Finjan, Inc. v. Sonicwall, Inc.

Filing 253

Order by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi ranting 249 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/22/2020)

Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 253 Filed 04/22/20 Page 1 of 2

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)

v.
SONICWALL, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL
Re: Dkt. No. 249

13
14

In connection with a discovery dispute concerning defendant SonicWall, Inc.’s requests to

15

obtain documents from another action that plaintiff Finjan, Inc. contends are protected under the

16

attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine (Dkt. No. 248), SonicWall filed an

17

administrative motion to file portions of the parties’ joint discovery dispute letter and an

18

associated exhibit under seal. Dkt. No. 249. Having considered the parties’ submissions, the

19

Court grants the administrative motion, as set forth below.

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 253 Filed 04/22/20 Page 2 of 2

1
2

Id. at 1098–99; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80.
SonicWall’s motion to seal concerns information submitted in connection with a discovery

3

dispute. The underlying discovery dispute does not address the merits of the parties’ claims or

4

defenses, but rather whether Finjan’s assertion of the attorney-client privilege and attorney work

5

product doctrine is proper. The material to be sealed is only tangentially related to the merits of

6

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

7

The material proposed to be filed under seal is derived from documents that have been

8

designated “Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” Finjan contends that the material encompasses

9

confidential business and competitive information and that the material is also privileged, which
the parties dispute. Dkt. No. 252. In these circumstances, the Court finds that good cause exists to

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

seal the following material:

12
13
14

Document

Portions to be Sealed
Highlighted portions on pages 2 and 3, and
Exhibit A

Joint Discovery Letter (Dkt. No. 248)

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 22, 2020

18
19
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI
United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2