`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 GRANTING
`ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
`UNDER SEAL
`
`Re: Dkt. No. 249
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In connection with a discovery dispute concerning defendant SonicWall, Inc.’s requests to
`
`obtain documents from another action that plaintiff Finjan, Inc. contends are protected under the
`
`attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine (Dkt. No. 248), SonicWall filed an
`
`administrative motion to file portions of the parties’ joint discovery dispute letter and an
`
`associated exhibit under seal. Dkt. No. 249. Having considered the parties’ submissions, the
`
`Court grants the administrative motion, 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.
`
`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 253 Filed 04/22/20 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`Id. at 1098–99; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80.
`
`SonicWall’s motion to seal concerns information submitted in connection with a discovery
`
`dispute. The underlying discovery dispute does not address the merits of the parties’ claims or
`
`defenses, but rather whether Finjan’s assertion of the attorney-client privilege and attorney work
`
`product doctrine is proper. The material to be sealed is only tangentially related to the merits of
`
`the case. The Court therefore applies the “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c).
`
`The material proposed to be filed under seal is derived from documents that have been
`
`designated “Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” Finjan contends that the material encompasses
`
`confidential business and competitive information and that the material is also privileged, which
`
`the parties dispute. Dkt. No. 252. In these circumstances, the Court finds that good cause exists to
`
`seal the following material:
`
`
`
`Document
`
`Portions to be Sealed
`
`Highlighted portions on pages 2 and 3, and
`Exhibit A
`
`Joint Discovery Letter (Dkt. No. 248)
`
`
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: April 22, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI
`United States Magistrate 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
