Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-04467/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-04467-11/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.

SONICWALL, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-04467-BLF (VKD)

ORDER GRANTING 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 249

In connection with a discovery dispute concerning defendant SonicWall, Inc.’s requests to 

obtain documents from another action that plaintiff Finjan, Inc. contends are protected under the 

attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine (Dkt. No. 248), SonicWall filed an 

administrative motion to file portions of the parties’ joint discovery dispute letter and an 

associated exhibit under seal. Dkt. No. 249. Having considered the parties’ submissions, the 

Court grants the administrative motion, as set forth below.

There is a strong presumption in favor of access by the public to judicial records and 

documents accompanying dispositive motions that can be overcome only by a showing of 

“compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

However, the presumption does not apply equally to a motion addressing matters that are only 

“tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 

1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied sub nom. FCA U.S. LLC v. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 137 S. Ct. 

38 (2016). A litigant seeking to seal documents or information in connection with such a motion 

must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 253 Filed 04/22/20 Page 1 of 2
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

Id. at 1098–99; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80.

SonicWall’s motion to seal concerns information submitted in connection with a discovery 

dispute. The underlying discovery dispute does not address the merits of the parties’ claims or 

defenses, but rather whether Finjan’s assertion of the attorney-client privilege and attorney work 

product doctrine is proper. The material to be sealed is only tangentially related to the merits of 

the case. The Court therefore applies the “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c). 

The material proposed to be filed under seal is derived from documents that have been 

designated “Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” Finjan contends that the material encompasses 

confidential business and competitive information and that the material is also privileged, which 

the parties dispute. Dkt. No. 252. In these circumstances, the Court finds that good cause exists to 

seal the following material:

Document Portions to be Sealed

Joint Discovery Letter (Dkt. No. 248)

Highlighted portions on pages 2 and 3, and

Exhibit A

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 22, 2020

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 253 Filed 04/22/20 Page 2 of 2