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 

MOTION TO SEAL AT ECF 315

[Re: ECF 315]

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

briefing and exhibits submitted in connection with Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Expert 

Reports on Infringement (ECF 312). ECF 315. 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 
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

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. 79-5(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 has 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

315-4 Cisco Systems, Inc.’s 

Motion to Strike 

Finjan’s Expert Reports 

on Infringement in 

View of the Orders 

Dated June 11, 2019 

and July 7, 2019 

(“Cisco’s Motion ”).

GRANTED as to the 

highlighted portions at 

pg. 1, at line 13;

pg. 2, at lines 22-23; 

pg. 2, at line 25, 

pg. 3, at line 9, 

pg. 3 at lines 17-21; 

pg. 4 at line 5-7; 

pg. 6 at line 6-12; 

pg. 8 at lines 1-2; 

pg. 10 at lines 7; 

pg. 10 at lines 10-11; and

pg. 10 at lines 14-15. 

If filed publicly, this confidential 

information could be used to 

Cisco’s disadvantage by 

competitors, as it reveals the 

identification, organization, and/or 

operation of Cisco’s proprietary 

products. Bartow Decl. ¶¶ 3–5, 

ECF 315-1. In particular, Cisco’s 

competitors could use this 

confidential information to map 

proprietary features of Cisco’s 

products. Id.
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

315-8 Portions of Exhibit B to 

the Declaration of 

Jarrad M. Gunther In 

Support of Cisco’s 

Motion.

GRANTED as to the 

highlighted portions at 

pgs. 1-2. 

If filed publicly, this confidential 

information could be used to 

Cisco’s disadvantage by 

competitors, as it reveals the 

identification, organization, and/or 

operation of Cisco’s proprietary 

products. Bartow Decl. ¶¶ 3–5. 

In particular, Cisco’s competitors 

could use this confidential 

information to map proprietary 

features of Cisco’s products. Id.

315-10 Portions of Exhibit C to 

the Declaration of 315-

Jarrad M. Gunther In 

Support of Cisco’s 

Motion.

GRANTED as to the 

highlighted portions at 

pg. 1. 

If filed publicly, this confidential 

information could be used to 

Cisco’s disadvantage by 

competitors, as it reveals the 

identification, organization, and/or 

operation of Cisco’s proprietary 

products. Bartow Decl. ¶¶ 3–5. 

In particular, Cisco’s competitors 

could use this confidential 

information to map proprietary 

features of Cisco’s products. Id.

315-12 Exhibit D to the 

Declaration of Jarrad 

M. Gunther In Support 

of Cisco’s Motion. 

(Excerpts of the 

February 19, 2019 

Deposition Transcript 

of Matthew Watchinski 

– designated Highly 

Confidential –

Attorneys Eyes Only)

GRANTED as to the 

entire document. 

If filed publicly, this confidential 

information could be used to 

Cisco’s disadvantage by 

competitors, as it reveals the 

identification, organization, and/or 

operation of Cisco’s proprietary 

products. Bartow Decl. ¶¶ 3–5. 

In particular, Cisco’s competitors 

could use this confidential 

information to map proprietary 

features of Cisco’s products. Id.

315-14 Exhibit E to the 

Declaration of Jarrad 

M. Gunther In Support 

of Cisco’s Motion. 

(Excerpts of the Expert 

Report of Eric Cole, 

Ph.D. Regarding 

Infringement by Cisco 

Systems, Inc. of Patent 

Nos. 6,154,844 and 

8,677,494 – designated 

GRANTED as to the 

entire document.

If filed publicly, this confidential 

information could be used to 

Cisco’s disadvantage by 

competitors, as it reveals the 

identification, organization, and/or 

operation of Cisco’s proprietary 

products. Bartow Decl. ¶¶ 3–5. 

In particular, Cisco’s competitors 

could use this confidential 

information to map proprietary 

features of Cisco’s products. Id.
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

Highly Confidential –

Attorneys Eyes Only)

316-1 Exhibit F to the 

Declaration of Jarrad 

M. Gunther In Support 

of Cisco’s Motion, in its 

entirety. (Excerpts of 

the Expert Report of 

Nenad Medvidovic, 

Ph.D. Regarding 

Infringement by Cisco 

Systems, Inc. of Patent 

No. 7,647,633 –

designated Highly 

Confidential –

Attorneys Eyes Only)

GRANTED as to the 

entire document.

If filed publicly, this confidential 

information could be used to 

Cisco’s disadvantage by 

competitors, as it reveals the 

identification, organization, and/or 

operation of Cisco’s proprietary 

products. Bartow Decl. ¶¶ 3–5. 

In particular, Cisco’s competitors 

could use this confidential 

information to map proprietary 

features of Cisco’s products. Id.

315-16 Exhibit G to the 

Declaration of Jarrad 

M. Gunther In Support 

of Cisco’s Motion, in its 

entirety. (Excerpts of 

the Expert Report of 

Michael Mitzenmacher, 

Ph.D. Regarding 

Infringement by Cisco 

Systems, Inc. of Patent 

Nos. 6,804,780 and 

8,141,154 – designated 

Highly Confidential –

Attorneys Eyes Only)

GRANTED as to the 

entire document.

If filed publicly, this confidential 

information could be used to 

Cisco’s disadvantage by 

competitors, as it reveals the 

identification, organization, and/or 

operation of Cisco’s proprietary 

products. Bartow Decl. ¶¶ 3–5. 

In particular, Cisco’s competitors 

could use this confidential 

information to map proprietary 

features of Cisco’s products. Id.

315-18 Exhibit H to the 

Declaration of Jarrad 

M. Gunther In Support 

of Cisco’s Motion, in its 

entirety. (Appendix 

D1– designated Highly 

Confidential –

Attorneys Eyes Only)

GRANTED as to the 

entire document.

If filed publicly, this confidential 

information could be used to 

Cisco’s disadvantage by 

competitors, as it reveals the 

identification, organization, and/or 

operation of Cisco’s proprietary 

products. Bartow Decl. ¶¶ 3–5. 

In particular, Cisco’s competitors 

could use this confidential 

information to map proprietary 

features of Cisco’s products. Id.

315-20 Exhibit I to the 

Declaration of Jarrad 

M. Gunther In Support 

GRANTED as to the 

entire document.

If filed publicly, this confidential 

information could be used to 

Cisco’s disadvantage by 
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

of Cisco’s Motion, in its 

entirety. (Appendix D1 

Supplement–

designated Highly 

Confidential –

Attorneys Eyes Only)

competitors, as it reveals the 

identification, organization, and/or 

operation of Cisco’s proprietary 

products. Bartow Decl. ¶¶ 3–5. 

In particular, Cisco’s competitors 

could use this confidential 

information to map proprietary 

features of Cisco’s products. Id.

III. CONCLUSION

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

ECF 315. No further action is necessary. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 3, 2019

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge