Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 382 Filed 03/08/21 Page 1 of 30
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`FINJAN LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SONICWALL, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 17-cv-04467-BLF
`
`
`OMNIBUS ORDER RE: SEALING
`MOTIONS AT ECF 319, 327, 329, 335
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before the Court are administrative motions filed by Plaintiff Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”) and
`
`Defendant SonicWall, Inc. (“SonicWall”) to file under seal portions of their briefs and exhibits in
`
`connection with SonicWall’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (at ECF 320). For the reasons
`
`stated below, (1) SonicWall’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal at ECF 319 is GRANTED,
`
`(2) Finjan’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal at ECF 327 is TERMINATED as moot, (3)
`
`Finjan’s Amended Administrative Motion to File Under Seal at ECF 329 is GRANTED, and (4)
`
`SonicWall’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal at ECF 335 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 & Cty. 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)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong presumption in favor of
`
`access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122,
`
`1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that are “more than
`
`tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden of overcoming the
`
`presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of access and the public
`
`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 382 Filed 03/08/21 Page 2 of 30
`
`
`
`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
`
`policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir.
`
`2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79.
`
`However, “while protecting the public’s interest in access to the courts, we must remain
`
`mindful of the parties’ right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm
`
`their competitive interest.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228–29 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2013). Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the
`
`merits of a case” therefore are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety,
`
`809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access
`
`to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often
`
`unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving to seal
`
`the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c).
`
`Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This standard requires a
`
`“particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is
`
`disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir.
`
`2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples
`
`of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476
`
`(9th Cir. 1992). A protective order sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court’s
`
`previous determination that good cause exists to keep the documents sealed, see Kamakana, 447
`
`F.3d at 1179–80, but a blanket protective order that allows the parties to designate confidential
`
`documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine whether each particular
`
`document should remain sealed. See 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.”).
`
`In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal
`
`documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ. L.R.
`
`79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document is
`
`“sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under
`
`the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must
`
`2
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 382 Filed 03/08/21 Page 3 of 30
`
`
`
`conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the
`
`submitting party to attach a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable
`
`material” which “lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,”
`
`Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an “unredacted version of the document” that indicates “by highlighting
`
`or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the redacted
`
`version.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d). “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative Motion to File
`
`Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A)
`
`establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`The Court has reviewed the parties’ sealing motions and the declarations of the designating
`
`parties submitted in support thereof. The Court’s rulings on the sealing requests are set forth in the
`
`tables below. Where the designating party has requested sealing, the Court finds that the parties
`
`have articulated compelling reasons to seal certain portions of the submitted documents and the
`
`proposed redactions are generally narrowly tailored.
`
`A. ECF 319, Sealing Motion Related to SonicWall’s Motion for Partial Summary
`Judgment
`
`
`
`ECF or Exh.
`No.
`ECF 320
`
`Document
`
`Result
`
`Reasoning
`
`Defendant SonicWall,
`Inc’s Motion for
`Summary Judgement
`
`GRANTED as
`to highlighted
`portions at:
`Page 3: lines 2-
`7, 9-10, 14-15;
`Page 7: lines
`12-13, 19-20,
`23;
`Page 11: lines
`2-3, 5-10, 18;
`Page 12: lines
`1-4, 12-16;
`Page 14: lines
`16-17;
`Page 17: lines
`13-14, 18-20;
`Page 19: lines
`15, 19, 22, 24-
`
`3
`
`The highlighted portions of this
`document reflect information that
`SonicWall has designated as
`“Highly Confidential – Attorneys’
`Eyes Only” or “Highly
`Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes
`Only – Source Code” pursuant to
`the Stipulated Protective Order. If
`filed publicly, this confidential
`information could be used to
`SonicWall’s disadvantage by
`competitors as it concerns the
`identification, organization, and
`or operation of SonicWall’s
`proprietary products. See
`Declaration of Nicole E. Grigg in
`Support of Administrative Motion
`to File Documents Under Seal
`
`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 382 Filed 03/08/21 Page 4 of 30
`
`
`
`ECF or Exh.
`No.
`
`3 to Gunther
`Declaration
`
`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
`
`4 to Gunther
`Declaration
`
`Excerpts from the
`September 4, 2020
`Expert Report of
`DeForest McDuff,
`Ph.D
`
`GRANTED as
`to entire
`document.
