Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-05808/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-05808-33/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 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO 

FILE UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 208, 244, 260

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

Defendants’ motion to strike portions of Finjan’s expert reports. Dkt. Nos. 208, 244, 260. 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 298 Filed 02/09/16 Page 1 of 6
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). 

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 8-9. 

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).

Civil Local Rule 79-5 further supplements the compelling reasons standard. 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). 

II. DISCUSSION

Because the motion to strike infringement theories from the expert reports is more than 

tangentially related to the merits of the underlying action, the Court applies the “compelling 

reasons” standard in evaluating the following motions to seal. 

A. Defendants’ Administrative Motions to Seal its Motion to Strike Portions of 

Expert Reports and Exhibits in Support Thereof

On November 11, 2015, Defendants filed an administrative motion to file under seal 

portions of its motion to strike the expert reports, the entirety of attached Exhibits D, F, G, H, K, 

L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, and V, as well as portions of attached Exhibits I and J. Dkt. No. 208. 

The administrative motion covers information that both Plaintiff and Defendants have designated 

as sealable information and includes supplemental infringement contentions and expert reports, 

which refer to technical and proprietary information. 

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ request to file under seal portions of its motion to strike

Case 4:13-cv-05808-HSG Document 298 Filed 02/09/16 Page 2 of 6
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

as well as Exhibits F, G, H, S, T, U, and V. The Court finds that the request is narrowly tailored 

and that there are compelling reasons to seal confidential, sealable information, including source 

code directories, information about the technical operation of the products, financial revenue data, 

and excerpts from expert depositions, expert report, and related correspondence. Dkt. No. 208 at 

3-4; Dkt. No. 208-1 at 1-2; 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.”); Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978) (holding 

access to court records has been denied when it includes “sources of business information that 

might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.”); Transperfect Global, Inc. v. MotionPoint Corp., 

2013 WL 706975, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2013) (sealing portions of brief and exhibits 

containing “proprietary information concerning Defendant’s technology and internal business 

operations” and “descriptions of Defendant’s proprietary technology”).

The Court DENIES Defendants’ motion as to Exhibits K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, and R., for 

failure to narrowly tailor the request to only sealable information. Although certain parts of the 

infringement contentions may be sealable, the contentions also contain publicly-available

information, such as descriptions from the company website. If Defendants wish to file an 

amended motion that identifies specific portions of these exhibits containing sealable information, 

and the specific reasons why such portions should be sealed, they must do so within two days of 

this order.

The Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to seal information that Plaintiff designated as 

confidential. Defendants highlighted portions of page 7 of Exhibit I, portions of page 7 of Exhibit 

J, and the entirety of Exhibit D as containing information Plaintiff designated as “Highly 

Confidential - Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” Plaintiff has failed to file a declaration within four days of 

the filing of the motion seal, as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1). Pursuant to Civil Local 

Rule 79-5(e)(2), Defendants may file an unredacted version of the document in the public record 

no earlier than four days and no later than ten days after the date of this Order. The Court will be 

unable to consider the highlighted portions on page 7 of Exhibit I and page 7 of Exhibit J, as well 

as the entirety of Exhibit D, unless Defendants timely file an unredacted version.

Case 4:13-cv-05808-HSG Document 298 Filed 02/09/16 Page 3 of 6
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

B. Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal 

On November 25, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to file under seal portions of its opposition 

to the motion to strike, a redacted portion on page 7 of Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of James 

Hannah, as well as several attached exhibits to the Hannah Declaration. Dkt. No. 244. Plaintiff 

has identified these documents as containing information that Defendants designated as “Highly 

Confidential - Attorneys’ Eyes Only” or “Highly Confidential - Attorneys’ Eyes Only - Source 

Code.” Id. at 1. In accordance with the local rules, Defendants filed a declaration in support of 

Plaintiff’s motion to seal on November 30, 2015. Dkt. No. 256. 

In that declaration, Defendants confirm that nearly all of the documents Plaintiff identified 

contain highly confidential information. The Court finds that Defendants have presented

compelling reasons to grant Plaintiff’s motion. Defendants agree that the excerpted depositions in

Exhibits 4, 7, 12, 13, 16, 22, and 29 of the Hannah Declaration reference confidential Proofpoint 

business and technical information, including the technical operation of Defendants’ products, 

confidential considerations in the decision to acquire Armorize and Armorize technology, 

Proofpoint’s confidential financial information, and confidential contracts and agreements. See 

Digital Reg of Texas, LLC v. Adobe Sys., Inc., No. C 12-1971 CW, 2014 WL 6986068, at *1 (N.D. 

