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 RE: SEALING MOTIONS AT 

ECF 467 AND ECF 475

Before the Court are administrative motions filed by Plaintiff Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”) and 

Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) to file under seal portions of their Reply briefs and exhibits 

in connection with the parties’ Daubert motions. For the reasons states below, (1) Cisco’s

Administrative Motion to File under Seal at ECF 467 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN 

PART and (2) Finjan’s Administrative Motion to File under Seal at ECF 475 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.

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 490 Filed 03/27/20 Page 1 of 13
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

However, “while protecting the public’s interest in access to the courts, we must remain 

mindful of the parties’ right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm 

their competitive interest.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228–29 (Fed. 

Cir. 2013). Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the 

merits of a case” therefore are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 

809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access 

to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often 

unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving to seal 

the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c). 

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This standard requires a 

“particularized showing,” id., 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 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). A protective order sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court’s 

previous determination that good cause exists to keep the documents sealed, see Kamakana, 447 

F.3d at 1179–80, but a blanket protective order that allows the parties to designate confidential

documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine whether each particular 

document should remain sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) (“Reference to a stipulation or 

protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient 

to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.”).

In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal 

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

79-5(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 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 490 Filed 03/27/20 Page 2 of 13
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

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 the parties’ sealing motions and the declarations of the designating 

parties submitted in support thereof. The Court’s rulings on the sealing requests are set forth in the 

tables below. Where the designating party has requested sealing, the Court finds that the parties 

have articulated compelling reasons to seal certain portions of the submitted documents and the 

proposed redactions are generally narrowly tailored. 

A. ECF 467, Administrative Motion to File under Seal Cisco’s Reply Briefs in 

Support of Its Daubert Motions 

ECF 

No.

Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning

ECF 

467-8, 

Ex. 1

Excerpts from

Deposition transcript of

Michael Goodrich

attached as Ex. 1 to

Cisco’s Reply Brief in

Support of its Motion

to Exclude the

Testimony of Michael

Goodrich.

GRANTED 

as to the 

entire 

document

This transcript was designated in its 

entirety by Finjan as “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLY” under the terms of the 

Protective Order. Portions of this 

document contain confidential 

technical information related to the 

source code of the accused Cisco 

products and Finjan’s expert’s analysis 

thereof. Public disclosure of this 

information would cause harm to 

Cisco. Declaration of Nicole E. Grigg 

(“Grigg Decl. I”) ¶¶ 2-4, ECF 467-1. 

ECF 

467-4

Cisco’s Reply Brief in Support 

of its Motion to Exclude the 

Testimony of Dr. Layne-Farrar

GRANTED 

as to portions 

at page 1, 

The highlighted portions of this 

document are direct quotes from or 

reference the exhibits that Cisco is 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 490 Filed 03/27/20 Page 3 of 13
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

ECF 

No.

Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning

lines 7-8, 19-

20; page 2, 

lines 8–13; 

page 3, lines 

6, 14-15, 19-

21.

filing under seal (Exhibits 2 and 3 to 

the Grigg Decl. and discussed further 

below), which were designated by 

either Cisco or Finjan as “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIALATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLY” pursuant to the terms of 

the Stipulated Protective Order for 

reasons discussed below. Grigg Decl. I

¶¶ 2-4.

Finjan seeks to seal the following 

portions of Defendant Cisco Systems, 

Inc.’s Reply in Support of Its Motion 

to Exclude the Testimony of Finjan, 

Inc.’s Dr. Layne-Farrar: p. 2, ll. 8-13; 

p. 3, ll. 6, 14-15, 19, 20-21. The 

foregoing portions discuss Finjan’s 

confidential license agreements and 

licensing negotiations with third 

parties. Finjan treats its licenses as 

highly confidential within its business 

and makes substantial efforts not to 

disclose the terms of its licenses to the 

public. The provisions of the license 

agreements, negotiations leading up to 

the agreements, and names of the 

licensees and license fees are treated as 

highly confidential. Disclosure of such 

information may significantly harm 

Finjan’s business as it can be used by 

third parties in licensing negotiations 

to unfairly leverage against Finjan or 

for unfair competitive advantage in the 

marketplace. If any of the confidential 

terms of such agreements were made 

public, it will negatively impact the 

bargaining positions of Finjan in future 

licensing negotiations with competitors 

and Finjan’s relationship with its 

licensees. Declaration of Melissa 

Brenner (“Brenner Decl.”) ¶¶ 3-4, ECF 

477.

