Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-02998/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-02998-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Patent Infringement

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FINJAN, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SYMANTEC CORP.,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-02998-HSG 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART THE PARTIES’

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO 

FILE UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 80, 82

Pending before the Court are two administration motions, Dkt. Nos. 80 and 82, to file 

under seal certain documents relating to the motion to strike filed by Defendant Symantec Corp., 

Dkt. No. 79 (“Mot. to Strike”), and the opposition filed by Plaintiff Finjan, Inc., Dkt. No. 83 

(“Opp. to Mot. to Strike”). The administrative motions to file under seal are unopposed. Pursuant 

to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1), Defendant filed a declaration seeking to establish that most of the 

designated material in Plaintiff’s administrative motion is sealable. Dkt. No. 84. However, as 

Defendant asserts that only some of the exhibits attached to the Hannah Declaration

accompanying Plaintiff’s opposition need to be sealed, the Court limits its consideration to only 

those exhibits. Id. 

Having carefully considered each of the requested redactions, the Court GRANTS IN 

PART and DENIES IN PART the administrative motions to seal. 

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 

documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2010). “This standard 

derives from the common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including 

judicial records and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 

1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “[A] strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” 

Case 4:14-cv-02998-HSG Document 175 Filed 02/15/17 Page 1 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). To overcome this 

strong presumption, the moving party must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific 

factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring 

disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Id. at 1178-79 

(citations, internal quotation marks, and alterations omitted). “In general, compelling reasons 

sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist 

when such court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes, such as the use of 

records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release 

trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The court must 

“balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial 

records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal certain judicial 

records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its 

ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. (citations, brackets, and internal 

quotation marks omitted). 

Civil Local Rule 79-5 supplements the “compelling reasons” standard. The party seeking 

to file under seal must “establish[ ] that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged, 

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 . . . .” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b).

Finally, records attached to motions that are only “tangentially related to the merits of a 

case” are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 

LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, parties moving to seal such records must 

meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 

1097. The “good cause” standard requires a “particularized showing” 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) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see

also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

II. DISCUSSION

Here, the Court applies the “compelling reasons” standard because the motion to strike has

Case 4:14-cv-02998-HSG Document 175 Filed 02/15/17 Page 2 of 4
3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

more than a tangential relation to the merits of the case. See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 

1101. The Court rules as follows: 

Motion Document Ruling Reason

80 Mot. to Strike GRANTED as to 11:9-10, 11:19-20, 

17:22-24, 17:27-28, 18: 9, 18:26-28, 

19:4, 19:7-10 

Confidential Source Code 

Information1

80 Mot. to Strike, Ex. B DENIED No Declaration in Support 

Pursuant to Civ. L.R.79-5(e)(1)

80 Mot. to Strike, Ex. C DENIED Not Narrowly Tailored 

80 Mot. to Strike, Ex. C, Apps.

A1-A8

DENIED Not Narrowly Tailored 

80 Mot. to Strike, Ex. C, Apps.

B1-B8

DENIED Not Narrowly Tailored

80 Mot. to Strike, Ex. C, Apps.

C1-C2

DENIED Not Narrowly Tailored

80 Mot. to Strike, Ex. C, Apps.

D1-D7 

DENIED Not Narrowly Tailored

80 Mot. to Strike, Ex. C, App.

E1

DENIED Not Narrowly Tailored

80 Mot. to Strike, Ex. C, App.

F1

DENIED Not Narrowly Tailored

80 Mot. to Strike, Ex. C, Apps.

G1-G3

DENIED Not Narrowly Tailored

80 Mot. to Strike, Ex. C, Apps.

H1-H7

DENIED Not Narrowly Tailored

80 Mot. to Strike, Ex. D DENIED Not Narrowly Tailored

80 Mot. to Strike, Ex. E DENIED Not Narrowly Tailored

80 Mot. to Strike, Ex. F DENIED Not Narrowly Tailored

80 Mot. to Strike, Ex. G DENIED Not Narrowly Tailored

80 Mot. to Strike, Ex. H DENIED Not Narrowly Tailored

80 Mot. to Strike, Ex. I DENIED Not Narrowly Tailored

80 Mot. to Strike, Ex. J DENIED Not Narrowly Tailored

80 Mot. to Strike, Ex. CC DENIED Not Narrowly Tailored 

82 Opp. to Mot. to Strike GRANTED as to 4:8-13, 5:15-19, 

8:3-4, 8:17-25, 8:27, 9:1-3, 9:5-9, 

10:16-26, 11:2-21, 12:7-12, 12:15-

27, 13:1-2, 13:8-14, 13:18-28, 14:1-

9, 14:18-28, 15:1-20, 15:26-27, 16:1-

10, 17:12-14, 18:4-14, 18:18-28, 

19:1-5, 19:10-15, 20:2-3, 20:11-16 

Confidential Source Code 

Information

82 Opp. to Mot. to Strike, Lee 

Decl.

GRANTED as to 1:18-26, 2, 3:1-13 Confidential Source Code 

Information 

82 Opp. to Mot. to Strike, Lee 

Decl., Ex. 3

GRANTED Confidential Source Code 

Information

82 Opp. to Mot. to Strike, 

Hannah Decl., Ex. 5

GRANTED as to highlighted 

portions

Confidential Source Code 

82 Opp. to Mot. to Strike, 

Hannah Decl., Ex. 6

GRANTED as to highlighted 

portions

Confidential Business 

Information

82 Opp. to Mot. to Strike, 

Hannah Decl., Ex. 26

GRANTED Confidential Source Code and 

Business Information

 

1

The Court has considered confidential source code to “clearly meet[] the definition of a trade 

secret” so as to constitute sealable material. Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 11-cv01846, 2012 WL 6115623, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2012).

Case 4:14-cv-02998-HSG Document 175 Filed 02/15/17 Page 3 of 4
4

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

82 Opp. to Mot. to Strike, 

Hannah Decl., Ex. 27

GRANTED Confidential Business 

Information and Product 

Development

82 Opp. to Mot. to Strike, 

Hannah Decl., Ex. 28

GRANTED Confidential Business 

Information

82 Opp. to Mot. to Strike, 

Hannah Decl., Ex. 29

GRANTED Confidential Business 

Information

82 Opp. to Mot. to Strike, 

Hannah Decl., Ex. 30

GRANTED Confidential Business 

Information 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the 

administrative motions to file under seal the specified documents. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 

79-5(f)(1), documents found to be sealable material will remain under seal, and the public will 

have access only to the redacted versions accompanying the motion. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 

79-5(f)(2), parties must file the unredacted versions of documents as to which sealing was denied 

within 7 days.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

2/15/2017

Case 4:14-cv-02998-HSG Document 175 Filed 02/15/17 Page 4 of 4