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 GRANTING 10 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 11 SONICWALL, INC., Re: Dkt. No. 249 Defendant. 12 13 14 In connection with a discovery dispute concerning defendant SonicWall, Inc.’s requests to 15 obtain documents from another action that plaintiff Finjan, Inc. contends are protected under the 16 attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine (Dkt. No. 248), SonicWall filed an 17 administrative motion to file portions of the parties’ joint discovery dispute letter and an 18 associated exhibit under seal. Dkt. No. 249. Having considered the parties’ submissions, the 19 Court grants the administrative motion, as set forth below. 20 There is a strong presumption in favor of access by the public to judicial records and 21 documents accompanying dispositive motions that can be overcome only by a showing of 22 “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 23 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 24 However, the presumption does not apply equally to a motion addressing matters that are only 25 “tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 26 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied sub nom. FCA U.S. LLC v. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 137 S. Ct. 27 38 (2016). A litigant seeking to seal documents or information in connection with such a motion 1 Id. at 1098-99; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80. 2 SonicWall’s motion to seal concerns information submitted in connection with a discovery 3 || dispute. The underlying discovery dispute does not address the merits of the parties’ claims or 4 || defenses, but rather whether Finjan’s assertion of the attorney-client privilege and attorney work 5 || product doctrine is proper. The material to be sealed is only tangentially related to the merits of 6 || the case. The Court therefore applies the “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c). 7 The material proposed to be filed under seal is derived from documents that have been 8 || designated “Confidential — Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” Finjan contends that the material encompasses 9 || confidential business and competitive information and that the material is also privileged, which 10 || the parties dispute. Dkt. No. 252. In these circumstances, the Court finds that good cause exists to 11 seal the following material: a 12 . . Highlighted portions on pages 2 and 3, and Joint Discovery Letter (Dkt. No. 248) Exhibit A 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 17 || Dated: April 22, 2020 Z 18 «8 19 Using E □□□□□□□ VIRGINIA K. DEMARCH 20 United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28