Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-05808/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-05808-28/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 DEFENDANTS’

AMENDED ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION TO SEAL PORTIONS OF 

EXHIBITS TO RENEWED MOTION TO 

STRIKE INFRINGEMENT 

CONTENTIONS

Re: Dkt. No. 278

Defendants filed an amended administrative motion to file under seal in conjunction with 

its renewed motion to strike the infringement contentions. Dkt. No. 278. No opposition to the 

motion to seal was 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 

Case 4:13-cv-05808-HSG Document 281 Filed 12/16/15 Page 1 of 3
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

its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. at 1179 (internal quotation marks 

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

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. The Court denied without prejudice Defendants’ request to seal 

exhibits A-1-I because the request was not narrowly tailored to only sealable information, as 

required by Civil Local Rule 79-5. The Court permitted Defendants to file an amended motion

that identified specific portions of the exhibits containing sealable information, and the specific 

reasons why such portions should be sealed. 

On December 10, 2015, Defendants filed an amended administrative motion to file under 

seal the highlighted portions of Exhibits A-1-H-5 to its renewed motion to strike Plaintiff’s 

infringement contentions; Defendants contend these documents disclose Defendants’ source code 

Case 4:13-cv-05808-HSG Document 281 Filed 12/16/15 Page 2 of 3
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

directories and confidential information regarding the operation of its products. The Court has 

reviewed Defendants’ renewed request and concludes that under the more lenient good cause 

standard, Defendants have established specific reasons for the requested portions to be sealed and 

that the request is narrowly tailored. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to 

seal the highlighted portions of Exhibits A-1-H-5. 

III. CONCLUSION

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

12/16/2015

Case 4:13-cv-05808-HSG Document 281 Filed 12/16/15 Page 3 of 3