`
`5 to Gunther
`Declaration
`
`Excerpts from the July
`9, 2020 John
`Gmuender Deposition
`Transcript
`
`
`GRANTED as
`to entire
`document.
`
`4
`
`Document
`
`Result
`
`Reasoning
`
`28;
`Page 20: lines
`1-4, 6-9, 12, 16-
`23;
`Page 21: lines
`6-8.
`GRANTED as
`to entire
`document.
`
`Excerpts from the
`September 3, 2020
`Expert Report of Dr.
`Nenad Medvidovic
`Regarding
`Infringement by
`SonicWall, Inc. of
`Patent Nos. 8,225,408;
`7,975,305; and
`8,141,154
`
`(“Grigg Declaration”), ¶¶ 2-5.
`
`This document reflects
`information that SonicWall has
`designated as “Highly
`Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes
`Only” or “Highly Confidential –
`Attorney’s Eyes Only – Source
`Code” pursuant to the Stipulated
`Protective Order. If filed publicly,
`this confidential information
`could be used to SonicWall’s
`disadvantage by competitors as it
`concerns the identification,
`organization, and or operation of
`SonicWall’s proprietary products.
`See Grigg Declaration ¶¶ 2-5.
`This document reflects
`information that SonicWall has
`designated as “Highly
`Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes
`Only” pursuant to the Stipulated
`Protective Order. If filed publicly,
`this confidential information
`could be used to SonicWall’s
`disadvantage by competitors as it
`concerns SonicWall’s confidential
`financial and business
`information. See Grigg
`Declaration ¶¶ 2-5.
`This document reflects testimony
`that SonicWall has designated as
`“Highly Confidential – Attorneys’
`Eyes Only” or “Highly
`Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes
`Only – Source Code” pursuant to
`the Stipulated Protective Order. If
`filed publicly, this confidential
`information could be used to
`SonicWall’s disadvantage by
`competitors as it concerns the
`identification, organization, and
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 382 Filed 03/08/21 Page 5 of 30
`
`
`
`ECF or Exh.
`No.
`
`Document
`
`Result
`
`Reasoning
`
`6 to Gunther
`Declaration
`
`Excerpts from the July
`16, 2020 Shunhui Zhu
`Deposition Transcript.
`
`GRANTED as
`to entire
`document.
`
`7 to Gunther
`Declaration
`
`Excerpts from the July
`29, 2020 Dmitriy
`Ayrapetov Deposition
`Transcript
`
`GRANTED as
`to entire
`document.
`
`8 to Gunther
`Declaration
`
`Excerpts from the July
`24, 2020 Matt
`Neiderman Deposition
`Transcript
`
`GRANTED as
`to entire
`document.
`
`5
`
`or operation of SonicWall’s
`proprietary products. See Grigg
`Declaration ¶¶ 2-5.
`This document reflects testimony
`that SonicWall has designated as
`“Highly Confidential – Attorneys’
`Eyes Only” or “Highly
`Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes
`Only – Source Code” pursuant to
`the Stipulated Protective Order. If
`filed publicly, this confidential
`information could be used to
`SonicWall’s disadvantage by
`competitors as it concerns the
`identification, organization, and
`or operation of SonicWall’s
`proprietary products. See Grigg
`Declaration ¶¶ 2-5.
`This document reflects testimony
`that SonicWall has designated as
`“Highly Confidential – Attorneys’
`Eyes Only” or “Highly
`Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes
`Only – Source Code” pursuant to
`the Stipulated Protective Order. If
`filed publicly, this confidential
`information could be used to
`SonicWall’s disadvantage by
`competitors as it concerns the
`identification, organization, and
`or operation of SonicWall’s
`proprietary products. See Grigg
`Declaration ¶¶ 2-5.
`This document reflects testimony
`that SonicWall has designated as
`“Highly Confidential – Attorneys’
`Eyes Only” or “Highly
`Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes
`Only – Source Code” pursuant to
`the Stipulated Protective Order. If
`filed publicly, this confidential
`information could be used to
`SonicWall’s disadvantage by
`competitors as it concerns the
`identification, organization, and
`or operation of SonicWall’s
`
`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 382 Filed 03/08/21 Page 6 of 30
`
`
`
`ECF or Exh.
`No.
