Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-05808/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-05808-25/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 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.

PROOFPOINT, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-05808-HSG 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART THE PARTIES’ 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO 

FILE UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 144, 146, 156

The parties filed three administrative motions to file under seal in conjunction with 

Defendants’ renewed motion to strike the infringement contentions. Dkt. Nos. 144, 146, 156. No 

oppositions to the motions to seal were filed, and the time to do so has passed.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

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

like the ones at issue here. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (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. “[A] ‘strong presumption in favor of 

access’ is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th 

Cir. 2006). 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). 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. at 1179 (internal quotation marks 

Case 4:13-cv-05808-HSG Document 268 Filed 12/04/15 Page 1 of 5
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

omitted). 

Civil Local Rule 79-5 supplements the compelling reasons standard set forth in Kamakana. 

The party seeking to file a document or portions of it 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.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). 

Records attached to non-dispositive motions are not subject to the strong presumption of 

access. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80. Because the documents attached to non-dispositive 

motions “are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,” 

parties moving to seal must meet the lower “good cause” standard of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure Rule 26(c). Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 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) (internal quotation marks omitted); 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).

II. DISCUSSION

A. Defendants’ Administrative Motions to Seal its Renewed Motion to Strike 

Plaintiff’s Infringement Contentions, its Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition, and

All Exhibits Attached in Support

On May 18, 2015, Defendants filed an administrative motion to file under seal portions of 

its renewed motion to strike Plaintiff’s supplemental infringement contentions and attached

exhibits A-1-I. Dkt. No. 144. On June 8, 2015, Defendants filed an administrative motion to file 

under seal its reply in support of the renewed motion to strike. Dkt. No. 156. Defendants state 

that they seek to file these documents under seal because they “disclose Proofpoint’s source code 

directories and confidential information regarding the operation of Proofpoint products.” Dkt. No. 

144 at 4. Defendants contend that “[c]ompetitors could use the confidential information to “recreate or re-produce certain features of Proofpoint’s products.” Id. 

The requested portion to be sealed in Defendants’ renewed motion is limited to a single 

Case 4:13-cv-05808-HSG Document 268 Filed 12/04/15 Page 2 of 5
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

screenshot image of Plaintiff’s infringement contentions listing the source code entries for one 

claim. Dkt. No. 144-2 at 5. Defendants seek to redact additional screenshots from Plaintiff’s 

infringement contentions in its reply to the renewed motion; this request incorporates flowcharts, 

product names related to the flowcharts, and the amount of source code produced. Dkt. No. 156-3 

at 5, 6, 10. Under the more lenient good cause standard, Defendants have met their burden as their 

request is narrowly tailored to the sealable information. See Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 

No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 6115623, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2012) (“Confidential 

source code clearly meets the definition of a trade secret.”); Civil L.R. 79-5. Accordingly, the 

Court GRANTS Defendants’ requests to file under seal the requested portions of its renewed 

motion (screenshot image on page 5) and reply brief (text and images at 5:1-10, 17-27; 6:3, 5-18, 

21; 10:24 and n.2). 

The Court, however, DENIES without prejudice Defendants’ request to seal exhibits A-1-

I in their entirety. Defendants’ proposed redaction is not narrowly tailored to only the sealable 

information, as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5. Although the exhibits contain sealable source 

code, each exhibit also contains publicly-available information, such as marketing materials or 

descriptions from the company website. If Defendants wish to file an amended motion that 

identifies specific portions of exhibits A-1-I containing sealable information, and the specific 

reasons why such portions should be sealed, it must do so by December 10, 2015. 

B. Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion to Seal its Opposition to Defendants’ Motion 

to Strike Infringement Contentions 

On June 1, 2015, Plaintiff filed an administrative motion to file under seal portions of its 

opposition to Defendants’ renewed motion to strike infringement contentions and portions of the 

attached exhibits. Dkt. No. 146. 

