Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 485 Filed 05/22/19 Page 1 of 3
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,
`Defendant.
` /
`
`No. C 17-05659 WHA
`
`ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE
`MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER
`SEAL
`
`Both sides in this patent infringement action have filed administrative motions to file
`under seal in connection with plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s motion to set aside the verdict and
`defendant Juniper Networks, Inc.’s motion for sanctions (Dkt. Nos. 411, 431, 434, 439, 441).
`In this circuit, courts start with a “strong presumption in favor of access” when deciding
`whether to seal records. Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.
`2006) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)).
`Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially
`related” to the merits — as here, where Finjan moves to set aside a jury verdict and order
`denying its motion for judgment as a matter of law — bear the burden of overcoming the
`presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of access and the
`public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099
`(9th Cir. 2016). Since Juniper’s motion for sanctions bore no relation to the merits, however,
`only “good cause” is required to justify sealing. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC,
`809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,
`
`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 485 Filed 05/22/19 Page 2 of 3
`
`1179–80 (9th Cir. 2006). Furthermore, Civil Local Rule 79-5(b) requires administrative
`motions to file under seal to “be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.”
`FINJAN’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT.
`1.
`Juniper moves to seal portions of its opposition brief and various exhibits based on
`third-party Joe Security LLC’s confidentiality designations (Dkt. No. 434). Juniper served the
`unredacted versions of those documents on Joe Security (Dkt. No. 436), who has not filed any
`declaration in support of sealing as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(e). Accordingly,
`Juniper’s motion to seal is DENIED.
`Finjan moves to seal portions of its opening and reply briefs, declarations, and various
`exhibits (Dkt. Nos. 411, 441). Finjan’s former motion to seal is based on Juniper’s
`confidentiality designations (Dkt. No. 411) and its latter motion to seal is based on both Juniper
`and Joe Security’s confidentiality designations (Dkt. No. 441).
`With respect to Finjan’s former motion to seal (Dkt. No. 411), Juniper filed a declaration
`in support of sealing Exhibit 7 (in its entirety) and Exhibit 13 (pages 1–2) only (Dkt. No. 418 ¶
`3). Juniper declares that Exhibit 7, which consists of a confidential license agreement,
`constitutes a trade secret (id. ¶ 10). See In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir.
`2008). Juniper also declares that the portions of Exhibit 13 it seeks to seal contain confidential
`source code and that disclosure of said source code “would materially impair Juniper’s
`intellectual property rights and business positioning” (id. ¶¶ 6–8). It further declares that
`disclosure of the source code would also present a security risk (id. ¶ 9). Compelling reasons
`having been shown, Finjan’s motion to seal Exhibit 7 in its entirety and portions of Exhibit 13
`(page 1 (JNPRFNJN_29040_01462103); page 2 (JNPRFNJN_29040_01462104)) in connection
`with its motion to set aside the verdict (Dkt. No. 411) is GRANTED. The motion is otherwise
`DENIED.
`With respect to Finjan’s latter motion to seal (Dkt. No. 441), no relevant party has filed
`a declaration in support of sealing. Moreover, to the extent Joe Security’s confidentiality
`interests are at play (as it does not appear that Finjan served Joe Security its motion), those
`
`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
`
`2
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 485 Filed 05/22/19 Page 3 of 3
`
`interests are rendered moot in light of the unsealing of Juniper’s filings as ruled above.
`Accordingly, Finjan’s motion is DENIED.
`JUNIPER’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS.
`2.
`Finjan moves to seal portions of its opposition brief and various exhibits based on
`Juniper’s confidentiality designations (Dkt. No. 431). Juniper moves to seal portions of its
`reply brief and various exhibits based on Joe Security’s confidentiality designations and a prior
`order currently filed under seal by the Court pending Finjan’s appeal of that sealing order (Dkt.
`No. 439). Neither Juniper nor Joe Security (on whom Juniper served the unredacted versions of
`the relevant documents (Dkt. No. 444)) has filed a declaration in support of sealing. Moreover,
`as to the portion Juniper seeks to seal due to the current sealed status of a prior order from
`which that portion quotes (page 3:11–15 of the reply brief), that portion relates to information
`already made public (see Dkt. No. 335 at 8:4–25). Accordingly, both motions are DENIED.
`
`* * *
`Each movant shall file unredacted versions of their documents on the public docket in
`comport with this order by MAY 30 AT NOON.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: May 22, 2019.
`
`
`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
`
`3
`
`