Case 5:15-cv-03295-BLF Document 101 Filed 09/01/16 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`Case No. 15-cv-03295-BLF
`
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING SEALING
`MOTION
`
`[Re: ECF 88]
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`BLUE COAT SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`Before the Court is Defendant’s administrative motion to file under seal portions of their
`
`briefing and exhibits. ECF 88. For the reasons stated below, the motion is GRANTED.
`
`I. LEGAL STANDARD
`
` “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records
`
`and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435
`
`18
`
`19
`
`U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are
`
`“more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of
`
`20
`
`“compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092,
`
`21
`
`22
`
`1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed
`
`upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097.
`
`23
`
`
`
`In addition, sealing motions filed in this district must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing
`
`24
`
`25
`
`only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). A party moving to seal a document in whole or in
`
`part must file a declaration establishing that the identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79 -
`
`26
`
`5(d)(1)(A). “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain
`
`27
`
`28
`
`documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are
`
`sealable.” Id.
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-03295-BLF Document 101 Filed 09/01/16 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`The Court has reviewed Defendant’s sealing motion and declarations in support thereof.
`
`The Court finds that Defendant has articulated compelling reasons to seal the submitted
`
`documents. The proposed redactions are also narrowly tailored. The Court’s ruling on the sealing
`
`request is set forth in the table below:
`
`
`
`Description of Documents
`
`References to Blue Coat’s
`highly confidential information
`regarding products and
`functionality, operation,
`architecture, and development
`thereof, including reference to
`portions of Blue Coat’s source
`code (“technical information”).
`
`References to Blue Coat’s
`highly confidential technical
`information.
`
`Identification of Documents
`to be Sealed
`Defendant Blue Coat Systems,
`Inc.’s Motion to Strike
`Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s Patent
`L.R. 3-1 Infringement
`Contentions Regarding U.S.
`Patent Nos. 6,154,844;
`6,965,968; and 7,418,731
`(“Blue Coat’s Motion to
`Strike”), redacted at 11:4-16,
`21-23.
`Ex. 1 to Declaration of Gina H.
`Cremona in Support of Blue
`Coat’s Motion to Strike
`Infringement Contentions
`(“Cremona Declaration”),
`redacted portions at pp. 9, 11,
`12, 26, 27, 32, 34, 35, 39, 43,
`44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 53-55, 58,
`65, 68, 74, 82, 83.
`Ex. 2 to Cremona Declaration,
`redacted portions at pp. 3-5,
`12-13, 15-21, 24-26, 29, 30,
`35-40, 43, 44, 47-53, 57-60,
`63, 64, 67-77, 80-84, 87-91,
`97, 99-103, 110, 111, 113, 114,
`118, 119, 126-129.
`Ex. 3 to Cremona Declaration,
`redacted portions at pp. 1, 30,
`35, 42, 43.
`Ex. 4 to Cremona Declaration,
`redacted portions at pp. 30, 35,
`47.
`Ex. 5 to Cremona Declaration,
`redacted portions at pp. 1, 8,
`15, 21, 22, 26, 27, 38, 42, 44,
`56, 65, 66, 72, 73, 78.
`Ex. 6 to Cremona Declaration,
`redacted portions at pp. 4, 7-
`10, 12, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29,
`38, 39, 40-42, 50, 53, 54, 56,
`57.
`Ex. 7 to Cremona Declaration, References to Blue Coat’s
`
`References to Blue Coat’s
`highly confidential technical
`information.
`
`References to Blue Coat’s
`highly confidential technical
`information.
`References to Blue Coat’s
`highly confidential technical
`information.
`References to Blue Coat’s
`highly confidential technical
`information.
`
`References to Blue Coat’s
`highly confidential technical
`information.
`
`2
`
`Court’s Order
`
`GRANTED.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`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 5:15-cv-03295-BLF Document 101 Filed 09/01/16 Page 3 of 3
`
`highly confidential technical
`information.
`
`References to Blue Coat’s
`highly confidential technical
`information.
`
`References to Blue Coat’s
`highly confidential technical
`information.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`
`
`redacted portions at pp. 1, 11,
`62, 63, 81, 82, 107, 108, 120,
`126
`Ex. 8 to Cremona Declaration,
`redacted portions at pp. 13, 33,
`39, 40, 53, 54, 60, 61, 70, 71,
`92, 93, 100, 110.
`Ex. 9 to Cremona Declaration,
`redacted portions at pp. 3-5,
`12, 14-25, 30, 34-36, 38, 39,
`40-51, 54-64, 68- 74, 77-78,
`80-82, 86-96, 98, 99, 100-106,
`108-109, 113-119.
`
`
`
`III. ORDER
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motion at ECF 88 is GRANTED.
`
`
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`Dated: September 1, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` ______________________________________
`BETH LABSON FREEMAN
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court