Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 240 Filed 03/09/20 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SONICWALL, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 17-cv-04467-BLF (VKD)
`
`
`ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE
`MOTIONS TO SEAL
`
`Re: Dkt. Nos. 215, 220, 224
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In connection with plaintiff Finjan, Inc’s motion for leave to amend its infringement
`
`contentions (Dkt. No. 216), the parties filed administrative motions to file portions of their
`
`briefing and associated documents under seal. Dkt. Nos. 215, 220, 224. Having considered those
`
`motions, the Court grants the administrative motions, as set forth below.
`
`There is a strong presumption in favor of access by the public to judicial records and
`
`documents accompanying dispositive motions that can be overcome only by a showing of
`
`“compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of
`
`Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
`
`However, the presumption does not apply equally to a motion addressing matters that are only
`
`“tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d
`
`1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied sub nom. FCA U.S. LLC v. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 137 S. Ct.
`
`38 (2016). A litigant seeking to seal documents or information in connection with such a motion
`
`must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`Id. at 1098–99; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80.
`
`The parties’ respective motions to seal concern matters that are before the Court 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 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 240 Filed 03/09/20 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`connection with Finjan’s motion for leave to amend its infringement contentions. The underlying
`
`motion papers do not address the merits of the parties’ claims or defenses, but rather whether
`
`Finjan has made a sufficient showing under Patent Local Rule 3-6 to amend its infringement
`
`contentions. The material to be sealed is related to the merits of the case, but only to the extent
`
`that Finjan’s contentions frame the scope of the parties’ dispute on questions of infringement. The
`
`Court therefore applies the “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c).
`
`Most of the material proposed to be filed under seal constitutes technical information and
`
`source code concerning the SonicWall products and services at issue in the action. SonicWall
`
`represents that much of this material is confidential or highly confidential information and that
`
`disclosure to the public would cause competitive harm to SonicWall. The Court agrees and finds
`
`that SonicWall has demonstrated good cause to seal the following material:
`
`
`
`Document
`
`Portions to be Sealed
`
`Finjan’s Motion for Leave to Amend
`Infringement Contentions (Dkt. No. 216)
`
`Pg. 7, lines 14-16
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Lisa Kobialka in Support of
`Finjan’s Motion for Leave to Amend
`Infringement Contentions (Dkt. No. 216-1)
`
`
`
`SonicWall’s Response in Opposition to
`Finjan’s Motion for Leave to Amend
`Infringement Contentions (Dkt. No. 221)
`
`
`
`Finjan’s Reply in Support of Motion for Leave
`to Amend Infringement Contentions (Dkt. No.
`225)
`
`Declaration of Aakash Jariwala in Support of
`Finjan’s Reply in Support of Motion for Leave
`to Amend Infringement Contentions (Dkt. No.
`
`Exhibit 3
`Appendices A-1 through J-7
`
`Pg. 4, line 22
`Pg. 5, line 25
`Pg. 9, lines 1-15
`Pg. 10, lines 1-17
`
`Pg. 1, lines 12-13
`Pg. 2, lines 23-24
`Pg. 3, lines 15-16
`Pg. 5, lines 3-4, 8, 10, 11-16, 21-22, 23-28
`Pg. 6, lines 1-28
`Pg. 7, lines 1-3
`Pg. 8, lines 17-18
`
`Exhibits 3, 5-9
`
`
`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 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 240 Filed 03/09/20 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`225-1)
`
`
`
`The Court notes that some of the material the parties ask to file under seal appears to refer
`
`to matters and information described at a relatively high level and/or previously described in the
`
`Court’s November 20, 2019 order striking Finjan’s second supplemental infringement contentions.
`
`Dkt. No. 210. In connection with that order, the Court provided the parties an opportunity to
`
`identify any necessary redactions before the order was filed publicly. Dkt. No. 197. Neither party
`
`requested any redactions. Dkt. No. 208. Accordingly, the Court re-filed the order without any
`
`redactions. Dkt. No. 210. Future requests for sealing should address whether the information
`
`proposed to be sealed has already been publicly disclosed.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: March 9, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI
`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
`
`