Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 535 Filed 06/18/19 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`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
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`Jonathan S. Kagan (SBN 166039)
`jkagan@irell.com
`Harry A. Mittleman (SBN 172343)
`hmittleman@irell.com
`Alan Heinrich (SBN 212782)
`aheinrich@irell.com
`Joshua Glucoft (SBN 301249)
`jglucoft@irell.com
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, California 90067-4276
`Telephone: (310) 277-1010
`Facsimile: (310) 203-7199
`
`Rebecca Carson (SBN 254105)
`rcarson@irell.com
`Ingrid Petersen (SBN 313927)
`ipetersen@irell.com
`Kevin Wang (SBN 318024)
`kwang@irell.com
`840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 400
`Newport Beach, California 92660-6324
`Telephone: (949) 760-0991
`Facsimile: (949) 760-5200
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`FINJAN, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`)
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`)
`
`DECLARATION OF INGRID PETERSEN
`Plaintiff,
`)
`ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT JUNIPER
`
`)
`NETWORKS, INC. IN SUPPORT OF
`vs.
`
`)
`FINJAN, INC.’S ADMINISTRATIVE
`
`)
`MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., a Delaware
`)
`UNDER SEAL (DKT. NO. 531)
`Corporation,
`)
`
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10697504
`
`
`DECLARATION OF INGRID PETERSEN ISO FINJAN’S
`ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`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
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 535 Filed 06/18/19 Page 2 of 3
`
`DECLARATION OF INGRID PETERSEN
`I, Ingrid Petersen, declare as follows:
`1.
`I am an attorney at the law firm of Irell & Manella LLP, counsel of record for Juniper
`Networks, Inc. (“Juniper”) in the above-captioned action. I am a member in good standing of the
`State Bar of California and have been admitted to practice before this Court. I have personal
`knowledge of the facts set forth in this Declaration and, if called as a witness, could and would
`testify competently to such facts under oath.
`2.
`I submit this declaration in support of Finjan, Inc.’s (“Finjan”) Administrative
`Motion to File Documents Under Seal (Dkt. No. 531).
`3.
`I have reviewed the portions of the documents that Finjan has sought to seal, and I
`believe that, regarding Juniper’s confidential information, the following should be sealed:
`Document
`Portion to Be Sealed
`Juniper’s Basis for Sealing
`Exhibit A to Finjan’s Motion
`Section between “Begin” and
`Juniper’s Confidential Pricing
`to Compel Responses
`to
`“End” Highly Confidential—
`Information
`Discovery Requests (Docket
`Attorney’s Eyes Only from
`No. 531-4)
`Pages 13 to 22.
`
`4.
`I am informed and believe that the right of the public to inspect and copy public
`records “is not absolute” and that a court may seal confidential information disclosed during the
`course of a legal proceeding. Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978).
`5.
`Because Juniper’s opposition concerns a motion to compel responses to discovery
`requests, I understand that “the usual presumption of the public’s right of access is rebutted,” that
`the “public has less of a need for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions,”
`and that the “public policies that support the right of access to dispositive motions, and related
`materials, do not apply with equal force to non-dispositive materials.” See Kamakana v. City & Cty.
`of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, in that context, materials may be
`sealed so long as the party seeking sealing makes a “particularized showing” under the “good cause”
`standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Id. at 1180.
`6.
`The higher compelling-reason standard is met when a disclosure would “release trade
`secrets,” so the lesser good-cause standard is met as well. See id. at 1179. A “trade secret may
`
`10697504
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`
`
`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
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 535 Filed 06/18/19 Page 3 of 3
`
`consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is used in one’s
`business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not
`know or use it.” In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting RESTATEMENT
`OF TORTS § 757 cmt. b).
`7.
`It is my understanding that courts have concluded that a party’s confidential prices
`or financial information is worthy of sealing. See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 727 F.3d 1214,
`1225 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (sealing “profit, cost, and margin data, [which] could give the suppliers an
`advantage in contract negotiations, which they could use to extract price increases for components”);
`Barnes v. Hershey Co., No. 3:12-CV-01334-CRB, 2015 WL 1814293, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 21,
`2015) (concluding that exhibits were sealable because they contain confidential and private
`information about trade secrets, such as financial information and sale strategies); Stout v. Hartford
`Life & Acc. Ins. Co., No. CV 11-6186 CW, 2012 WL 6025770, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2012).
`8.
`Additionally, I am informed and believe that the above document discloses Juniper’s
`confidential pricing information. Exhibit A is Juniper’s First Supplemental Response to Plaintiff
`Finjan, Inc.’s Second Set of Interrogatories, and it is my understanding that Juniper’s response to
`Interrogatory No. 5 contains pricing information for Juniper’s products, which are not released to
`the public or Juniper’s customers. By revealing Juniper’s prices, it would significantly undermine
`Juniper’s ability to engage in negotiations, as competitors and customers could use this information
`during negotiations to Juniper’s detriment. Based on this information, it is my understanding that
`the Court should seal this information.
`Executed on June 18, 2019, at Newport Beach, California.
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
`foregoing is true and correct.
`
`/s/ Ingrid Petersen
`Ingrid Petersen
`
`10697504
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`