Motions to File Under Seal. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

FINJAN, INC.,
Plaintiff,

9

United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS TO SEAL

v.

10
11

Case No. 17-cv-04467-BLF (VKD)

SONICWALL, INC.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 163, 169, 173, 182, 184

Defendant.

12
13
14

In connection with defendant SonicWall, Inc.’s motion to strike plaintiff Finjan, Inc’s

15

second supplemental infringement contentions (Dkt. No. 164), the parties filed administrative

16

motions to file portions of their briefing and associated documents under seal. Dkt. Nos. 163, 169,

17

173. Having considered those motions, the Court grants the administrative motions, as set forth

18

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 concern matters that are before the Court in

2

connection with SonicWall’s motion to strike Finjan’s second supplemental infringement

3

contentions. The underlying motion papers do not address the merits of the parties’ claims or

4

defenses, but rather whether Finjan’s infringement contentions comply with the Court’s prior

5

order. The material to be sealed is related to the merits of the case, but only to the extent that

6

Finjan’s contentions frame the scope of the parties’ dispute on questions of infringement. The

7

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

8

Most of the material proposed to be filed under seal constitutes technical information and
source code concerning the SonicWall products and services at issue in the action. SonicWall

10

represents that much of this material is confidential or highly confidential information and that

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

disclosure to the public would cause competitive harm to SonicWall. The Court agrees and finds

12

that SonicWall has demonstrated good cause to seal the following material:

13
14

Document

15

SonicWall Inc.’s Motion to Strike Second
Supplemental Infringement Contentions (Dkt.
No. 164)

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

Declaration of Robin McGrath in Support of
SonicWall Inc.’s Motion to Strike Second
Supplemental Infringement Contentions (Dkt.
No. 164-1)

Ex. B, pg. 4
Exhibits C-JJ

Finjan Inc.’s Opposition to Defendant

Pg. 2, lines 4-6
Pg. 4, lines 7-8, 10-13, 15-19

16

Portions to be Sealed

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

1
2

SonicWall’s, Inc.’s Motion to Strike Second
Supplemental Infringement Contentions (Dkt.
No. 170)

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

Declaration of James Hannah in Support of
Finjan Inc.’s Opposition to Defendant
SonicWall’s, Inc.’s Motion to Strike Second
Supplemental Infringement Contentions (Dkt.
No. 170-1)

Exhibits 1-16, 18-22

SonicWall, Inc.’s Reply in Support of Motion
to Strike Second Supplemental Infringement
Contentions (Dkt. No. 174)

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

SonicWall’s Supplemental Brief in Support of
Motion to Strike Second Supplemental
Infringement Contentions (Dkt. No. 187)

Pg. 2, lines 2-22
Pg. 3, lines 2-3, 4-5, 6-20
Pg. 4, lines 1-14, 18-21
Pgs. 5-9
Pg. 10, lines 1-20, 22, 23
Pg. 11
Pg. 12, lines 1, 3-4

Finjan’s Supplemental Brief in Opposition to
SonicWall’s Motion to Strike Second
Supplemental Infringement Contentions (Dkt.
No. 185)

Entire document
Exhibits 1-4

3
4
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
3

1
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 22, 2019

3
4
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI
United States Magistrate Judge

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
4