Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 645 Filed 01/07/21 Page 1 of 5
`
`
`
`Juanita R. Brooks (CA SBN 75934), brooks@fr.com
`Frank J. Albert (CA SBN 247741), albert@fr.com
`Oliver J. Richards (CA SBN 310972), ojr@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`12860 El Camino Real, Suite 400
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Telephone: (858) 678-5070 / Fax: (858) 678-5099
`
`Robert Courtney (CA SBN 248392), courtney@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Tel: (612) 335-5070 / Fax: (612) 288-9696
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff, FINJAN, INC.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,
`
` Defendant.
`
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`FINJAN, INC.’S MOTION TO SEAL
`DAUBERT ORDER
`
`Date: February 18, 2021
`Time: 8:00 a.m., Telephonic Hearing
`U.S. District Judge William H. Alsup
`Courtroom 12
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`FINJAN’S MOTION TO SEAL DAUBERT ORDER
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 645 Filed 01/07/21 Page 2 of 5
`
`
`
`
`
` NOTICE OF MOTION
`
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`
`NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on February 18, 2021, at 8:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter
`
`as counsel may be heard by the Honorable William H. Alsup via telephonic conference, Plaintiff Finjan,
`
`LLC will and hereby does move for an order sealing twelve lines of the Court’s December 3, 2018 order
`
`on Daubert motions (Dkt. 283).
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF BEING SOUGHT
`
`Finjan seeks to seal twelve lines of the Daubert order so as to prevent publication of sealable
`
`information therein, in accordance with Civil Local Rule 79-5. Apart from these lines, Finjan has no
`
`objection to the order’s publication, and a suitably redacted version is submitted herewith.
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Twelve lines of the Daubert order contain sealable confidential information of Finjan.
`
`Specifically, there exists good cause to seal the following material:
`
`Identification of
`Documents or
`Portions of
`Document to be
`Sealed
`Order on Daubert
`Motions (Dkt. 283)
`
`Portion of Document
`to Be Sealed
`Page 9, lines 8–14
`
`Page 10, line 7
`
`Designating Party
`Finjan
`
`Reasons for Sealing
`The portions sought to
`be sealed contain
`confidential license
`terms and contents of
`confidential license-
`related
`correspondence
`between Finjan and
`non-party licensees.
`Public disclosure of
`this information would
`case harm to Finjan.
`(See Declaration of
`Robert Courtney ¶ 3;
`Declaration of Julie
`Mar-Spinola ¶¶ 2–3.)
`
`
`
`The material identified above comprises Finjan’s confidential business information and is
`
`sealable, as described in more detail below, and in the accompanying Declaration of Robert Courtney
`
`and Declaration of Julie Mar-Spinola (attached as Exhibit B to the Courtney Declaration).
`
`
`
`1
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`FINJAN’S MOTION TO SEAL DAUBERT ORDER
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 645 Filed 01/07/21 Page 3 of 5
`
`
`
`
`
` ARGUMENT
`
`In the Ninth Circuit, district courts decide whether to seal court records based on balancing the
`
`interest of the party seeking to seal against the public’s interest in open access to court proceedings.
`
`Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006). Courts in the Ninth Circuit,
`
`including in this District, frequently seal confidential details relating to licensing (e.g., confidential
`
`license terms, confidential correspondence relating to licensing) upon demonstration that disclosure of
`
`the material would enact a significant competitive harm on the licensing parties, while conferring little
`
`benefit to the public. See, e.g., Open Text S.A. v. Box, Inc., No. 13-cv-04910-JD, 2014 WL 7368594, at *3
`
`(N.D. Cal. Dec. 26, 2014); Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-cv-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 3283478,
`
`at *7 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2012). The Court may seal documents and information in a non-dispositive
`
`motion where a party demonstrates that “good cause” exists. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC,
`
`809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016). The “good cause” standard requires a “particularized showing”
`
`that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd
`
`v. Gen Motors Corp.¸ 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Broad
`
`allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice.
`
`Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). A request to seal material “must
`
`be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” L.R. 79-5(b).
`
`Good cause exists to seal the identified information. The information sought to be sealed relates
`
`to confidential license terms and license negotiations between Finjan and its third-party licensees.
`
`Publication of this information would enact a significant competitive harm on Finjan of at least two
`
`types. First, it would diminish future potential licensees’ willingness to enter into private negotiation
`
`with Finjan due to uncertainty about the long-term confidentiality of such negotiations. Second, it
`
`would give future potential licensees insight into Finjan’s confidential licensing strategies and objectives
`
`that potential licensees would not otherwise have, and without giving Finjan complementary insight
`
`into the licensees’ strategies or objectives. See generally Declaration of Robert Courtney; Declaration of
`
`Julie Mar-Spinola. Finjan marked this information as confidential under the protective order, and now
`
`respectfully seeks to seal this information as it appears in the Daubert order.
`
`The public has minimal interest in gaining access to the confidential license terms and
`
`
`
`2
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`FINJAN’S MOTION TO SEAL DAUBERT ORDER
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 645 Filed 01/07/21 Page 4 of 5
`
`
`
`
`negotiation correspondence addressed by the twelve lines of the Daubert order Finjan seeks to seal.
`
`Finjan makes information about its licensing program available to the public in a variety of ways,
`
`including on its web site finjan.com, and via SEC filings and investor presentations. Finjan is aware of
`
`no actual interest by the general public in the confidential details of Finjan’s past licenses and past license
`
`negotiations. As such, Finjan respectfully proposes that the interests supporting sealing—the business
`
`interests of Finjan and its third-party licensees—outweigh the public’s interest in access as to the twelve
`
`lines that Finjan seeks to seal. Indeed, prior orders in this District have specifically recognized that
`
`confidential licensing information similar to this is sealable. Apple, 2012 WL 3283478, at *7.
`
`Additionally. Finjan’s request is narrowly tailored to seal only confidential information for which good
`
`cause to seal exists.
`
`Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5, Finjan has filed a version of the Daubert order with sealable
`
`information redacted on the public record, attached to this motion, along with an unredacted copy of
`
`the order indicating the requested redactions. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-11(a), Finjan certifies that
`
`the parties have met and conferred, and Juniper does not oppose the requested relief, but was unable
`
`to execute a stipulation as to the sealability of the material at issue. Courtney Decl. ¶ 5.
`
` CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons set forth above, Finjan respectfully moves that the Court grant Finjan’s
`
`motion and seal the lines of the Daubert order discussed herein.
`
`
`
`Dated: January 7, 2021
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Juanita R. Brooks
`Juanita R. Brooks (CA SBN 75934) brooks@fr.com
`Frank J. Albert (CA SBN 247741) albert@fr.com
`Oliver J. Richards (CA SBN 310972) ojr@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`12860 El Camino Real, Suite 400
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Phone: (858) 678-5070 / Fax: (858) 678-5099
`
`
`
`
`3
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`FINJAN’S MOTION TO SEAL DAUBERT ORDER
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 645 Filed 01/07/21 Page 5 of 5
`
`Robert Courtney (CA SBN 248392), courtney@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Tel: (612) 335-5070 / Fax: (612) 288-9696
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff FINJAN, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`4
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`FINJAN’S MOTION TO SEAL DAUBERT ORDER
`
`