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 MODIFYING ORDER RE

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.’S

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

SEAL

[Re: ECF 56, 64]

Before the Court is Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s (“Finjan”) declaration in support of a motion to 

file under seal certain exhibits in connection with Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc.’s (“Cisco”)

Motion to Dismiss Finjan’s Second Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim for Willful 

Infringement and exhibits filed in connection therewith. ECF 64. For the reasons discussed 

below, the Court MODIFIES its prior order at ECF 61, which disposed of the original motion to 

seal at ECF 54. See ECF 61.

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 & Cnty. 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)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are 

“more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of 

“compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 

1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed 

upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. In addition, sealing motions filed in this 

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

A party moving to seal a document in whole or in part must file a declaration establishing that the 

identified material is “sealable.” 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.” Id.

II. DISCUSSION

The Court has reviewed the declaration submitted by Finjan. ECF 94. The Court finds 

that Finjan has articulated compelling reasons to seal certain portions of the submitted documents. 

The proposed redactions are also narrowly tailored. The Court rules as follows on the various 

exhibits sought to be sealed which the Court had previously denied sealing:

ECF 

No.

Document to be 

Sealed

Result Reasoning

56-4 Cisco’s Motion to 

Dismiss

DENIED. Finjan, the designating party, has not provided

any declaration in support of sealing. See

Hannah Decl. ¶¶ 3-5, ECF 94.

56-6 Ex. C to Salceda Decl. GRANTED. Contains confidential information regarding 

Finjan’s intellectual property and business 

strategy, including terms of preferred stock 

purchase agreements between Finjan and Cisco. 

Hannah Decl. ¶ 4.

56-8 Ex. D to Salceda Decl. GRANTED. Contains confidential information regarding 

Finjan’s intellectual property and business 

strategy, including terms of preferred stock 

purchase agreements between Finjan and Cisco. 

Hannah Decl. ¶ 4.

56-10 Ex. E to Salceda Decl. GRANTED. Contains confidential information regarding 

Finjan’s intellectual property and business 

strategy, including information relating to 

business negotiations regarding Finjan’s 

products. Hannah Decl. ¶ 5.

III. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court MODIFIES its order at ECF 61. Cisco’s motion at 

ECF 54 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Under Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(2), for 

any request that has been denied because the party designating a document as confidential or 

subject to a protective order has not provided sufficient reasons to seal, the submitting party must 

file the unredacted (or lesser redacted) documents into the public record no earlier than 4 days and 
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

no later than 10 days from the filing of this order. Alternatively, this motion may be renewed so to 

provide sufficient reasons in the supporting declarations no later than 10 days from the filing of 

this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 8, 2017

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge