Finjan, Inc. v. Sonicwall, Inc.

Filing 270

Order by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi granting 256 257 Administrative Motions to File Under Seal. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/9/2020)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

FINJAN, INC.,
Plaintiff,

9
v.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

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

SONICWALL, INC.,
Defendant.

12

ORDER GRANTING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO
FILE UNDER SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 256, 257

13
In connection with a discovery dispute concerning plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s (“Finjan”)

14
15

assertions of attorney-client privilege and attorney work product protection with respect to

16

portions of and exhibits to the depositions of four witnesses who provided testimony in a separate

17

litigation (Dkt. No. 248), the parties moved to file under seal the exhibits to the supplemental

18

declarations filed in support of their respective positions. Dkt. Nos. 256, 257. Having considered

19

the parties’ submissions, the Court grants the administrative motions to file under seal, as set forth

20

below.

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

The parties’ motions to seal concern information submitted in connection with a discovery

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8
9

The material proposed to be filed under seal is derived from documents that have been
designated “Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” Finjan contends that the material encompasses
confidential business and competitive information and that the material is also privileged or

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

otherwise protected, which the parties dispute. Dkt. No. 252. In these circumstances, the Court

12

finds that good cause exists to seal the following material:

13
14

Document

15

Declaration of Adam Frankel in Support of
Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s Submission of
Documents for In Camera Review Relating to
April 17, 2020 Joint Discovery Letter Brief
(Dkt. No. 258)

Exhibits 1-4

Declaration of Matthew Gaudet Pursuant to
Interim Order re April 17, 2020 Joint
Discovery Letter Brief (Dkt. No. 259)

Exhibits 1-6

16
17
18
19

Portions to be Sealed

20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 9, 2020

23
24
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI
United States Magistrate Judge

25
26
27
28
2