`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`JUNIPER NETWORK, INC., et al.,
`
`No. C 17-05659 WHA
`
`
`
`ORDER RE MOTION TO SEAL
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Juniper Network, Inc. moves to seal three documents filed in conjunction with its
`
`objections to the special master’s report and recommendation on fees (Dkt. No. 660).
`
`There is a strong public policy in favor of openness in our court system and the public is
`
`entitled to know to whom we are providing relief (or not). See Kamakana v. City & Cty. of
`
`Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–80 (9th Cir. 2006). To seal records in connection with a
`
`“dispositive” motion, or one “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case,” requires
`
`“compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of
`
`access and the public policies favoring disclosure”; sealing records connected with non-
`
`dispositive motions requires a showing of good cause. See ibid. (quotations and citations
`
`omitted); Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). A
`
`classic example of a compelling reason is “business information that might harm a litigant’s
`
`competitive standing.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1096–97 (9th Cir.
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 675 Filed 09/07/21 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`2016) (quotations and citations omitted). “Supporting declarations may not rely on vague
`
`boilerplate language or nebulous assertions of potential harm but must explain with
`
`particularity why any document or portion thereof remains sealable under the applicable legal
`
`standard.” Bronson v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., No. C 18-02300 WHA, 2019 WL 7810811, at
`
`*1 (N.D. Cal. May 28, 2019) (citing Civ. L.R. 79-5).
`
`First, Exhibit D to the declaration of Jonathan S. Kagan in support of Juniper’s request
`
`for fees and expenses contains redactions of personal home addresses for attorneys and experts
`
`involved in this litigation. This order finds these narrow redactions of private, personal
`
`information compelling, and the motion to seal excerpts of Exhibit D is accordingly GRANTED.
`
`Second, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e), Juniper conditionally filed under seal the
`
`entirety of Finjan’s brief regarding Juniper’s submission on fees and the declaration of Robert
`
`Courtney supporting Finjan’s brief regarding Juniper’s submission on fees. Finjan has not
`
`filed a declaration establishing that the designated material is sealable. Accordingly, the
`
`motion to seal as to Finjan’s brief and the supporting Courtney declaration is DENIED.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`Dated: September 7, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WILLIAM ALSUP
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`2
`
`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
