`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
` v.
` JUNIPER NETWORK, INC.,
`Defendant.
` /
`
`No. C 17-05659 WHA
`
`ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTE
`
`On October 4, defendant Juniper Network, Inc., filed a discovery dispute letter
`requesting to amend the stipulated protective order (Dkt. No. 149) such that it may use an
`interrogatory response in the related IPR proceeding (Dkt. No. 199). On October 9, plaintiff
`Finjan, Inc., filed a response to show cause as to why the amendment should not be granted
`(Dkt. No. 205). Finjan argues, inter alia, that there is a heightened risk of public disclosure in
`IPR proceedings and that the interrogatory response at issue is irrelevant to the related IPR
`proceeding, as Finjan does not (and will not) contest the fact that its licensees do not admit to
`infringement.
`This order finds that Finjan has not sufficiently shown cause as to why permission
`should not be granted. The undersigned judge finds that the potential harm due to public
`disclosure of the information at issue is minimal. Accordingly, Juniper’s request to amend the
`stipulated protective order is GRANTED with respect to the interrogatory response at issue only.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 207 Filed 10/09/18 Page 2 of 2
`
`Finjan’s request to order Juniper to first obtain express assurance from the PTAB that the
`interrogatory response will be filed under seal and will not be publicly disclosed is DENIED.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: October 9, 2018.
`
`
`WILLIAM ALSUP
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`2
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