`
`14 to Gunther
`Declaration
`
`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
`
`15 to Gunther
`Declaration
`
`Excerpts from the
`October 26, 2020
`Michael
`Mitzenmacher, Ph.D.
`Deposition Transcript
`
`GRANTED as
`to entire
`document.
`
`16 to Gunther
`Declaration
`
`Excerpts from the
`October 29, 2020
`Nenad Medvidovic,
`Ph.D. Deposition
`Transcript
`
`GRANTED as
`to entire
`document.
`
`6
`
`Document
`
`Result
`
`Reasoning
`
`Excerpts from the
`October 22, 2020 Eric
`B. Cole, Ph.D.
`Deposition Transcript
`
`GRANTED as
`to entire
`document.
`
`proprietary products. See Grigg
`Declaration ¶¶ 2-5.
`This document reflects testimony
`that SonicWall has designated as
`“Highly Confidential – Attorneys’
`Eyes Only” and “Highly
`Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes
`Only - Source Code” pursuant to
`the Stipulated Protective Order. If
`filed publicly, this confidential
`information could be used to
`SonicWall’s disadvantage by
`competitors as it concerns the
`identification, organization, and
`or operation of SonicWall’s
`proprietary products, including its
`source code. See Grigg
`Declaration, ¶¶ 2-5.
`This document reflects testimony
`that SonicWall has designated as
`“Highly Confidential – Attorneys’
`Eyes Only” and “Highly
`Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes
`Only - Source Code” pursuant to
`the Stipulated Protective Order. If
`filed publicly, this confidential
`information could be used to
`SonicWall’s disadvantage by
`competitors as it concerns the
`identification, organization, and
`or operation of SonicWall’s
`proprietary products, including its
`source code. See Grigg
`Declaration, ¶¶ 2-5.
`This document reflects testimony
`that SonicWall has designated as
`“Highly Confidential – Attorneys’
`Eyes Only” and “Highly
`Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes
`Only - Source Code” pursuant to
`the Stipulated Protective Order. If
`filed publicly, this confidential
`information could be used to
`SonicWall’s disadvantage by
`competitors as it concerns the
`identification, organization, and
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 382 Filed 03/08/21 Page 7 of 30
`
`Document
`
`Result
`
`Reasoning
`
`
`
`ECF or Exh.
`No.
`
`17 to Gunther
`Declaration
`
`GRANTED as
`to entire
`document.
`
`Excerpts from the
`September 3, 2020
`Expert Report of Dr.
`Eric B. Cole Regarding
`Technology Tutorial
`and Infringement by
`SonicWall, Inc. of
`Patent Nos. 6,154,844;
`7,058,822; 7,647,633;
`and 8,677,494
`
`or operation of SonicWall’s
`proprietary products, including its
`source code. See Grigg
`Declaration, ¶¶ 2-5.
`This document reflects testimony
`that SonicWall has designated as
`“Highly Confidential – Attorneys’
`Eyes Only” and “Highly
`Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes
`Only - Source Code” pursuant to
`the Stipulated Protective Order. If
`filed publicly, this confidential
`information could be used to
`SonicWall’s disadvantage by
`competitors as it concerns the
`identification, organization, and
`or operation of SonicWall’s
`proprietary products, including its
`source code. See Grigg
`Declaration, ¶¶ 2-5.
`This document reflects testimony
`that SonicWall has designated as
`“Highly Confidential – Attorneys’
`Eyes Only” and “Highly
`Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes
`Only - Source Code” pursuant to
`the Stipulated Protective Order. If
`filed publicly, this confidential
`information could be used to
`SonicWall’s disadvantage by
`competitors as it concerns the
`identification, organization, and
`or operation of SonicWall’s
`proprietary products, including its
`source code. See Grigg
`Declaration, ¶¶ 2-5.
`SonicWall has designated this
`internal technical specification
`“Highly Confidential – Attorneys’
`Eyes Only” pursuant to the
`Stipulated Protective Order. If
`filed publicly, this confidential
`information could be used to
`SonicWall’s disadvantage by
`competitors as it concerns the
`identification, organization, and
`
`18 to Gunther
`Declaration
`
`19 to Gunther
`Declaration
`
`Excerpts from the
`September 3, 2020
`Expert Report of
`Michael
`Mitzenmacher, Ph.D.
