Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, LLC

United States District Court, N.D. California

March 15, 2017

FINJAN, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
BLUE COAT SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendant.

          ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO SEAL RE: DKT. NOS. 188, 190, 195, 196

          SUSAN VAN KEULEN United States Magistrate Judge

         Before the Court are Finjan, Inc.'s Administrative Motions to Seal (Dkt. Nos. 188, 195) and Blue Coat Systems, LLC's Administrative Motions to Seal (Dkt. Nos. 190, 196). Both parties' motions seek to seal confidential technical information belonging to Blue Coat that the parties submitted to the Court in connection with Finjan's discovery submissions seeking to compel depositions (Dkt. Nos. 189, 191, 193, 194, 197).

         Courts recognize 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 Communs., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). A request to seal court records therefore starts with a “strong presumption in favor of access.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). The standard for overcoming the presumption of public access to court records depends on the purpose for which the records are filed with the court. A party seeking to seal court records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” must demonstrate “compelling reasons” that support secrecy. Ctr. For Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016). For records attached to motions that re “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits of the case, ” the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) applies. Id.; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. A party moving to seal court records must also comply with the procedures established by Civil Local Rule 79-5.

         Here, the “good cause” standard applies because the information both Finjan and Blue Coat seek to seal was submitted to the Court in connection with submissions concerning a discovery dispute, rather than a motion that concerns the merits of the case. Having considered the Motions, the declarations submitted in support thereof, the pleadings on file, and the parties' efforts to narrowly tailor their sealing requests to specific items of technical information, the Motions are hereby granted in part and denied in part.

         a. Request denied in part as to the term “NSE”

         Finjan's request to seal portions of its Statement of Discovery Dispute (Dkt. No. 189) and Supplemental Submission Re: Statement of Discovery Dispute (Dkt. No. 193) is granted in part and denied in part. Finjan's filings redacted portions related to an allegedly confidential “static scanning” component of Blue Coat's accused Malware Analysis Appliance (“MAA”) product titled “NSE.” In its Motion to Seal, Finjan indicates that it redacted the term because Blue Coat had designated the information as confidential during the course of discovery. (Dkt. No. 188-1 at ¶¶ 3-4.) The Court does not question the truth of this assertion. However, in Blue Coat's Statement of Discovery Dispute and its Further Statement of Discovery Dispute, Blue Coat asserts that MAA's static scanning function is disclosed in publicly available documents. (Dkt. No. 191 at 1.) Further, Blue Coat did not redact the NSE term in its own filings. (Dkt. Nos. 191 at 1, 197 at 2.) Therefore, the Court concludes there is not good cause to seal the NSE term or its description, and the request to seal as to the term NSE is denied. Finjan is instructed to refile only its Statement of Discovery Dispute (Dkt. No. 189) and its Supplemental Submission re: Statement of Discovery Dispute (Dkt. No. 193), with the following portions unredacted: Dkt. No. 189 at 1:16-18; 1:21-24; 2:8-9; 2:13. Dkt. No. 193 at 1:6; 1:15; 2:18; 2:20.[1]

         b. Remaining requests to seal are granted

         The Court concludes that good cause has been shown to seal the following materials and that counsel for Finjan and Blue Coat may file the following materials under seal:

         1. ECF 188

Document

Text to be Sealed

Basis for Sealing Portion of Document

Finjan's Statement of Discovery Dispute

Redacted portions at 2:10-12, and 2:16-17.

References to Blue Coat's highly confidential information regarding products and functionality, operation, architecture, and development thereof, including reference to portions of Blue Coat's source code (“technical information”).

Exhibit 1 (Excerpts of Rohan Deposition Transcript)

Entire exhibit

References to Blue Coat's highly confidential technical information.

Exhibit 2 (Excerpts of the Rough Ahlander Deposition Transcript)

Entire exhibit

References to Blue Coat's highly confidential technical information.

         2. ECF 190

Document

Text to be Sealed

Basis for Sealing Portion of Document

Blue Coat's Statement of Discovery Dispute

Redacted portions at 2:7-8; 2:9; 2:14

References to Blue Coat's highly confidential information regarding products and functionality, operation, architecture, and development thereof, including reference to portions of Blue Coat's source code (“technical information”).

         3. ECF No. 195

Document

Text to be Sealed

Basis for Sealing Portion of Document

Finjan's Supplemental Submission re: Statement of Discovery Dispute

Redacted portions at, 1:8-10; 1:12; 2:1-9; 2:26-28; 3:4-11; 3:13; 3:15-25; 4:1; 4:4-5; 4:8-9; 4:13-14; 4:18-21; 5:1-3; 5:12-14; 5:19-24; 6:25-28; 7:1-28

References to Blue Coat's highly confidential information regarding products and functionality, operation, architecture, and development thereof, including reference to portions of Blue Coat's source code (“technical information”).

Exhibit 2 (Relevant Portions of Finjan's Infringement Contentions, Appx C-1)

Entire exhibit

References to Blue Coat's highly confidential technical information.

Exhibit 3 (Excerpts of Rohan Deposition Transcript)

Entire exhibit

References to Blue Coat's highly confidential technical information.

Exhibit 4 (BC2_SC_000664-683)

Entire exhibit

References to Blue Coat's highly confidential technical information.

Exhibit 5 (BC2_SC_000684-686)

Entire exhibit

References to Blue Coat's highly confidential technical information.

Exhibit 6 (Excerpts of Rough Runald Deposition Transcript)

Entire exhibit

References to Blue Coat's highly confidential technical information.

Exhibit 7 (Relevant Portions of Finjan's Infringement Contentions, Appx F-2)

Entire exhibit

References to Blue Coat's highly confidential technical information.

Exhibit 8 (BC00098119-0098135)

Entire exhibit

References to Blue Coat's highly confidential technical information.

Exhibit 9 (BC-0057567-0057573)

Entire exhibit

References to Blue Coat's highly confidential technical information.

Exhibit 10 (BC-0070407-0070410)

Entire exhibit

References to Blue Coat's highly confidential technical information.

Exhibit 11 (BC-0078972-0078976)

Entire exhibit

References to Blue Coat's highly confidential technical information.

Exhibit 12 (BC2-0155109-015515)

Entire exhibit

References to Blue Coat's highly confidential technical information.

Exhibit 13 (BC-188266-1888268)

Entire exhibit

References to Blue Coat's highly confidential technical information.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.