`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`FINJAN, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`QUALYS INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Case No. 18-cv-07229-YGR (TSH)
`
`
`ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL
`
`Re: Dkt. No. 135
`
`On November 6, 2020, Finjan filed a motion to seal. ECF No. 135. The motion sought to
`
`seal two documents: Qualys’s October 1, 2020 Supplemental Objections and Responses to
`
`Finjan’s First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-6) and Qualys’s October 1, 2020 Supplemental
`
`Objections and Responses to Finjan’s Third Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 12-19). The motion
`
`stated that the reason for sealing the documents was that Qualys had designed them as
`
`“confidential” under the terms of the protective order.
`
`Civil Local Rule 79-5(e) states that “[i]f the Submitting Party is seeking to file under seal a
`
`document designated as confidential by the opposing party or a non-party pursuant to a protective
`
`order, or a document containing information so designated by an opposing party or a non-party,
`
`the Submitting Party’s declaration in support of the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal
`
`must identify the document or portions thereof which contain the designated confidential material
`
`and identify the party that has designated the material as confidential (‘the Designating Party’).
`
`The declaration must be served on the Designating Party on the same day it is filed and a proof of
`
`such service must also be filed.” Finjan did those things.
`
`The rule goes on to state that “[w]ithin 4 days of the filing of the Administrative Motion to
`
`File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection 79-
`
`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 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 141 Filed 11/12/20 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” And “[i]f the Designating
`
`Party does not file a responsive declaration as required by subsection 79-5(e)(1) and the
`
`Administrative Motion to File Under Seal is denied, the Submitting Party may file the document
`
`in the public record no earlier than 4 days, and no later than 10 days, after the motion is denied.”
`
`Here, it has been more than four days since the filing of the motion to seal, and Qualys has
`
`not filed the required declaration. Accordingly, the motion to seal at ECF No. 135 is denied.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`Dated: November 12, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`THOMAS S. HIXSON
`United States Magistrate 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
