`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`JUNIPER NETWORK, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Case No. 17-cv-05659-WHA (TSH)
`
`
`ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL
`
`Re: Dkt. No. 483
`
`In connection with the joint discovery letter brief the parties filed concerning Juniper’s
`
`motion to compel the production of documents by non-party Dawn-Marie Bey, ECF No. 484,
`
`Juniper filed a motion to seal. ECF No. 483. The motion sought to seal three privilege logs not
`
`because Juniper thought they were confidential, but because Finjan and Bey designated them as
`
`such. Under this Court’s Local Rule 79-5(e)(1), Finjan and/or Bey were required to “file a
`
`declaration as required by subsection 79-5(d)(1) establishing that all of the designated material is
`
`sealable” “[w]ithin 4 days of the filing” of the motion to seal. The motion to seal was filed on
`
`May 22, 2019. Due to the weekend and Memorial Day holiday, the first court day four days after
`
`the motion was filed was yesterday, and no declaration was filed. In addition, the Court does not
`
`see how the public disclosure of these logs could give rise to competitive harm. They are
`
`essentially long lists of repetitive, high-level descriptions of documents that do not reveal their
`
`contents. The motion to seal at ECF No. 483 is DENIED.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`Dated: May 29, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`THOMAS S. HIXSON
`United States Magistrate 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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`
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
