`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`BLUE COAT SYSTEMS, LLC,
`
`Case No. 15-cv-03295-BLF
`
`
`OMNIBUS ORDER RE SEALING
`MOTIONS
`
`[Re: ECF 245, 249]
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Before the Court are two administrative motions to file under seal, one from Plaintiff
`
`Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”) and one from Defendant Blue Coat Systems, LLC (“Blue Coat”). ECF
`
`245, 249. Both relate to the reply briefing on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment.
`
`See ECF 245, 249. For the reasons set forth below, the parties’ motions are 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 & 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
`
`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 258 Filed 06/13/17 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`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
`
`The Court has reviewed the parties’ sealing motions and the declarations submitted in
`
`support thereof. The Court finds that the parties have articulated compelling reasons and good
`
`cause to seal certain portions of the submitted documents. The proposed redactions are also
`
`narrowly tailored. The Court’s rulings on the sealing requests are set forth in the tables below:
`
`A. ECF 245
`ECF
`Document to
`No.
`be Sealed
`245-2 Blue Coat’s
`Reply in
`Support of its
`Motion for
`Summary
`Judgment
`
`245-4
`
`245-6
`
`Ex. B to Marder
`Declaration in
`Support of Blue
`Coat’s Reply in
`Support of its
`Motion for
`Summary
`Judgment, ECF
`247 (“Marder
`Decl.”)
`Ex. C to Marder
`Decl.
`
`Result
`
`Reasoning
`
`GRANTED as
`to highlighted
`portions.
`
`GRANTED as
`to highlighted
`portions.
`
`Contains information relating to details of the
`internal operation of Blue Coat’s products,
`including backend systems related to those
`products, as well as Blue Coat’s confidential
`business operations. Declaration of Eugene
`Marder in Support of Administrative Motion to
`File Under Seal, ECF 245-1 (“Marder Blue Coat
`Sealing Decl.”) ¶¶ 5-9.
`Contains references to highly confidential Blue
`Coat information regarding the ProxySG and
`SSLV products and their functionality,
`interoperability, operation, and architecture.
`Marder Blue Coat Sealing Decl.¶ 10.
`
`GRANTED as
`to highlighted
`portions.
`
`Contains references to highly confidential Blue
`Coat information regarding products and
`functionality, research projects, product
`architecture and operations, network infrastructure,
`and development thereof, including reference to
`Blue Coat’s backend systems. Marder Blue Coat
`Sealing Decl.¶ 11.
`
`B. ECF 249
`ECF
`Document to
`No.
`be Sealed
`
`Result
`
`Reasoning
`
`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 258 Filed 06/13/17 Page 3 of 3
`
`GRANTED as
`to highlighted
`portions.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`Contains highly confidential technical information
`regarding Blue Coat’s proprietary technology, and
`confidential aspects of Blue Coat’s business.
`Declaration of Eugene Marder in Support of
`Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, ECF
`253 (“Marder Finjan Sealing Decl.”) ¶ 5.
`Contains highly confidential technical information
`regarding Blue Coat’s proprietary technology, and
`confidential aspects of Blue Coat’s business.
`Marder Finjan Sealing Decl. ¶ 6.
`
`
`
`249-4
`
`249-
`
`249-
`
`249-
`
`Finjan’s Reply
`in Support of its
`Motion for
`Summary
`Judgment
`
`Ex. 1 to
`Martinez
`Declaration in
`Support of
`Finjan’s Reply
`in Support of its
`Motion for
`Summary
`Judgment, ECF
`250-1
`(“Martinez
`Decl.”)
`Ex. 2 to
`Martinez Decl.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`Ex. 3 to
`Martinez Decl.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`Contains highly confidential business information
`regarding Blue Coat’s offerings. Marder Finjan
`Sealing Decl. ¶ 7.
`Contains highly confidential technical information
`regarding Blue Coat’s proprietary technology, and
`confidential aspects of Blue Coat’s business.
`Marder Finjan Sealing Decl. ¶ 8.
`Contains highly confidential technical information
`regarding Blue Coat’s proprietary technology, and
`confidential aspects of Blue Coat’s business.
`Marder Finjan Sealing Decl. ¶ 9.
`Contains highly confidential technical information
`regarding Blue Coat’s proprietary technology, and
`confidential aspects of Blue Coat’s business.
`Marder Finjan Sealing Decl. ¶ 10.
`Contains highly confidential technical information
`regarding Blue Coat’s proprietary technology, and
`confidential aspects of Blue Coat’s business.
`Marder Finjan Sealing Decl. ¶ 11.
`
`249-
`
`Ex. 4 to
`Martinez Decl.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`249-
`
`Ex. 5 to
`Martinez Decl.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`249-
`
`Ex. 6 to
`Martinez Decl.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`III. ORDER
`
`For the reasons set forth below, the parties’ motions are GRANTED.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: June 13, 2017
`
`
`
`______________________________________
`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
`
`