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.

CISCO SYSTEMS INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-00072-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

SEAL AT ECF 329

[RE: ECF 329]

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

briefing and exhibits submitted in connection with Defendant’s Reply in Support of Its Motion to 

Strike Finjan’s Expert Reports on Infringement (332). ECF 329. For the reasons that follow, the 

motion to seal 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 & Cty. 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)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong 

presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to 

motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden 

of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of 

access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 

1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. Parties moving to seal documents 

must also comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 79-
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

5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request 

that establishes the document is “sealable,” or “privileged or 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, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). 

In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the submitting party to attach a “proposed order that is narrowly 

tailored to seal only the sealable material” which “lists in table format each document or portion 

thereof that is sought to be sealed,” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an “unredacted version of the 

document” that indicates “by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that 

have been omitted from the redacted version.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d). “Within 4 days of the 

filing of the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a 

declaration as required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material 

is sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). 

II. DISCUSSION 

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

party submitted in support thereof. The Court finds that Defendant articulated compelling reasons 

to seal certain portions of the requested documents. The proposed redactions are narrowly 

tailored. The Court’s rulings on the sealing requests are set forth in the table below.

ECF No. Document to be Sealed Result Reasoning

329-4 

(Corrected 

at ECF 

334)

Cisco Systems, Inc.’s Reply in 

Support of Its Motion to Strike 

Finjan’s Expert Reports on 

Infringement in View of the 

Orders Dated June 11, 2019 and 

July 7, 2019.

GRANTED as to the 

highlighted portions

at page 4, lines 11-14, 

18-19, 27-28; page 5, 

lines 7-8.

If filed publicly,

this confidential 

information could be 

used to Cisco’s 

disadvantage by 

competitors, as it 

reveals Cisco’s 

confidential business 

information, 

including structure 

and operation of the 

accused products. 

See Bartow Decl. ¶¶ 

2-5, ECF 329-1.

329-7 Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of 

David C. Dotson (ECF 329-5) in 

Support of Cisco Systems, Inc.’s 

GRANTED as to the 

entire document.

This document 

contains Cisco 

confidential 
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

ECF No. Document to be Sealed Result Reasoning

Reply in Support of Its Motion to 

Strike Finjan’s Expert Reports on 

Infringement in View of the 

Orders Dated June 11, 2019 and 

July 7, 2019.

information regarding 

structure and 

operation of the 

accused products. 

See Bartow Decl. ¶¶ 

2-5, ECF 329-1.

329-9 Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of 

David C. Dotson (332-1) in 

Support of Cisco Systems, Inc.’s 

Reply in Support of Its Motion to 

Strike Finjan’s Expert Reports on 

Infringement in View of the 

Orders Dated June 11, 2019 and 

July 7, 2019.

GRANTED as to the 

entire document.

This document 

contains Cisco 

confidential 

information regarding 

structure and 

operation of the 

accused products. 

See Bartow Decl. ¶¶ 

2-5, ECF 329-1.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant’s motion to seal at 

ECF 329. No further action is necessary. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 16, 2019

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge