`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 PORTIONS OF ITS
`AMENDED REPLY
`
`[Re: ECF 260]
`
`
`
`Before the Court is Defendant Blue Coat Systems LLC’s (“Blue Coat”) administrative
`
`motion to file under seal portions of its Amended Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary
`
`Judgment (“Amended Reply”). ECF 260. For the reasons set forth below, Blue Coat’s 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 & 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 267 Filed 06/19/17 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`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 Blue Coat’s sealing motion and the declaration submitted in
`
`support thereof. According to Blue Coat, the portions of the Amended Reply for which sealing is
`
`requested contain information which relates to the operation and infrastructure of backend systems
`
`and services and other highly confidential information about the operation and development of the
`
`accused products. Declaration of Robin L. Brewer in Support of Administrative Motion to File
`
`Under Seal, ECF 260-1 ¶¶ 4-8. These portions also contain information relating to Blue Coat’s
`
`highly confidential business operations. Id. The Court finds that Blue Coat has articulated
`
`compelling reasons and good cause for sealing. The proposed redactions are also narrowly
`
`tailored. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Blue Coat’s motion to seal.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`Dated: June 19, 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
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
