Case 5:15-cv-03295-BLF Document 211 Filed 04/28/17 Page 1 of 2
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`BLUE COAT SYSTEMS, LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 15-cv-03295-BLF
`
`
`ORDER DENYING BLUE COAT
`SYSTEMS LLC’S MOTION TO FILE
`UNDER SEAL CERTAIN EXHIBITS IN
`SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE
`PORTIONS OF EXPERT REPORTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before the Court is Defendant Blue Coat Systems, LLC’s (“Blue Coat”) Administrative
`
`Motion to File Under Seal Certain Exhibits in Support of Defendant Blue Coat Systems LLC’s Motion
`
`to Strike Portions of Expert Reports. ECF 754. For the reasons stated below, the motion is
`
`DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
`
`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
`
`Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435
`
`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
`
`“compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092,
`
`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.
`
`In addition, sealing motions filed in this district must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing
`
`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-
`
`5(d)(1)(A). “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain
`
`documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are
`
`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 211 Filed 04/28/17 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`sealable.” Id.
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`The Court has reviewed Blue Coat’s sealing motion (ECF 205) and its declaration in
`
`support thereof (ECF 205-1). Blue Coat seeks to seal in their entirety Exhibits A-E and G-I to the
`
`Marder Declaration in support of Blue Coat’s Motion to Strike Portions of Expert Reports, located
`
`at ECF 205-4, -6, -8, -10, -12, -14, -16, and -18. According to Blue Coat, these documents
`
`“contain highly confidential technical information regarding Blue Coat’s proprietary technology,
`
`and confidential aspects of Blue Coat’s business.” Marder Decl. ISO Administrative Motion to
`
`File Under Seal ¶ 3, ECF 205-1. Blue Coat also states that public disclosure of this information
`
`“would create substantial risk of serious harm to Blue Coat, including evasion of Blue Coat’s
`
`malware analysis tools, disclosure to competitors regarding the scanning tools used in the accused
`
`products, and Blue Coat’s approach to fixes in the products.” Id. ¶ 5.
`
`The Court finds that, although Blue Coat has articulated compelling reasons and good
`
`cause to seal portions of the submitted documents, its request is not narrowly tailored. Blue Coat
`
`seeks to seal each of the documents in their entirety, whereas Blue Coat’s statements regarding
`
`confidentiality apply only to select portions of each of the documents. For this reason, the Court
`
`DENIES Blue Coat’s sealing motion WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
`
`III. ORDER
`
`Blue Coat’s sealing motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. No later than 10 days
`
`from the filing of this order, Blue Coat may renew its motion so as to more narrowly tailor its
`
`request to seal and/or provide sufficient reasons in the supporting declaration to seal the
`
`documents in their entirety. If Blue Coat does not renew its motion, it must, pursuant to Civil
`
`Local Rule 79-5(e)(2), file the unredacted documents into the public record no earlier than 4 days
`
`and no later than 10 days from the filing of this order.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: April 28, 2017
`
`
`
`______________________________________
`BETH LABSON FREEMAN
`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
`
`