Finjan LLC v. Sonicwall, Inc. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 FINJAN, INC., Case No. 17-cv-04467-BLF (VKD) 9 Plaintiff, ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE 10 v. MOTIONS TO SEAL 11 SONICWALL, INC., Re: Dkt. Nos. 215, 220, 224 Defendant. 12 13 14 In connection with plaintiff Finjan, Inc’s motion for leave to amend its infringement 15 contentions (Dkt. No. 216), the parties filed administrative motions to file portions of their 16 briefing and associated documents under seal. Dkt. Nos. 215, 220, 224. Having considered those 17 motions, the Court grants the administrative motions, as set forth below. 18 There is a strong presumption in favor of access by the public to judicial records and 19 documents accompanying dispositive motions that can be overcome only by a showing of 20 “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 21 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 22 However, the presumption does not apply equally to a motion addressing matters that are only 23 “tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 24 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied sub nom. FCA U.S. LLC v. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 137 S. Ct. 25 38 (2016). A litigant seeking to seal documents or information in connection with such a motion 26 must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 27 Id. at 1098–99; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80. 1 connection with Finjan’s motion for leave to amend its infringement contentions. The underlying 2 motion papers do not address the merits of the parties’ claims or defenses, but rather whether 3 Finjan has made a sufficient showing under Patent Local Rule 3-6 to amend its infringement 4 contentions. The material to be sealed is related to the merits of the case, but only to the extent 5 that Finjan’s contentions frame the scope of the parties’ dispute on questions of infringement. The 6 Court therefore applies the “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c). 7 Most of the material proposed to be filed under seal constitutes technical information and 8 source code concerning the SonicWall products and services at issue in the action. SonicWall 9 represents that much of this material is confidential or highly confidential information and that 10 disclosure to the public would cause competitive harm to SonicWall. The Court agrees and finds 11 that SonicWall has demonstrated good cause to seal the following material: 12 13 Document Portions to be Sealed 14 Finjan’s Motion for Leave to Amend Pg. 7, lines 14-16 Infringement Contentions (Dkt. No. 216) 15 16 Exhibit 3 Declaration of Lisa Kobialka in Support of Appendices A-1 through J-7 17 Finjan’s Motion for Leave to Amend Infringement Contentions (Dkt. No. 216-1) 18 19 Pg. 4, line 22 SonicWall’s Response in Opposition to Pg. 5, line 25 20 Finjan’s Motion for Leave to Amend Pg. 9, lines 1-15 Infringement Contentions (Dkt. No. 221) Pg. 10, lines 1-17 21 22 Finjan’s Reply in Support of Motion for Leave Pg. 1, lines 12-13 Pg. 2, lines 23-24 to Amend Infringement Contentions (Dkt. No. 23 Pg. 3, lines 15-16 225) Pg. 5, lines 3-4, 8, 10, 11-16, 21-22, 23-28 24 Pg. 6, lines 1-28 Pg. 7, lines 1-3 25 Pg. 8, lines 17-18 26 Exhibits 3, 5-9 Declaration of Aakash Jariwala in Support of 27 Finjan’s Reply in Support of Motion for Leave 2 The Court notes that some of the material the parties ask to file under seal appears to refer 3 to matters and information described at a relatively high level and/or previously described in the 4 Court’s November 20, 2019 order striking Finjan’s second supplemental infringement contentions. 5 Dkt. No. 210. In connection with that order, the Court provided the parties an opportunity to 6 identify any necessary redactions before the order was filed publicly. Dkt. No. 197. Neither party 7 requested any redactions. Dkt. No. 208. Accordingly, the Court re-filed the order without any 8 redactions. Dkt. No. 210. Future requests for sealing should address whether the information 9 proposed to be sealed has already been publicly disclosed. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: March 9, 2020 12 13 of VIRGINIA K. DEMARCH S 15 United States Magistrate Judge 16 = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28