`Regarding
`Infringement by
`SonicWall, Inc. of
`Patent Nos. 6,804,780;
`6,965,968; and
`7,613,926
`
`December 1, 2015
`CloudAV 2.1:
`Sandbox.
`Specifications and
`Design, Version 0.2
`(December 1, 2015),
`bearing bates numbers
`SonicWall-
`Finjan_00876666 -
`SonicWall-
`
`GRANTED as
`to entire
`document.
`
`GRANTED as
`to entire
`document.
`
`7
`
`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 382 Filed 03/08/21 Page 8 of 30
`
`
`
`ECF or Exh.
`No.
`
`20 to Gunther
`Declaration
`
`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
`
`21 to Gunther
`Declaration
`
`Excerpts from the July
`31, 2020 Alex
`Dubrovsky Deposition
`Transcript
`
`GRANTED as
`to entire
`document.
`
`22 to Gunther
`Declaration
`
`GRANTED as
`to entire
`document.
`
`Excerpts from the May
`31, 2019 Finjan’s
`Second Supplemental
`Infringement
`Contentions, Appendix
`A-1
`
`8
`
`Document
`
`Result
`
`Reasoning
`
`GRANTED as
`to entire
`document.
`
`Finjan_00876680
`
`March 12, 2018
`CloudAV 2.1:
`Sandbox.
`Specifications and
`Design, Version 1.3
`(March 12, 2018),
`bearing bates numbers
`SonicWall-
`Finjan_00002468 -
`SonicWall-
`Finjan_00002495
`
`or operation of SonicWall’s
`proprietary products. See Grigg
`Declaration, ¶¶ 2-5.
`SonicWall has designated this
`internal technical specification
`“Highly Confidential – Attorneys’
`Eyes Only” pursuant to the
`Stipulated Protective Order. If
`filed publicly, this confidential
`information could be used to
`SonicWall’s disadvantage by
`competitors as it concerns the
`identification, organization, and
`or operation of SonicWall’s
`proprietary products. See Grigg
`Declaration, ¶¶ 2-5.
`This document reflects testimony
`that SonicWall has designated as
`“Highly Confidential – Attorneys’
`Eyes Only” or “Highly
`Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes
`Only – Source Code” pursuant to
`the Stipulated Protective Order. If
`filed publicly, this confidential
`information could be used to
`SonicWall’s disadvantage by
`competitors as it concerns the
`identification, organization, and
`or operation of SonicWall’s
`proprietary products. See Grigg
`Declaration ¶¶ 2-5.
`This document reflects
`information that SonicWall has
`designated as “Highly
`Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes
`Only” and “Highly Confidential –
`Attorneys’ Eyes Only - Source
`Code” pursuant to the Stipulated
`Protective Order. If filed publicly,
`this confidential information
`could be used to SonicWall’s
`disadvantage by competitors as it
`concerns the identification,
`organization, and or operation of
`SonicWall’s proprietary products,
`including its source code. See
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 382 Filed 03/08/21 Page 9 of 30
`
`
`
`ECF or Exh.
`No.
`
`24 to Gunther
`Declaration
`
`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
`
`26 to Gunther
`Declaration
`
`GRANTED as
`to entire
`document.
`
`December 29, 2017
`SonicSandbox 2.2
`Functional
`Specification, Version
`1 (2017/12/29),
`bearing bates numbers
`SonicWall-
`Finjan_00002551 -
`SonicWall-
`Finjan_00002561.
`
`27 to Gunther
`Declaration
`
`Excerpts from the
`November 2, 2020
`DeForest McDuff,
`Ph.D. Deposition
`Transcript
`
`GRANTED as
`to entire
`document.
`
`28 to Gunther
`Declaration
`
`The July 31, 2020
`Plaintiff Finjan Inc.’s
`Third Supplemental
`Objections and
`Responses to
`
`GRANTED as
`to entire
`document.
`
`9
`
`Document
`
`Result
`
`Reasoning
`
`Excerpts from the July
`7, 2020 Senthil
`Cheetancheri
`Deposition Transcript
`
`GRANTED as
`to entire
`document.
`
`Grigg Declaration, ¶¶ 2-5.