Cal. Dec. 10, 2014) (holding that discussions of Adobe’s proprietary technological information, 

licensing agreements, and trade secrets were sealable information). 

Defendants’ declaration also confirms the following. The highlighted portions of 

Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to strike, as well as Exhibits 5, 6, 8, and 9, refer to Defendants’ 

strategic business considerations and confidential business information regarding sales, the 

company’s confidential financial information, information regarding licensing, and potential 

acquisition of businesses and technologies. See id. at *1-2. Exhibits 10, 11, 12, and 14 are 

confidential agreements entered into by Proofpoint which disclose confidential contractual terms, 

fee structures, and agreements. See id. The remaining highlighted portions of Plaintiff’s 

opposition motion, as well as attached Exhibits 1, 12, 15, 17, 18, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, and 28,

contain information regarding the operation of the products, source code, and internal engineering 

wiki documents. Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 6115623, 

Case 4:13-cv-05808-HSG Document 298 Filed 02/09/16 Page 4 of 6
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

at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2012) (“Confidential source code clearly meets the definition of a trade 

secret.”); Network Appliance, Inc. v. Sun Microsystems Inc., No. C-07-06053 EDL, 2010 WL 

841274, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2010) (granting the motion to seal where documents contained 

“highly technical portions of Mr. Brandt’s report that would do little to aid the public’s 

understanding of the judicial process, but have the potential to cause significant harm to NetApp’s

competitive and financial position within its industry”). 

In its declaration in support, Defendants do not seek to seal Exhibit 30 and the highlighted 

portion at page 23, line 16 of Plaintiff’s opposition. Furthermore, the Court finds that the request 

to seal Exhibit 26 is not narrowly tailored as it includes information from publicly available 

sources. 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to seal its opposition to Defendants’ 

motion to strike and attached exhibits, except that the Court DENIES the motion to file under seal 

Exhibit 30; line 16, page 23 of Plaintiff’s opposition; and Exhibit 26. Within two days of this 

order, Plaintiff should file an unredacted Exhibit 30 as well as a version of its opposition that does 

not redact line 16 on page 23. If Plaintiff wishes to file an amended motion to seal Exhibit 26, it 

must identify specific portions of the exhibit containing sealable information, and the specific 

reasons why such portions should be sealed, and it must do so within two days of this order.

C. Defendants’ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Defendants’ Reply in 

Support of Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Expert Reports and Exhibits Thereto

On December 2, 2015, Defendants filed an administrative motion to file under seal the 

entirety of its reply to the motion to strike the expert reports, as well as attached Exhibits W, X, 

and Y. Dkt. No. 260. 

The Court DENIES Defendants’ request to seal the entirety of its reply. Although the 

Court agrees that the reply incorporates and discusses sealed exhibits, Defendants must satisfy the 

local rules’ requirement that a request to seal be narrowly tailored to only the confidential 

information. If Defendants wish to file an amended reply that identifies specific portions 

containing sealable information, and the specific reasons why such portions should be sealed, they

must do so by within two days of this order.

Case 4:13-cv-05808-HSG Document 298 Filed 02/09/16 Page 5 of 6
6

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

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ request to file under seal portions of expert reports, 

Exhibits W and X, and a deposition excerpt, Exhibit Y. The Court is persuaded by Defendants’ 

assertion that the documents include sealable information (such as confidential information about 

product operation and source code), and that disclosure of such information could cause 

Defendants significant competitive harm. There is a compelling reason to seal such information 

and the request is narrowly tailored to sealable information. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ administrative motion to file under seal the motion 

to strike portions of expert reports and attached exhibits is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED 

IN PART, Dkt. No. 208. Plaintiff’s administrative motion to file under seal its opposition and 

attached exhibits is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, Dkt. No. 244. And 

Defendants’ administrative motion to file the reply and attached exhibits under seal is GRANTED 

IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, Dkt. No. 260. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

2/9/2016

Case 4:13-cv-05808-HSG Document 298 Filed 02/09/16 Page 6 of 6