ECF 

467-10, 

Excerpts from Deposition 

transcript of Julie Mar-Spinola

GRANTED 

as to portions 

This transcript was designated in its 

entirety by Finjan as “HIGHLY 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 490 Filed 03/27/20 Page 4 of 13
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

ECF 

No.

Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning

Ex. 2

at p. 132, ll. 

7, 19-23; p. 

133, ll. 11-

25; p. 134, ll. 

1-9; p. 135, 

ll. 14-25; and 

the entirety 

of the 

appended 

deposition 

exhibit 23 

(bearing 

bates 

numbers 

FINJANCISCO 

462449-65)

CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLY” under the terms of the 

Protective Order. Specifically, this 

document contains confidential 

deposition testimony regarding 

financial information relating to 

Finjan’s licensing discussions and 

negotiations. Grigg Decl. I ¶¶ 2-4.

Ex. 2 to the Omnibus Grigg 

Declaration is excerpts from the 

Deposition of Julie Mar-Spinola, 

including an appended deposition 

exhibit. Finjan seeks to seal the 

following portions of this document: p. 

132, ll. 7, 19-23; p. 133, ll. 11-25; p. 

134, ll. 1-9; p. 135, ll. 14-25; and the 

entirety of the appended deposition 

exhibit 23 (bearing bates numbers 

FINJAN-CISCO 462449-65). The 

foregoing portions discuss Finjan’s 

confidential license agreements and 

licensing negotiations with third 

parties. As explained in paragraph 1, 

Finjan treats its licenses as highly 

confidential within its business and 

makes substantial efforts not to 

disclose the terms of its licenses to the 

public. If such provisions were made 

public, it could negatively impact 

Finjan’s bargaining positions in future 

licensing negotiations with competitors 

and no public interest will be served by 

disclosing this information publicly. 

Brenner Decl. ¶¶ 3, 5.

ECF 

467-11,

Ex. 3

Excerpts from Deposition 

transcript of Stephen L. Becker

GRANTED 

as to the 

entire 

document

This transcript was designated in its 

entirety by Cisco as “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLY” under the terms of the 

Protective Order. Specifically, this 

document contains confidential 

deposition testimony relating to the 

pricing, costs, and sales of the accused 

Cisco products and technical 

information related to the structure, 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 490 Filed 03/27/20 Page 5 of 13
6

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

function and operation of the accused 

Cisco products and Finjan’s expert’s 

analysis thereof. Grigg Decl. I ¶¶ 2-4.

Ex. 3 to the Omnibus Grigg 

Declaration is excerpts from the 

Deposition of Stephen Becker. Finjan 

seeks to seal the following portions of 

this document: p. 105, ll. 1-5, 8, 11, 

12-23; p. 106, ll. 3-7, 17-25; p. 107, ll. 

1, 20-25; p. 108, ll. 1, 9-14, 20-25. The 

foregoing portions discuss Finjan’s 

confidential license agreements and 

licensing negotiations with third 

parties. As explained in paragraph 1, 

Finjan treats its licenses as highly 

confidential within its business and 

makes substantial efforts not to 

disclose the terms of its licenses to the 

public. If such provisions were made 

public, it could negatively impact 

Finjan’s bargaining positions in future 

licensing negotiations with competitors 

and no public interest will be served by 

disclosing this information publicly. 

Brenner Decl. ¶¶ 3, 6.

ECF 

467-8

Cisco’s Reply Brief in Support 

of its Motion to Exclude the 

Testimony of James Tompkins

DENIED The highlighted portion of this 

document is a direct quote from Ex. 6, 

discussed immediately below, that 

Cisco is filing under seal because 

Finjan designated the transcript as 

“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL

ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” 

pursuant to the terms of the Stipulated 

Protective Order. Grigg Decl. I ¶¶ 2-4.

Cisco is not seeking to seal “Ex.6”. To 

the extent Cisco means to refer to 

Exhibit 4 (Excerpts from Deposition 

Transcript of James Tompkins), Finjan 

is not seeking to seal that transcript. 

