Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-03999/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-03999-26/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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FINJAN, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

BLUE COAT SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-cv-03999-BLF 

OMNIBUS ORDER ON SEALING 

MOTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH 

DAUBERT MOTIONS

[Re: ECF 244, 249, 268, 273, 291, 296]

Before the Court are six administrative motions to file under seal in connection with the 

parties’ respective Daubert motions. 

I. LEGAL STANDARD

“Unless a particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’” a “strong presumption 

in favor of access” to judicial records “is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of 

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 

331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). A party seeking to seal judicial records relating to a 

dispositive motion bears the burden of overcoming this presumption by articulating “compelling 

reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the 

public policies favoring disclosure.” Id. at 1178-79. While not always the case, Daubert motions 

can be effectively dispositive, especially where a party seeks to entirely exclude an expert from 

testifying at trial. In re Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Practices Litig., 686 F.3d 1115, 

1119-20 (9th Cir. 2012). Compelling reasons for sealing court files generally 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.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 

Case 5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document 320 Filed 06/23/15 Page 1 of 7
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

589, 598 (1978)). However, “[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s 

embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the 

court to seal its records.” Id. at 1179.

In this District, parties seeking to seal judicial records must furthermore follow Civil L.R. 

79-5, which requires, inter alia, that a sealing request be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of 

sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b) (emphasis added). Where the submitting party seeks to file 

under seal a document designated confidential by another party, the burden of articulating 

compelling reasons for sealing is placed on the designating party. Id. 79-5(e). 

II. DISCUSSION

The Court has reviewed the parties’ sealing motions and the declarations of the designating 

parties submitted in support. The Court finds that the parties have articulated compelling reasons 

to seal certain portions of the submitted documents. While the proposed redactions are, for the 

most part, narrowly tailored, some are not. The Court’s rulings on the sealing requests are set 

forth in the tables below.

A. Defendant’s Motions

i. ECF 244

Identification of Documents to be Sealed

Entity That 

Designated the 

Information As 

Confidential

Court’s Order

Defendant Blue Coat Systems, Inc.’s Daubert

Motion (“Blue Coat’s Daubert Motion”), 

redacted at 9:5-14, 13:26-28 and 16:28-17:3.

Blue Coat GRANTED

Ex. 1 to Declaration of Olivia M. Kim in 

Support of Defendant Blue Coat Systems, 

Inc.’s Daubert Motion (“Kim Declaration”), 

redacted at 16:16, 16:19, 17:3, 17:7-8, 18:1-

6, 20:1-8, 27:8-11, 38:13-21, 40:1-5, 40:13-

16, 41:1-21, 42:12-18, 43:17-21, 44:1-2, 

45:8-18, 45:23-26, 46:4-8, 46:15-20, 47:1-2, 

55:10-12, 61:14-19, 62:4-9, 62:13-18, 64:15-

16, 76:3-7, 80:7-18, and 81:3-5.

Blue Coat GRANTED

Ex. 1 to Kim Declaration, redacted at 2:24, 

3:1-3, 3:6-7, 6:5-6, 6:11-18, 7:2-13, 7:16-18, 

10:4-8, 11:2-4, 11:7-8, 28:11-12, 28:19-24, 

29:1-18, 29:23-24, 30:1-19, 30:22, 30:25-27, 

31:1-20, 31:24-25, 32:1-18, 32:20-21, 32:25-

Finjan GRANTED

Case 5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document 320 Filed 06/23/15 Page 2 of 7
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

28, 33:1-28, 34:1-24, 35:1-23, 36:1-21, 37:1-

22, 37:24-26, 38:1-9, 38:24-26, 50:10-11, 

51:1-4, 51:6-7, 54:4-21, 54:27, 57:1-14, 

57:16, 58:11-14, 59:1, 59:3-11, 59:23, 60:8-

22, 61:1-2, 65:10-13, 78:19-22, 79:3-8, 

79:12-13, and 79:17-18.

Ex. 2 to Kim Declaration, in its entirety. Blue Coat GRANTED

Ex. 5 to Kim Declaration, in its entirety. Blue Coat GRANTED

Ex. 6 to Kim Declaration, redacted at 16-17, 

26-27, 31-35.

Blue Coat GRANTED

Ex. 7 to Kim Declaration, redacted at 382:23-

383:6.

