Case 5:15-cv-03295-BLF Document 134 Filed 11/02/16 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`E-filed 11/2/2016
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`BLUE COAT SYSTEMS, LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No.15-cv-03295-BLF (HRL)
`
`ORDER GRANTING
`ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO
`FILE UNDER SEAL
`
`
`Re: Dkt. Nos. 106, 118
`
`
`
`
`
`Pending before this Court are the Administrative Motions by Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.
`
`(“Finjan”) and Defendant Blue Coat Systems, LLC (“Blue Coat”) to file under seal certain
`
`portions of Finjan’s Opposition to Blue Coat’s Motion to Strike Finjan’s Infringement Contentions
`
`(and the exhibits thereto) and portions of Blue Coat’s Reply. Dkt. Nos. 106, 118. For the reasons
`
`stated below, the motions are GRANTED.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`The courts recognize a common-law right of access to public records, and a strong
`
`presumption in favor of public access exists. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d
`
`1122, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2003). This right of access, however, is not absolute and can be
`
`overridden. Id. at 1135. The party seeking to seal judicial records bears the burden of overcoming
`
`the presumption in favor of access. Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,
`
`1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006).
`
`The court applies one of two standards in evaluating motions to seal: the lower good cause
`
`standard, which applies to non-dispositive matters, and the more stringent compelling reasons
`
`standard, which applies to dispositive matters. See Luo v. Zynga, Inc., No. 13-cv-00186 NC, 2013
`
`WL 5814763, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 29, 2013). Under the good cause standard, the party must
`
`make a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the document is
`
`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 134 Filed 11/02/16 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`not filed under seal. Id. at *1 (quoting San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court. N. Dist.
`
`(San Jose), 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999)). Under the compelling reasons standard, the
`
`party seeking disclosure must “‘articulate[] compelling reasons supported by specific factual
`
`findings’ . . . that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring
`
`disclosure . . . .” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
`
`Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted).
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`A motion to strike infringement contentions is a non-dispositive motion, and so the less
`
`stringent good cause standard applies to these motions to seal. Finjan Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No.
`
`13-cv-05808, 2015 WL 9023164, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2015); ASUS Computer Int’l v. Round
`
`Rock Research, LLC, No. 12-cv-02099 JST (NC), 2014 WL 465363, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 3,
`
`2014).
`
`The Court has reviewed the parties’ sealing motions and their supporting declarations and
`
`finds that the parties have shown good cause to seal certain portions of the submitted documents.
`
`The Court also finds that the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored. Thus, the Court GRANTS
`
`the parties’ motions to seal the following:
`
`1. Dkt. No. 106:
`
`
`
`Document/Section to be Sealed
`Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s Opposition to Blue
`Coat Systems, Inc.’s Motion to Strike
`Finjan’s Infringement Contentions
`(“Opposition”) at 8:7-11, 13-18, 21-22,
`24-25; 9:1; 11:23-26; 12:1-2; 13:17-25;
`14:1, 3-5.
`Declaration of James Hannah in Support
`of Finjan’s Opposition (“Hannah Decl.”),
`Exhibits 6 and 15 in their entirety.
`Hannah Decl., Exhibit 16 at pg. 1, ¶1:1, 3;
`¶4:1; pg. 2, ¶1:2-3.
`
`Description of Document/Section
`The specified sections contain
`confidential technical and business
`information regarding Blue Coat’s
`products.
`
`These Exhibits disclose Blue Coat’s
`confidential technical information.
`
`The specified sections contain
`confidential technical and business
`information regarding Blue Coat’s
`products.
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 5:15-cv-03295-BLF Document 134 Filed 11/02/16 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`Hannah Decl., Exhibit 17 at pg. 1, ¶ 1:4,
`12.
`
`Hannah Decl., Exhibit 18, at 24:1-25;
`25:1-25; 106:1-25.
`
`Hannah Decl., Exhibit 19 at 259:1-25.
`
`Hannah Decl., Exhibit 21 at 16:1-25;
`17:1-25.
`
`The specified sections contain
`confidential technical and business
`information regarding Blue Coat’s
`products.
`The specified sections disclose Blue
`Coat’s confidential information
`concerning its products and services.
`The specified section discloses Blue
`Coat’s confidential information
`concerning its products and services.
`The specified sections disclose Blue
`Coat’s confidential information
`concerning its products and services.
`
`2. Dkt. No. 118:
`
`
`
`Document/Section to be Sealed
`Reply in Support of 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 Reply”), redacted
`at 2:2-3, 23, 26-28; 3:4-5; 7:8-10.
`
`
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: 11/2/2016
`
`
`
`Description of Document/Section
`The specified sections contain references
`to highly confidential Blue Coat
`information regarding products and
`functionality.
`
`
`
`
`
`HOWARD R. LLOYD
`United States Magistrate 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
`
`