See generally Brenner Decl.

ECF 

467-12,

Excerpts from Deposition 

transcript of James Tompkins

DENIED This transcript was designated in its 

entirety by Finjan as “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL-OUTSIDE 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 490 Filed 03/27/20 Page 6 of 13
7

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

Ex. 4 ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” under 

the terms of the Protective Order. 

Cisco is not claiming that any portion 

of this excerpt contains its confidential 

information. However, given that 

Finjan has marked the testimony as 

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –

ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY, in an 

abundance of caution Cisco is 

requesting that it be sealed until Finjan 

confirms that the information does not 

require sealing. Grigg Decl. I ¶¶ 2-4.

The designating party (Finjan) does not 

seek to seal this document. See 

generally Brenner Decl.

ECF 

467-6

Cisco’s Reply Brief in Support 

of its Motion to Exclude the 

Testimony of Cole, 

Mitzenmacher and Medvidovic

GRANTED 

as to 

highlighted 

portions at 

page 1, lines 

13, 16- 19, 

26-27; page 

2, lines 24-

28.

The highlighted portions of this 

document are direct quotes from or 

reference the exhibits that Cisco filed 

under seal, pursuant to the Court’s 

Order (Dkt. 466), in connection with 

its opening brief in support of this 

motion. Grigg Decl. I ¶¶ 2-4.

B. ECF 475, Finjan’s Administrative Motion to File under Seal Its Reply Brief in 

Support of Motion to Exclude Opinions of Cisco's Experts Mr. Overby and Dr. 

Becker 

ECF No. Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning

ECF 475-

3

Finjan’s Reply Brief in 

Support of Motion to Exclude 

Opinions of Cisco’s Experts 

Mr. Overby and Dr. Becker

GRANTED 

as to Page 2, 

lines 16-18, 

20-22 Page 

3, lines 12-

15, 20-27 

Page 4, lines 

1-6 Page 5, 

lines 9-10, 

25-26 Page 

6, lines 8-14

This document reflects information 

relating to Finjan’s confidential 

licenses and licensing negotiations 

that Finjan designated as “Highly 

Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” 

under the Protective Order. 

Declaration of Hannah Lee (“Lee 

Decl.”) ¶ 2, ECF 475-1.

Finjan’s Reply Brief in Support of its 

Motion to Exclude Opinions of Mr. 

Overby and Dr. Becker at page 2, 

lines 16-18, 20-22; page 3, lines 12-

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 490 Filed 03/27/20 Page 7 of 13
8

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

15, 20-27; page 4, lines 1-6; page 5, 

lines 9-10, 25-26; and page 6, lines 8-

14 contain highly confidential 

licensing information that Finjan has 

designated as “Highly Confidential –

Attorneys’ Eyes Only – Source Code” 

and “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ 

Eyes Only.” Finjan treats its licensing 

negotiations and the terms of its 

license agreements as highly 

confidential within its business and 

makes substantial efforts not to 

disclose the terms of its licenses or 

negotiations to the public. The 

provisions of the license agreements, 

negotiations leading up to the 

agreements, and names of the 

licensees and license fees are treated 

as highly confidential. Disclosure of 

such information may significantly 

harm Finjan’s business as it can be 

used by third parties in licensing 

negotiations to unfairly leverage 

against Finjan or for unfair 

competitive advantage in the 

marketplace. If any of the confidential 

terms of such agreements were made 

public, it will negatively impact the 

bargaining positions of Finjan in 

future licensing negotiations with 

competitors and Finjan’s relationship 

with its licensees. Lee Decl. ¶ 3.

ECF 475-

5

Excerpts of the transcript of 

the deposition of Julie MarSpinola 

Ex. 1 to Declaration of Hannah 

Lee in Support of Finjan’s

Reply Brief in support of 

Motion to Exclude Opinions of 

Cisco’s Experts Mr. Overby 

and Dr. Becker (“Reply Lee 

Decl.”)

GRANTED 

as to the 

entire 

document

This document reflects information 

regarding confidential aspects of 

Finjan’s business and licensing 

information designated “Attorneys’ 

Eyes Only.” Lee Decl. ¶ 2.