Blue Coat GRANTED

Ex. 8 to Kim Declaration, redacted at pp. 25-

30, 35-37, 39--267, 270-271, 273, 275, 280-

284, 287, 289-290, 295-303, 305-306, 308-

312, 315, 317-318, 320-325, 330-334, 336-

338, 342, 344-345, 349-354, 357, 363-364, 

370-376, 378-385, 387-390, 394-395, 402-

403, 406-414, 418-419, 421-423, 428-432, 

438, 440-441, 443-451, 458-459, 465-473, 

475, 479, 482-483, 485-493, and App. B at 

pp. 9-19.

Blue Coat GRANTED

Ex. 9 to Kim Declaration, redacted at pp. 22-

23, 25, 26, 29-48, 51-55, 57-62, 64-69, 71-

88, 90-100, 102-107, 112-121, 124-142, 144-

154, 156-161, 163-172, 176-182, 186-191, 

194-197, 200-201, 203-239, 247-282, 284-

287, 291-295, 299-303, 305-310, 312-320, 

324-339, 343-360, 364-418, 422-428, 431-

434, 438-442, 444-449, 454-475, 479-505, 

507-512, 515-518, 520-542, 544-548, 552-

587, 591-597, 603-618, 620-625, 627-682, 

686-697, 701-719, and App. B at pp. 7-17.

Blue Coat GRANTED

ii. ECF 268

Identification of Documents to be Sealed

Entity That 

Designated the 

Information As 

Confidential

Court’s Order

Defendant Blue Coat Systems, Inc.’s 

Opposition to Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s Daubert

Motion (“Blue Coat’s Daubert Opposition”), 

redacted portions at 10:1-4, 10:6-10, 10:12-

16, 10:18-23, 10:25-11:6, and 11:10-14.

Blue Coat GRANTED

Blue Coat’s Daubert Opposition, redacted 

portions at 14:23-15:2, 15:5-8, 15:10-17, and 

15:19-20.

Finjan GRANTED

Case 5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document 320 Filed 06/23/15 Page 3 of 7
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

Ex. B to Declaration of Olivia M. Kim in 

Support of Blue Coat’s Daubert Opposition 

(“Kim Declaration”), redacted portions at pp. 

43, 80, 97, and 162.

Blue Coat GRANTED

Ex. C to Kim Declaration, redacted portions 

at pp. 28, 45, and 46.

Blue Coat GRANTED

Ex. D to Kim Declaration, in its entirety.

redacted portions at 216:2-13, 217:7-220:13, 

221:4-222:20, as set forth at 

Finjan GRANTED as to 

version at ECF 

280.

Ex. E to Kim Declaration, redacted portions 

at 1:10-18 and 1:24-28.

Blue Coat GRANTED

iii. ECF 291

Identification of Documents to be Sealed

Entity That 

Designated the 

Information As 

Confidential

Court’s Order

Exhibit 11 to Supplemental Declaration of 

Olivia M. Kim in Support of Defendant Blue 

Coat Systems, Inc.’s Daubert Motion (“Kim 

Declaration”), in its entirety.

Blue Coat GRANTED

B. Plaintiff’s Motions 

i. ECF 249

Identification of the documents to be sealed Entity that designated 

the information to be 

confidential

Court’s Order

Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s Notice of Daubert

Motion and Motion to Exclude Certain 

Opinions of Dr. Michael Hicks and Dr. George 

Necula and to Exclude the Opinions of Ms. 

Julie Davis (“Finjan’s Daubert Motion”) at p. 

9, ll. 3-4; p. 10, ll. 2-6, 25-26; p. 11, ll. 4-5, 9-

12, 26; p. 12, ll. 2, 11, 19, 26-27; p. 13, ll. 1-2; 

p. 14, ll. 7-8, 16-18, 20-22, 24, 26-27; p. 15, ll. 

3, 15, 23-24, 26; p. 16, l. 3; p. 17, ll. 14-16, 18-

19, 27. 9:3-4, 11:26, 12:2, 12:11, 12:19, and 

15:23-24

Blue Coat GRANTED as to 

version at ECF 254.

Declaration of James Hannah in Support of 

Finjan’s Daubert Motion (“Hannah Decl.”), 

Exhibits 8, 11 in their entirety.

Blue Coat DENIED because 

Defendant provided 

no reasons in 

support of sealing.

Case 5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document 320 Filed 06/23/15 Page 4 of 7
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

Hannah Decl., Exhibit 9, redacted portions at 

Table of Contents, pp. 7-9, 12-48, 50-63, 

Exhibits 3-6 and Appendices A-D and 

Appendix F. 

