Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-03999/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-03999-32/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 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT 

BLUE COAT SYSTEMS, INC.’S

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO

FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

[Re: ECF 463]

Before the Court is Defendant Blue Coat Systems, Inc.’s administrative motion to file 

documents under seal in connection with Defendant’s opening brief regarding non-legal jury 

issues. Defendant seeks to file under seal Exhibits 41-48 to Supplemental Declaration of Olivia 

M. Kim in Support of Defendant Blue Coat Systems, Inc.’s Opening Brief Regarding Non-Jury 

Legal Issues (“Kim Supplemental Declaration”), in their entirety. Exhibits 41-48 were designated 

by Plaintiff as highly confidential. On September 14, 2015 Plaintiff filed a declaration in support 

of Defendant’s motion to file documents under seal.

“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. 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. 589, 598 (1978)). However, “[t]he mere fact that the production of records may 

Case 5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document 480 Filed 10/05/15 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

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). 

The Court has reviewed Defendant’s sealing motion and the declaration of Lisa Kobialka 

submitted in support. The Court finds that Plaintiff has articulated compelling reasons to seal the 

submitted documents and that the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored, consistent with the 

requirements of Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(C). Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to seal is 

GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 5, 2015

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document 480 Filed 10/05/15 Page 2 of 2