Reply Lee Decl., Exhibit 1, in its 

entirety are excerpts of deposition 

testimony of Finjan’s Manager of 

Licensing which contain Finjan’s 

highly confidential information 

regarding licensing negotiations. As 

stated above, this information is 

highly confidential to Finjan’s 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 490 Filed 03/27/20 Page 8 of 13
9

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

business, and Finjan would be 

substantially harmed if this 

information was disclosed publicly. 

Lee Decl. ¶ 4. 

ECF 475-

7

Excerpts of the Expert Report 

of Stephen L. Becker, Ph.D. 

on Behalf of Cisco Systems, 

Inc.

Ex. 2 to Reply Lee Decl.

GRANTED 

as to the 

entire 

document

This document reflects information 

regarding Finjan’s licenses that Finjan 

has designated as “Highly 

Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” 

under the Protective Order. Lee Decl. 

¶ 2.

Reply Lee Decl., Exhibit 2, in its 

entirety are excerpts of Cisco’s 

damages expert report which contains 

Finjan’s highly confidential 

information regarding its licenses. As 

stated above, this information is 

highly confidential to Finjan’s 

business, and Finjan would be 

substantially harmed if this 

information was disclosed publicly. 

Lee Decl. ¶ 5.

ECF 475-

9

Excerpts of the Expert Report 

of Dr. Anne Layne-Farrar

Ex. 3 to Reply Lee Decl.

GRANTED 

as to 

¶¶ 66-84, 86-

87, 189- 332

and

¶¶ 66-87, 330

This document reflects information 

regarding business, investor and 

licensing communications that Finjan 

and Cisco have designated as “Highly 

Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” 

under the Protective Order. Finjan 

relies on Cisco’s confidentiality 

designation for the first three 

sentences of paragraph 68, paragraph 

69, paragraph 72 starting with “Mr. 

Hilton Romanski...” through 

“IronPort,” second sentence of 

paragraph 73, last sentence of 

paragraph 73, paragraphs 74-76, last 

sentence of paragraph 77, second 

through fourth sentences of paragraph 

78, paragraphs 79-80, first and second 

sentences of paragraph 81, second 

through fifth sentences of paragraph 

82, third and fourth sentences of 

paragraph 83, paragraph 84, 86. Finjan 

designates the remainder of the 

redacted paragraphs and footnotes as 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 490 Filed 03/27/20 Page 9 of 13
10

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

containing confidential information 

about its business, investor, and 

licensing communications. Lee Decl. 

¶ 2. 

Reply Lee Decl., Exhibit 3, in its 

entirety are excerpts of Finjan’s 

damages expert report which contains 

Finjan and Cisco’s highly confidential 

information regarding business, 

investor and licensing 

communications. Finjan relies on 

Cisco’s confidentiality designation for 

the first three sentences of paragraph 

68, paragraph 69, paragraph 72 

starting with “Mr. Hilton 

Romanski...” through “IronPort,” 

second sentence of paragraph 73, last 

sentence of paragraph 73, paragraphs 

74-76, last sentence of paragraph 77, 

second through fourth sentences of 

paragraph 78, paragraphs 79-80, first 

and second sentences of paragraph 81, 

second through fifth sentences of 

paragraph 82, third and fourth 

sentences of paragraph 83, paragraph 

84, 86. Finjan designates the 

remainder of the redacted paragraphs 

and footnotes as containing 

confidential information about its 

business, investor, and licensing 

communications. As stated above, this 

information is highly confidential to 

Finjan’s business, and Finjan would 

be substantially harmed if this 

information was disclosed publicly. 

Lee Decl. ¶ 6.

This document reflects information 

relating to the parties’ licenses and 

negotiations as well as Cisco’s 

internal business and financial 

information that Cisco has designated 

“Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ 

Eyes Only” under the Protective 

Order, which, if publicly disclosed, 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 490 Filed 03/27/20 Page 10 of 13
11

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

could result in competitive harm to 

Cisco. Declaration of Nicole Grigg 

(“Grigg Decl II”) ¶¶ 2-5, ECf 483.

ECF 475-

11

Excerpts of the Expert Report 

of Eric Cole, PH.D. Regarding 

Infringement by Cisco 

Systems, Inc.