In its motion to seal, Plaintiff states that it seeks to file the documents under seal because 

they “contain information that Defendants have designated as “‘Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ 

Eyes Only’ or ‘Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only – Source Code.’” Id. at 2. On June 5, 

2015, in accordance with Civil Local Rule 79-5(e), Defendants filed a declaration in support of 

Plaintiff’s motion to seal. Dkt. No. 154. In that declaration, Defendants confirm that the 

Case 4:13-cv-05808-HSG Document 268 Filed 12/04/15 Page 3 of 5
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

documents Plaintiff identified “contain highly confidential source code or information that 

Proofpoint has designated as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” Id. 

at 1. 

Defendants confirm that Plaintiff’s Opposition at 1:24; 3:13-15; 8:2-5; 17:5-7; 20:3-4, 15-

17, the attached declaration of Aakash Jariwala (“Jariwala declaration”) at 1:14-15; 1:18-2:20, 

redacted portions at page 7 of Exhibit 1 to the Jariwala declaration, and Exhibits 2-6 to the 

Jariwala declaration, contain references to highly confidential source code that “reveal[] the 

identification, organization, and operation of Proofpoint’s proprietary products.” Dkt. No. 154 at 

2. Exhibit 1 is an e-mail chain between Plaintiff and Defendants’ counsels; the proposed redacted 

portion of page 7 includes references to source code directories and confidential technical 

information. Dkt. No. 146-1 at 2. And exhibits 2-6 are examples of Defendants’ source code 

directories. Id. Defendants also confirm that Plaintiff’s opposition at 4:4-16, 20-27; 5:1-6, 9-12;

7:25-27; 8:1-2 and Exhibit 9 to the Jariwala declaration reference the deposition of Dave Cline and 

contain information related to the “identification, organization, and operation of Proofpoint’s 

proprietary products.” Dkt. No. 154 at 2. 

Defendants further confirm that Plaintiff’s opposition at 7:16-17, 20-21; 8:9-20, 22; 9:1-

26; 10:13-22, 26-27; 11:11-5, 7-121, contains references to Plaintiff’s supplemental infringement 

contentions that include “Proofpoint’s source code directories and screenshot images of 

Proofpoint’s confidential documentation.” Id.

Finally, Defendants confirm that Finjan’s opposition at 11:10-12, the Jariwala declaration at 

3:5-6 and 3:9, as well as the entirety of Exhibits 12-14 of the Jariwala declaration, contain confidential 

information that could place Defendants at a competitive disadvantage. Id. at 2-3. Exhibits 12-14 are 

internal documents containing technical product manuals and internal product presentations. Dkt. No. 

146-1 at 2. Defendants confirm that all of these items were produced in accordance with the 

operative protective order, Dkt. No. 96, and that if made publicly available, its competitors could 

 

1 Although Plaintiff identifies page 11, line 6 of its opposition as containing confidential sealable 

information, Dkt. No. 146-1 at 1, the redacted copy of Plaintiff’s opposition does not redact line 6, 

Dkt. No. 146-4 at 11. Because the sentence does not have sealable information, the Court relies 

on the redacted copy. 

Case 4:13-cv-05808-HSG Document 268 Filed 12/04/15 Page 4 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

use the information to recreate its products. Dkt. No. 154 at 2-3.

Under the more lenient good cause standard, the Court concludes Plaintiff’s request, and 

Defendants’ declaration in support thereof, establishes specific reasons for each of the requested 

portions to be sealed and that the request is narrowly tailored. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS

Plaintiff’s motion to seal its opposition to Defendants’ motion to strike infringement contentions

and attached exhibits. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s administrative motion to seal is GRANTED. Dkt. 

No. 146. Defendants’ administrative motion to seal its renewed motion to strike Plaintiff’s 

infringement contentions and exhibits attached in support is GRANTED in part and DENIED in 

part, Dkt. No. 144, and Defendants’ administrative motion to seal portions of its reply is 

GRANTED, Dkt. No. 156. 

If Defendants choose to file an amended motion to seal and/or declarations in support of 

such motion, identifying specific portions of Exhibits A-1-I it seeks to seal so as to comply with 

Local Rule 79-5’s “narrowly tailored” requirement, they shall do so by December 10, 2015. The 

Court directs the parties to review and strictly comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

12/4/2015

Case 4:13-cv-05808-HSG Document 268 Filed 12/04/15 Page 5 of 5