Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-03999/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-03999-20/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 RE SEALING 

MOTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH 

MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

[Re: ECF 173, 175, 185, 187, 193, 195]

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

parties’ respective briefing on summary judgment. ECF 173, 175, 185, 187, 193, 195. Each 

motion is supported by declarations from the party that designated the material as confidential. 

For the reasons stated herein, the motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART with 

leave to propose sealing that is more narrowly tailored to only the sealable material. 

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—such as the motions for summary judgment in connection with which the 

present sealing motions were filed—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. This standard is 

invoked “even if the dispositive motion, or its attachments, were previously filed under seal or 

protective order.” Id. at 1179 (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136). Compelling reasons for sealing 

Case 5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document 201 Filed 04/17/15 Page 1 of 5
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

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.” Id. (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 

U.S. 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.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.

In this District, parties seeking to seal judicial records must furthermore follow Civil Local 

Rule 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 parties’ respective sealing motions are not narrowly tailored. For example, both 

parties request that the parties’ respective expert reports on infringement/non-infringement be filed 

entirely under seal. The reason offered in support of this request is that the reports “contain 

reference to highly confidential Blue Coat technical information regarding the nomenclature, 

functionality, operation, architecture, development, and source code of Blue Coat’s products.” 

Decl. of Olivia M. Kim ISO Sealing ¶ 3(c) (emphasis added), ECF 173-1; see also, e.g., Decl. of 

Paul A. McAdams ISO Sealing ¶ 4(g), ECF 184. Certainly, there is sealable matter in the reports. 

There is also non-confidential matter, such as each expert’s qualifications and general statements 

about the law, the technological background of this lawsuit, the patents-in-suit, and the accused 

products. The rules of this District require narrow tailoring to the sealable matter and do not 

permit wholesale sealing when portions of the document are not otherwise sealable.

Furthermore, for many documents sought to be filed under seal, Blue Coat asserts 

generically that they contain reference to “highly confidential Blue Coat technical information 

regarding the nomenclature, functionality, operation, architecture, and source code of Blue Coat’s 

products.” E.g., Kim Decl. ¶ 3(b), ECF 173-1. It is not entirely clear why “nomenclature” and 

generalized descriptions of “functionality” are confidential and sealable. For example, the parties 

Case 5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document 201 Filed 04/17/15 Page 2 of 5
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

have not been consistent in redacting references to accused components like “Cookie2” or 

“DRTR,” and mere mention of these components and generalized explanations as to why they do 

not infringe the patents-in-suit would not be sealable. Nor is it clear why the names of certain 

documents are so confidential that they must be filed under seal. See, e.g., McAdams Decl. ¶ 4(b) 

(requesting sealing of portions of Declaration of James Hannah at p. 2, ll. 6, 8; p. 3, ll. 21-22; and 

p. 7, ll. 7-8). As such, the parties’ sealing requests are generally overbroad and, in certain 

instances, not supported by specific facts establishing compelling reasons for sealing. 

III. ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the parties’ respective administrative motions to file under seal are 

GRANTED IN PART as set forth in the tables below, and those documents or portions thereof 

shall remain under seal. The motions are DENIED IN PART with respect to any document, 

exhibit, or portion thereof not addressed in the tables below. Such denial is without prejudice to a 

renewed request that is appropriately narrowly tailored and supported by specific facts 

demonstrating compelling reasons for sealing. The parties are encouraged to meet and confer to 

develop narrowly tailored redactions and shall have leave to file a renewed sealing request by no 

later than May 1, 2015.

A. Blue Coat’s Sealing Motions

i. Motion at ECF 173

Identification of Documents to be Sealed

Entity That 

Designated the 

Information As 

Confidential

Ruling

Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, and 26 to 

Declaration of Olivia M. Kim in Support of 

Blue Coat’s Motion for Partial Summary 

Judgment of Non-Infringement and Invalidity. Blue Coat

GRANTED ONLY with 

respect to Exhibits 6, 7, 

10, 11, and 26 for the 

reasons stated in the Kim 

Declaration at ¶¶ 3(d)-

(f), (i). ECF 173-1. 

DENIED as to Exhibits 

1, 2, 4, and 14.

Exhibit 20 to Declaration of Olivia M. Kim in 

Support of Blue Coat’s Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement and 

Blue Coat

GRANTED.

Case 5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document 201 Filed 04/17/15 Page 3 of 5
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

Invalidity at pp. 6-7; 12-13; 58-59; and 63-64.

ii. Motion at ECF 185

Identification of Documents to be Sealed

Entity That 

Designated the 

Information As 

Confidential

Ruling

Exhibits A, B, C, E, F, G, and H to 

Declaration of Olivia M. Kim in Support of 

Blue Coat’s Opposition. Blue Coat

GRANTED ONLY with 

respect to Exhibits A 

(see below), B, C, E, and 

F. DENIED as to 

Exhibits G and H.

Exhibits A and D to Declaration of Olivia M. 

Kim in Support of Blue Coat’s Opposition.

Finjan

GRANTED with respect 

to the portions that 

Finjan proposes to 

redact. See Decl. of 

Kristopher Kastens ¶¶ 

3(b)-(c) and Attachments 

3-6, ECF 191. 

B. Finjan’s Sealing Motions

i. Motion at ECF 175

Identification of the documents to be sealed

Entity that 

designated the 

information to 

be confidential

Ruling

Hannah Decl. at Exhibits 5-12, 19-26, 28-31, 

33-35, 38-40, 43-44, 46-49, 51-54, 56-60, 62-

64, and 67-70.

Blue Coat GRANTED ONLY with 

respect to Exhibits 5-11, 

22-26, 28, 30-31, 38-40, 

44, 46, 48-49, 51-52, 54, 

56-60, 62, 64, and 67-70 

for the reasons stated in 

the McAdams 

Declaration. ECF 184. 

DENIED as to the rest.

Hannah Decl. at Exhibit 4. Blue Coat and 

Finjan

GRANTED.

ii. Motion at ECF 187

Identification of the documents to be sealed

Entity that 

designated the 

information to 

be confidential

Ruling

Declaration of Benu Wells in Support of Blue Coat GRANTED for the 

Case 5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document 201 Filed 04/17/15 Page 4 of 5
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

Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s Opposition to Defendant 

Blue Coat Systems, Iinc.’s Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement and 

Invalidity (“Wells Decl.”), at p. 1, ll. 11, 14, 17; 

and p. 2, l. 22.

reasons stated in the Kim 

Declaration ¶ 4(c). ECF 

190.

Wells Decl., Exhibits 1-4, 7-11, 13, and 15-19. Blue Coat GRANTED ONLY with 

respect to Exhibits 2-4, 7, 

9, 15-19 for the reasons

stated in the Kim 

Declaration. ECF 190. 

DENIED as to Exhibits 1, 

8, 10, 11, 13.

iii. Motion at ECF 195

Identification of the documents to be sealed

Entity that 

designated the 

information to 

be confidential

Ruling

Kastens Decl., Exhibits 2 and 4-5 Blue Coat GRANTED ONLY with 

respect to Exhibit 2 for the 

reasons stated in the 

McAdams Declaration.

ECF 197. DENIED as to 

Exhibits 4-5.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 17, 2015

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document 201 Filed 04/17/15 Page 5 of 5