Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-03295/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-03295-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1126 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. 15-cv-03295-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING SEALING 

MOTION

[Re: ECF 88]

Before the Court is Defendant’s administrative motion to file under seal portions of their 

briefing and exhibits. ECF 88. For the reasons stated below, the motion is GRANTED.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of 

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 

U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are 

“more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of 

“compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 

1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed 

upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. 

In addition, sealing motions filed in this district must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing 

only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). A party moving to seal a document in whole or in 

part must file a declaration establishing that the identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-

5(d)(1)(A). “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain 

documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are 

sealable.” Id. 

Case 5:15-cv-03295-BLF Document 101 Filed 09/01/16 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

II. DISCUSSION

The Court has reviewed Defendant’s sealing motion and declarations in support thereof. 

The Court finds that Defendant has articulated compelling reasons to seal the submitted 

documents. The proposed redactions are also narrowly tailored. The Court’s ruling on the sealing 

request is set forth in the table below:

Identification of Documents 

to be Sealed

Description of Documents Court’s Order

Defendant Blue Coat Systems, 

Inc.’s Motion to Strike 

Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s Patent 

L.R. 3-1 Infringement 

Contentions Regarding U.S. 

Patent Nos. 6,154,844; 

6,965,968; and 7,418,731 

(“Blue Coat’s Motion to 

Strike”), redacted at 11:4-16, 

21-23.

References to Blue Coat’s 

highly confidential information 

regarding products and 

functionality, operation, 

architecture, and development 

thereof, including reference to 

portions of Blue Coat’s source 

code (“technical information”).

GRANTED.

Ex. 1 to Declaration of Gina H. 

Cremona in Support of Blue 

Coat’s Motion to Strike 

Infringement Contentions 

(“Cremona Declaration”), 

redacted portions at pp. 9, 11, 

12, 26, 27, 32, 34, 35, 39, 43, 

44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 53-55, 58, 

65, 68, 74, 82, 83.

References to Blue Coat’s 

highly confidential technical 

information.

GRANTED.

Ex. 2 to Cremona Declaration, 

redacted portions at pp. 3-5, 

12-13, 15-21, 24-26, 29, 30, 

35-40, 43, 44, 47-53, 57-60, 

63, 64, 67-77, 80-84, 87-91, 

97, 99-103, 110, 111, 113, 114, 

118, 119, 126-129.

References to Blue Coat’s 

highly confidential technical 

information.

GRANTED.

Ex. 3 to Cremona Declaration, 

redacted portions at pp. 1, 30, 

35, 42, 43.

References to Blue Coat’s 

highly confidential technical 

information.

GRANTED.

Ex. 4 to Cremona Declaration, 

redacted portions at pp. 30, 35, 

47.

References to Blue Coat’s 

highly confidential technical 

information.

GRANTED.

Ex. 5 to Cremona Declaration, 

redacted portions at pp. 1, 8, 

15, 21, 22, 26, 27, 38, 42, 44, 

56, 65, 66, 72, 73, 78.

References to Blue Coat’s 

highly confidential technical 

information.

GRANTED.

Ex. 6 to Cremona Declaration, 

redacted portions at pp. 4, 7-

10, 12, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, 

38, 39, 40-42, 50, 53, 54, 56, 

57.

References to Blue Coat’s 

highly confidential technical 

information.

GRANTED.

Ex. 7 to Cremona Declaration, References to Blue Coat’s GRANTED.

Case 5:15-cv-03295-BLF Document 101 Filed 09/01/16 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

redacted portions at pp. 1, 11, 

62, 63, 81, 82, 107, 108, 120, 

126

highly confidential technical 

information.

Ex. 8 to Cremona Declaration, 

redacted portions at pp. 13, 33, 

39, 40, 53, 54, 60, 61, 70, 71, 

92, 93, 100, 110.

References to Blue Coat’s 

highly confidential technical 

information.

GRANTED.

Ex. 9 to Cremona Declaration, 

redacted portions at pp. 3-5, 

12, 14-25, 30, 34-36, 38, 39, 

40-51, 54-64, 68- 74, 77-78, 

80-82, 86-96, 98, 99, 100-106, 

108-109, 113-119.

References to Blue Coat’s 

highly confidential technical 

information.

GRANTED.

III. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motion at ECF 88 is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 1, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-03295-BLF Document 101 Filed 09/01/16 Page 3 of 3