Finjan or Blue Coat GRANTED as to 

Defendant’s 

proposed redactions

at 31-37, 42-45, 51-

52, 55, 57, 61-62, 

Exhibits 3-6, and 

Appendices A, B, D, 

F and G. DENIED 

as to the remainder, 

without prejudice to 

Plaintiff proposing 

narrowly tailored 

redactions to protect 

its confidential 

licensing 

information.

Hannah Decl., Exhibit 10 in its entirety. Finjan or Blue Coat GRANTED as to 

Defendant’s 

proposed redactions

at 47:21-48:14,

49:11-21, 74:17-20, 

and 75:1-4. 

DENIED as to the 

remainder, without 

prejudice to Plaintiff 

proposing narrowly 

tailored redactions to 

protect its 

confidential 

licensing 

information.

Hannah Decl., Exhibit 12, redacted portions at 

pp. 80, 97 and 162.

Blue Coat GRANTED

Hannah Decl., Exhibit 19 in its entirety. Finjan GRANTED as to 

220:1-13. DENIED 

as to remainder, 

which discusses 

Plaintiff’s public 

filings. 

Hannah Decl., Exhibit 20 redacted portions at 

pp. 28 and 45.

Blue Coat GRANTED

ii. ECF 273

Identification of the documents to be sealed Entity that designated 

the information to be 

confidential

Court’s Order

Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s Opposition to Defendant 

Blue Coat Systems, Inc.’s Daubert Motion 

(“Finjan’s Opposition”), redacted portions at p. 

2:17, 2:19-22, 3:13, 4:19-20, 5:19, 6:8-9, 6:11, 

7:13-17, 7:21-24, 8:1-3, 8:9-10, 8:18-20, 8:22, 

8:26-27, 9:11, 9:13, 9:15-24, 10:9-17, 10:19-

22, 10:26, 11:6-7, 11:11, 11:19-20, 16:26, 

17:1-8 7:24-8:2, 8:26-27, 9:17-24, 10:14-15, 

10:19-20, and 16:26-17:8

Blue Coat GRANTED as to 

version at ECF 278

Case 5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document 320 Filed 06/23/15 Page 5 of 7
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

Declaration of James Hannah in Support of 

Finjan’s Opposition (“Hannah Decl.”), 

Exhibits 3-5, 7-9, and 32 in their entirety

Blue Coat DENIED as to 

Exhibits 3, 5, 8, 9, 

and 32 because 

Defendant provided 

no reasons in 

support of sealing. 

GRANTED as to 

Plaintiff’s proposed 

redactions for 

Exhibit 4 (redacted 

portions at 100:8-

101:25, 112:1-113:7, 

113:9-114:20, 

114:22-25, and 

119:5-25) and 

Exhibit 7 (redacted 

portion at 382:21-

25) at ECF 278

Hannah Decl., Exhibit 1 redacted portions on 

pgs. 61-62, 76, 78-81

Finjan or Blue Coat GRANTED

Hannah Decl., Exhibit 2 redacted portions on 

pgs. 16-17, 26-27, 31-35

Blue Coat GRANTED

Hannah Decl., Exhibit 6 redacted portions on 

pgs. 26-27, 37

Blue Coat GRANTED

Hannah Decl., Exhibit 10 redacted portions on 

pgs. 163, 503-504

Blue Coat GRANTED

iii. ECF 296

Identification of the documents to be sealed Entity that designated 

the information to be 

confidential

Court’s Order

Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of James Hannah 

in Support of Reply Brief in Support of its 

Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions of Dr. 

Michael Hicks and Dr. George Necula and to 

Exclude the Opinions of Ms. Julie Davis 

(“Hannah Declaration”)

Finjan GRANTED

Exhibit 4 to the Hannah Declaration redacted 

portions at 341:19-24, 342:23-343:3, 343:14-

17; and 345:20-346:6.

Blue Coat GRANTED as to 

version at ECF 313

Exhibit 5 to the Hannah Declaration at 51, 55, 

62, 63

Blue Coat GRANTED

Exhibit 5 to the Hannah Declaration at 53-54 Finjan GRANTED

III. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s sealing motions (ECF 244, 268, 291) are 

GRANTED. Plaintiff’s sealing motions (ECF 249, 273, 296) are GRANTED IN PART and 

DENIED IN PART. For any request that has been denied, Plaintiff shall file the unredacted (or 

lesser redacted) documents into the public record by June 29, 2015. For any request that has been 

Case 5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document 320 Filed 06/23/15 Page 6 of 7
7

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

denied without prejudice to seeking more narrowly tailored redactions, Plaintiff shall propose any 

such redactions by June 29, 2015. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 23, 2015

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document 320 Filed 06/23/15 Page 7 of 7