Ex. 4 to Reply Lee Decl.

GRANTED 

as to the 

entire 

document

This document reflects information 

regarding Cisco’s confidential source 

code for the accused products that 

Cisco has designated as “Highly 

Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only –

Source Code” under the Protective 

Order. Lee Decl. ¶ 2. 

Finjan seeks to seal the entirety of 

Exhibits 4-6 to the Reply Lee Decl. 

which are excerpts of Finajn’s expert 

reports. Finjan relies on Cisco’s 

representations and designations that 

such information is confidential and 

should be sealed. Lee Decl. ¶ 7.

This document reflects confidential 

information relating to Cisco’s 

products that Cisco has designated as 

“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, 

ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY –

SOURCE CODE” under the 

Protective Order, including 

confidential details relating to the 

design and operation of Cisco

products, including its source code, 

which, if publicly disclosed, could 

result in competitive harm to Cisco. 

Grigg Decl. II ¶¶ 2-5.

ECF 475-

13

Excerpts of the Expert Report 

of Nenad Medvidovic, PH.D. 

Regarding Infringement by 

Cisco Systems, Inc. of Patent 

No. 7,647,633

Ex. 5 to Reply Lee Decl.

GRANTED 

as to the 

entire 

document

This document reflects information 

regarding Cisco’s confidential source 

code for the accused products that 

Cisco has designated as “Highly 

Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only –

Source Code” under the Protective 

Order. Lee Decl. ¶ 2.

Finjan seeks to seal the entirety of 

Exhibits 4-6 to the Reply Lee Decl. 

which are excerpts of Finajn’s expert 

reports. Finjan relies on Cisco’s 

representations and designations that 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 490 Filed 03/27/20 Page 11 of 13
12

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

such information is confidential and 

should be sealed. Lee Decl. ¶ 7.

This document reflects confidential 

information relating to Cisco’s 

products that Cisco has designated as 

“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, 

ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY –

SOURCE CODE” under the 

Protective Order, including 

confidential details relating to the 

design and operation of Cisco 

products, including its source code, 

which, if publicly disclosed, could 

result in competitive harm to Cisco. 

Grigg Decl. II ¶¶ 2-5.

ECF 475-

15

Excerpts of the Expert Report 

of Michael Mitzenmacher, 

PH.D Regarding Infringement 

by Cisco Systems, Inc. of 

Patent No. 6,804,780 and 

8,141,154

Ex. 6 to Reply Lee Decl.

GRANTED 

as to the 

entire 

document

This document reflects information 

regarding Cisco’s confidential source 

code for the accused products that 

Cisco has designated as “Highly 

Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only –

Source Code” under the Protective 

Order. Lee Decl. ¶ 2.

Finjan seeks to seal the entirety of 

Exhibits 4-6 to the Reply Lee Decl.

which are excerpts of Finajn’s expert 

reports. Finjan relies on Cisco’s 

representations and designations that 

such information is confidential and 

should be sealed. Lee Decl. ¶ 7.

This document reflects confidential 

information relating to Cisco’s 

products that Cisco has designated as 

“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, 

ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY –

SOURCE CODE” under the 

Protective Order, including 

confidential details relating to the 

design and operation of Cisco 

products, including its source code, 

which, if publicly disclosed, could 

result in competitive harm to Cisco. 

Grigg Decl. II ¶¶ 2-5.

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 490 Filed 03/27/20 Page 12 of 13
13

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. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons:

(1) Cisco’s Administrative Motion to File under Seal at ECF 467 is GRANTED IN PART 

AND DENIED IN PART. Cisco is ORDERED to file publicly, no later than April 6,

2020, (a) a redacted version of ECF 467-10 (excerpts from deposition transcript of 

Julie Mar-Spinola) in accordance with this Order, (b) an unredacted version of ECF 

467-8 (Cisco’s Reply brief in support of its motion to exclude the testimony of James 

Tompkins), and (c) an unredacted version of ECF 467-12 (excerpts from deposition 

transcript of James Tompkins). 

(2) Finjan’s Administrative Motion to File under Seal at ECF 475 is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 27, 2020

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 490 Filed 03/27/20 Page 13 of 13