Finjan, Inc. v. Sonicwall, Inc.

Filing 211

Order by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi granting 191 193 202 Administrative Motions to File Under Seal. The parties shall file Dkt. No. [202-2] Joint Submission re: Court's Interim Order on the public docket by 12/6/2019. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/4/2019)

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

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

v.
SONICWALL, INC.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 191, 193, 202

Defendant.

13
14

In connection with two discovery disputes concerning defendant SonicWall, Inc.’s

15

responses to plaintiff Finjan, Inc’s discovery requests (Dkt. Nos. 192, 194), the parties filed

16

administrative motions to file exhibits associated with their joint discovery dispute letters under

17

seal. Dkt. Nos. 191, 193, 202. Having considered those motions, the Court grants 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 several disputes between the parties concerning SonicWall’s responses to Finjan’s

3

discovery requests. The underlying discovery disputes does not address the merits of the parties’

4

claims or defenses, and the Court therefore applies the “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c).

5

Most of the material proposed to be filed under seal constitutes source code and other

6

technical information concerning the SonicWall products and services at issue in the action, as

7

well as SonicWall’s proprietary business information. SonicWall represents that this material is

8

confidential information and that disclosure to the public would cause competitive harm to

9

SonicWall. The Court agrees and finds that good cause exists to seal the following material:

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

Document

Portions to be Sealed

Joint Discovery Letter re Damages-Related
Discovery (Dkt. No. 192)

Exhibits 2 and 3

Joint Discovery Letter re Technical-Related
Discovery (Dkt. No. 194)

Exhibits 2 and 3

Joint Submission Pursuant to the Court’s
November 21, 2019 Interim Order (Dkt. No.
202-2)

Attachments A-F

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

The parties did not request to seal the cover pleading for their joint submission pursuant to
the Court’s November 21, 2019 Interim Order, but they nevertheless filed that cover pleading
under seal. Dkt. Nos. 202, 202-2. No good cause exists to seal the cover pleading. The parties
shall file the cover pleading (Dkt. No. 202-2) on the public docket by December 6, 2019.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 4, 2019

26
27

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI
United States Magistrate Judge

28
2