`This document reflects testimony
`that SonicWall has designated as
`“Highly Confidential – Attorneys’
`Eyes Only” or “Highly
`Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes
`Only – Source Code” pursuant to
`the Stipulated Protective Order. If
`filed publicly, this confidential
`information could be used to
`SonicWall’s disadvantage by
`competitors as it concerns the
`identification, organization, and
`or operation of SonicWall’s
`proprietary products. See Grigg
`Declaration ¶¶ 2-5.
`SonicWall has designated this
`internal technical specification
`“Highly Confidential – Attorneys’
`Eyes Only” pursuant to the
`Stipulated Protective Order. If
`filed publicly, this confidential
`information could be used to
`SonicWall’s disadvantage by
`competitors as it concerns the
`identification, organization, and
`or operation of SonicWall’s
`proprietary products. See Grigg
`Declaration, ¶¶ 2-5.
`This document reflects testimony
`that SonicWall has designated as
`“Highly Confidential – Attorneys’
`Eyes Only” pursuant to the
`Stipulated Protective Order. If
`filed publicly, this confidential
`information could be used to
`SonicWall’s disadvantage by
`competitors as it concerns
`SonicWall’s confidential financial
`and business information. See
`Grigg Declaration ¶¶ 2-5.
`This document reflects
`information that Finjan has
`designated as “Highly
`Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes
`Only” pursuant to the Stipulated
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 382 Filed 03/08/21 Page 10 of 30
`
`
`
`ECF or Exh.
`No.
`
`Document
`
`Result
`
`Reasoning
`
`Defendant SonicWall,
`Inc.’s First Set of
`Interrogatories (No 6)
`
`29 to Gunther
`Declaration
`
`Excerpts from the
`February 26, 2020
`John Garland
`Deposition Transcript
`
`GRANTED as
`to entire
`document.
`
`30 to Gunther
`Declaration
`
`GRANTED as
`to entire
`document.
`
`June 10-11, 2014
`Email thread between
`Finjan and Dell
`bearing bates numbers
`Finjan-SW 047868 -
`Finjan-SW 047869
`
`10
`
`Protective Order. See Grigg
`Declaration ¶¶ 2-5.
`
`This document reflects
`information and testimony
`regarding Finjan’s business
`practices and licensing
`negotiations, which Finjan has
`designated “HIGHLY
`CONFIDENTIAL –
`ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY”
`under the Protective Order (ECF
`No. 68). Public disclosure of this
`information would cause harm to
`Finjan. See Declaration of K.
`Nicole Williams in Support of
`SonicWall’s Administrative
`Motion to File Under Seal
`(“Williams Decl.”) ¶ 3, ECF 322.
`This document reflects
`information that Finjan has
`designated as “Highly
`Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes
`Only” pursuant to the Stipulated
`Protective Order. See Grigg
`Declaration ¶¶ 2-5.
`
`This document reflects testimony
`regarding Finjan’s business
`practices and licensing
`negotiations, which Finjan has
`designated “HIGHLY
`CONFIDENTIAL –
`ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY”
`under the Protective Order (ECF
`No. 68). Public disclosure of this
`information would cause harm to
`Finjan. See Williams Decl. ¶ 4.
`This document reflects
`information that Finjan has
`designated as “Highly
`Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes
`Only” pursuant to the Stipulated
`Protective Order. See Grigg
`Declaration ¶¶ 2-5.
`
`
`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 382 Filed 03/08/21 Page 11 of 30
`
`
`
`ECF or Exh.
`No.
`
`Document
`
`Result
`
`Reasoning
`
`This document reflects
`information regarding Finjan’s
`business practices and licensing
`negotiations, which Finjan has
`designated “HIGHLY
`CONFIDENTIAL –
`ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY”
`under the Protective Order (ECF
`No. 68). Public disclosure of this
`information would cause harm to
`Finjan. See Williams Decl. ¶ 5.
`This document reflects
`information that Finjan has
`designated as “Highly
`Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes
`Only” pursuant to the Stipulated
`Protective Order. See Grigg
`Declaration ¶¶ 2-5.
`
`This document reflects
`information regarding Finjan’s
`business practices and licensing
`negotiations, which Finjan has
`designated “HIGHLY
`CONFIDENTIAL –
`ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY”
`under the Protective Order (ECF
`No. 68). Public disclosure of this
`information would cause harm to
`Finjan. See Williams Decl. ¶ 6.
