Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-04790/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-04790-29/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

FINJAN, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

BITDEFENDER INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-04790-HSG 

ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 191, 196

Pending before the Court are the parties’ administrative motions to file under seal 

documents in connection with Bitdefender’s motion for summary judgment, Daubert motion, and

motion to strike. Dkt. Nos. 191, 196. For the reasons articulated below, the Court GRANTS the 

administrative motions to seal. 

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 

documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana 

v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the 

common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records 

and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of 

access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this 

strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion 

must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 

general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in 

understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations

omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 

Case 4:17-cv-04790-HSG Document 205 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 4
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

disclosure and justify sealing court records 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. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. 

Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The 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. 

The Court must “balance[] the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to 

keep certain judicial records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal 

certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual 

basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. Civil Local Rule 79-5 

supplements the compelling reasons standard set forth in Kamakana: the party seeking to file a 

document or portions of it under seal must “establish[] that the document, or portions thereof, are 

privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law . . . The 

request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). 

Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 

Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only 

tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80 

(quotations omitted). This requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm

will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 

307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of 

harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman 

Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted).

II. DISCUSSION

Because the parties seek to seal portions and documents which pertain to Bitdefender’s 

motion for summary judgment, the Court applies the compelling reasons standard. The Court will 

apply the lower good cause standard for documents related to the motion to strike and Daubert 

motion. 

The parties seek to seal documents which reference Bitdefender’s confidential product 

Case 4:17-cv-04790-HSG Document 205 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 4
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

information, including citations to highly sensitive source code, Bitdefender’s financial and sales 

information, and Finjan’s confidential business information. Dkt. Nos. 191, 196. Bitdefender 

submitted its Rule 79-5 supporting declarations establishing that the unredacted information 

contains sensitive and proprietary information, and that disclosure of the information would cause 

irreparable harm to Bitdefender and possibly its clients. Dkt. No. 196-1 at ¶¶ 5–7; Dkt. No. 195 at 

¶¶ 2–3. Finjan also submitted its supporting declaration, representing that the information 

included confidential terms of its business practices and licenses, and the identity of third parties it 

was obligated to keep confidential under the terms of the agreements. Dkt. No. 191-1 at ¶ 6. 

The Court did not rely on any of the documents that are the subject of the parties’ 

administrative motions to seal, given that the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal with 

prejudice before the hearing on Bitdefender’s motions. Dkt. No. 204. Thus, these documents are 

unrelated to the public’s understanding of the judicial proceedings in this case, and the public’s 

interest in disclosure of these documents is minimal given that the Court will not rule on 

Bitdefender’s motions. See In re iPhone Application Litig., No. 11-MD-02250-LHK, 2013 WL 

12335013, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2013) (“The public’s interest in accessing these documents is 

even further diminished in light of the fact that the Court will not have occasion to rule on 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification.”). Accordingly, because the documents divulge 

proprietary and confidential information unrelated to the public’s understanding of the judicial 

proceedings in this action, the Court finds that there is compelling reason and good cause to file 

the documents under seal. See Economus v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, No. 18-CV-01071-

HSG, 2019 WL 1483804, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2019) (finding compelling reason to seal 

because the sealing request divulges sensitive information no longer related to the case); In re 

iPhone, 2013 WL 12335013 (same); Doe v. City of San Diego, No. 12-CV-689-MMA-DHB, 2014 

WL 1921742, at *4 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2014) (exhibit’s disclosure of personal information and 

irrelevance to the matter are compelling reasons to seal the exhibit).

Case 4:17-cv-04790-HSG Document 205 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 4
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

III. CONCLUSION

The Court GRANTS the parties’ administrative motions to file under seal. Pursuant to

Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(1), documents filed under seal as to which the administrative motions are 

granted will remain under seal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 2/20/2020

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:17-cv-04790-HSG Document 205 Filed 02/20/20 Page 4 of 4