`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:15-cv-03295-BLF Document 223 Filed 05/15/17 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 GRANTING BLUE COAT
`SYSTEMS LLC’S MOTION TO FILE
`UNDER SEAL AN EXHIBIT IN
`SUPPORT OF ITS REPLY 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 an Exhibit in Support of Defendant Blue Coat System LLC’s Reply in
`
`Support of Motion to Strike Portions of Expert Reports. ECF 222. 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
`
`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
`
`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 223 Filed 05/15/17 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`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
`
`sealable.” Id.
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`Blue Coat moves to seal in its entirety Exhibit A to Declaration of Eugene Marder in
`
`Support of Blue Coat Systems LLC’s Reply in Support of Motion to Strike Portions of Expert
`
`Reports (ECF 221). According to Blue Coat, this document contains 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 222-1. This
`
`includes information relating to details of the internal operation of Blue Coat’s SSL Visibility
`
`Appliance and ProxySG devices, as well as those devices’ interoperation and Blue Coat’s
`
`confidential business operations. Id. ¶ 5. 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. ¶ 6. The Court finds
`
`that Blue Coat has articulated compelling reasons and good cause to seal the submitted documents.
`
`In addition, the Court finds the sealing request to be narrowly tailored. Accordingly, the Court
`
`GRANTS Blue Coat’s motion to seal.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`Dated: May 15, 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
`
`