`This document reflects
`information that Finjan has
`designated as “Highly
`Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes
`Only” pursuant to the Stipulated
`Protective Order. See Grigg
`Declaration ¶¶ 2-5.
`
`This document reflects
`information regarding Finjan’s
`business practices and licensing
`negotiations, which Finjan has
`designated “HIGHLY
`CONFIDENTIAL –
`ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY”
`under the Protective Order (ECF
`
`31 to Gunther
`Declaration
`
`GRANTED as
`to entire
`document.
`
`November 25, 2014
`Introductory Licensing
`Meeting Presentation
`bearing bates numbers
`Finjan-SW 047884 -
`Finjan-SW 047924
`
`32 to Gunther
`Declaration
`
`GRANTED as
`to entire
`document.
`
`September 17, 2014
`Email between Finjan
`and Dell bearing bates
`numbers Finjan-SW
`047936 - Finjan-SW
`047946
`
`11
`
`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 382 Filed 03/08/21 Page 12 of 30
`
`
`
`ECF or Exh.
`No.
`
`33 to Gunther
`Declaration
`
`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
`
`34 to Gunther
`Declaration
`
`GRANTED as
`to entire
`document.
`
`An email from John
`Garland of Finjan to
`Mattthew Neiderman
`of SonicWall attaching
`a chart of Exemplary
`Finjan Patents of
`Interest to SonicWall
`bearing bates numbers
`SonicWall-
`Finjan_01044809 -
`SonicWall-
`Finjan_01044812
`
`36 to Gunther
`Declaration
`
`July 8, 2014 Email
`between Finjan and
`Dell bearing bates
`number Finjan-SW
`047947 - Finjan-SW
`
`GRANTED as
`to entire
`document.
`
`12
`
`Document
`
`Result
`
`Reasoning
`
`GRANTED as
`to entire
`document.
`
`October 12, 2016
`Patent Licensing
`Discussions
`Presentation bearing
`bates numbers Finjan-
`SW 047979 - Finjan-
`SW 048008
`
`No. 68). Public disclosure of this
`information would cause harm to
`Finjan. See Williams Decl. ¶ 7.
`This document reflects
`information that Finjan has
`designated as “Highly
`Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes
`Only” pursuant to the Stipulated
`Protective Order. See Grigg
`Declaration ¶¶ 2-5.
`
`This document reflects
`information regarding Finjan’s
`business practices and licensing
`negotiations, which Finjan has
`designated “HIGHLY
`CONFIDENTIAL –
`ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY”
`under the Protective Order (ECF
`No. 68). Public disclosure of this
`information would cause harm to
`Finjan. See Williams Decl. ¶ 8.
`This document reflects
`information that Finjan has
`designated this document “Highly
`Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes
`Only” pursuant to the Stipulated
`Protective Order. See Grigg
`Declaration ¶¶ 2-5.
`
`This document reflects
`information regarding Finjan’s
`business practices and licensing
`negotiations, which Finjan has
`designated “HIGHLY
`CONFIDENTIAL –
`ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY”
`under the Protective Order (ECF
`No. 68). Public disclosure of this
`information would cause harm to
`Finjan. See Williams Decl. ¶ 9.
`This document reflects
`information that Finjan has
`designated this document “Highly
`Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes
`Only” pursuant to the Stipulated
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 382 Filed 03/08/21 Page 13 of 30
`
`
`
`ECF or Exh.
`No.
`
`Document
`
`Result
`
`Reasoning
`
`047952
`
`37 to Gunther
`Declaration
`
`GRANTED as
`to entire
`document.
`
`November 1-21, 2016
`Email thread between
`Finjan and Dell
`bearing bates numbers
`Finjan-SW 047959 -
`Finjan-SW 047962
`
`38 to Gunther
`Declaration
`
`GRANTED as
`to entire
`document.
`
`June 8, 2017 Patent
`Licensing Discussions
`Presentation bearing
`bates numbers
`FINJAN-SW 146162 -
`FINJAN-SW 146192.
`
`13
`
`Protective Order. See Grigg
`Declaration ¶¶ 2-5.
`
`This document reflects
`information regarding Finjan’s
`business practices and licensing
`negotiations, which Finjan has
`designated “HIGHLY
`CONFIDENTIAL –
`ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY”
`under the Protective Order (ECF
`No. 68). Public disclosure of this
`information would cause harm to
`Finjan. See Williams Decl. ¶ 10.
`This document reflects
`information that Finjan has
`designated this document “Highly
`Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes
`Only” pursuant to the Stipulated
`Protective Order. See Grigg
`Declaration ¶¶ 2-5.
`
`This document reflects
`information regarding Finjan’s
`business practices and licensing
`negotiations, which Finjan has
`designated “HIGHLY
`CONFIDENTIAL –
`ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY”
`under the Protective Order (ECF
`No. 68). Public disclosure of this
`information would cause harm to
`Finjan. See Williams Decl. ¶ 11.
`This document reflects
`information that Finjan has
`designated this document “Highly
`Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes
`Only” pursuant to the Stipulated
`Protective Order. See Grigg
`Declaration ¶¶ 2-5.
`
`This document reflects
`information regarding Finjan’s
`business practices and licensing
`negotiations, which Finjan has
`designated “HIGHLY
`
`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 382 Filed 03/08/21 Page 14 of 30
`
`
`
`ECF or Exh.
`No.
`
`Document
`
`Result
`
`Reasoning
`
`CONFIDENTIAL –
`ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY”
`under the Protective Order (ECF
`No. 68). Public disclosure of this
`information would cause harm to
`Finjan. See Williams Decl. ¶ 12.
`
`This document reflects testimony
`that SonicWall has designated as
`“Highly Confidential – Attorneys’
`Eyes Only” or “Highly
`Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes
`Only – Source Code” pursuant to
`the Stipulated Protective Order. If
`filed publicly, this confidential
`information could be used to
`SonicWall’s disadvantage by
`competitors as it concerns the
`identification, organization, and
`or operation of SonicWall’s
`proprietary products. See Grigg
`Declaration ¶¶ 2-5.
`This document reflects
`information that SonicWall has
`designated as “Highly
`Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes
`Only” and “Highly Confidential –
`Attorneys’ Eyes Only - Source
`Code” pursuant to the Stipulated
`Protective Order. If filed publicly,
`this confidential information
`could be used to SonicWall’s
`disadvantage by competitors as it
`concerns the identification,
`organization, and or operation of
`SonicWall’s proprietary products,
`including its source code. See
`Grigg Declaration, ¶¶ 2-5.
`SonicWall has designated this
`internal technical specification
`“Highly Confidential – Attorneys’
`Eyes Only” pursuant to the
`Stipulated Protective Order. If
`filed publicly, this confidential
`information could be used to
`SonicWall’s disadvantage by
`
`39 to Gunther
`Declaration
`
`Excerpts from the July
`31, 2020 Brook
`Chelmo Deposition
`Transcript
`
`GRANTED as
`to entire
`document.
`
`
`
`Declaration Of John
`Gmuender in Support
`of Sonicwall Inc.’s
`Motion For Partial
`Summary Judgment
`
`GRANTED as
`to entire
`document.
`
`A to
`Gmuender
`Declaration
`
`SonicWall-
`Finjan_00002562-2573
`(“SonicSandbox
`Design Specification”)
`
`GRANTED as
`to entire
`document.
`
`14
`
`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 382 Filed 03/08/21 Page 15 of 30
`
`ECF or Exh.
`No.
`
`Document
`
`Result
`
`Reasoning
`
`competitors as it concerns the
`identification, organization, and
`or operation of SonicWall’s
`proprietary products. See Grigg
`Declaration, ¶¶ 2-5.
`SonicWall has designated this
`document “Highly Confidential –
`Attorneys’ Eyes Only” pursuant
`to the Stipulated Protective Order.
`If filed publicly, this confidential
`information could be used to
`SonicWall’s disadvantage by
`competitors as it concerns the
`identification, organization, and
`or operation of SonicWall’s
`proprietary products. See Grigg
`Declaration, ¶¶ 2-5.
`SonicWall has designated this
`document “Highly Confidential –
`Attorneys’ Eyes Only – Source
`Code” pursuant to the Stipulated
`Protective Order. If filed publicly,
`this confidential information
`could be used to SonicWall’s
`disadvantage by competitors as it
`concerns the identification,
`organization, and or operation of
`SonicWall’s proprietary products,
`including source code. See Grigg
`Declaration, ¶¶ 2-5.
`Son