Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc., No. 5:2017cv00072 - Document 362 (N.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING 322 PLAINTIFFS ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL AT ECF 322. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 09/16/2019.(blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/16/2019)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 FINJAN, INC., Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 17-cv-00072-BLF 10 CISCO SYSTEMS INC., 11 Defendant. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL AT ECF 322 [RE: ECF 322] 12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s administrative motion to file under seal portions of the 14 briefing and exhibits submitted in connection with Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Strike 15 Finjan's Expert Reports on Infringement (ECF 323). ECF 322. For the reasons that follow, the 16 motion to seal is GRANTED. 17 18 I. LEGAL STANDARD “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 19 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. Of 20 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 21 U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong 22 presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 23 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to 24 motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden 25 of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of 26 access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 27 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. Parties moving to seal documents 28 must also comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 79- 1 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 United States District Court Northern District of California 2 3 otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek 4 sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). 5 In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the submitting party to attach a “proposed order that is narrowly 6 tailored to seal only the sealable material” which “lists in table format each document or portion 7 thereof that is sought to be sealed,” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an “unredacted version of the 8 document” that indicates “by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that 9 have been omitted from the redacted version.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d). “Within 4 days of the 10 filing of the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a 11 declaration as required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material 12 is sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). 13 II. DISCUSSION 14 The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s sealing motion and the declaration of the designating 15 party submitted in support thereof. The Court finds that Plaintiff and the designating party have 16 articulated compelling reasons to seal certain portions of the requested documents. The proposed 17 redactions are narrowly tailored. The Court’s rulings on the sealing requests are set forth in the 18 table below. ECF No. 322-48 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Document to be Sealed Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s Opposition to Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc.’s Motion to Strike Finjan’s Expert Reports on Infringement Result Reasoning GRANTED as to the highlighted portions at page 3, lines 26-27; page 4, lines 1-3; page 5, lines 12-13, 14-15, 16, 20, 22, 23; page 6, lines 1, 5, 6-7, 20-22; page 8, lines 9-10, 1618, 18-19, 2123; page 9, 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. ¶¶ 2-4, ECF 344. In particular, Cisco’s competitors could use this confidential information to map proprietary features of Cisco’s products. Id. 2 1 ECF No. Document to be Sealed 2 3 4 5 322-4 Exh. 1 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 322-6 14 Exh. 2 Chart listing the terms identified in Cisco’s Motion to Strike Finjan’s Expert Reports on Infringement in View of the Orders dated June 11, 2019, and July 7, 2019, identifying where the relevant functionalities were disclosed in Finjan’s infringement contentions, and identifying where and how the same functionality is disclosed in the respective expert reports. See Kobialka Decl., ¶ 2, ECF 323-2. March 15, 2019 Letter from counsel for Finjan, James Hannah, to counsel for Cisco, Jarrad Gunther Result lines 4-6, 7-8, 9-15, 16-17 GRANTED as to the entire document. GRANTED as to the entire document. 15 16 17 18 19 20 322-8 Exh. 2A Excerpts of Deposition Transcript of Matthew Watchinski GRANTED as to the entire document. 322-10 Excerpts of Deposition GRANTED as 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 Reasoning 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. ¶¶ 2-4, ECF 344. In particular, Cisco’s competitors could use this confidential information to map proprietary features of Cisco’s products. Id. 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. ¶¶ 2-4, ECF 344. In particular, Cisco’s competitors could use this confidential information to map proprietary features of Cisco’s products. Id. 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. ¶¶ 2-4, ECF 344. In particular, Cisco’s competitors could use this confidential information to map proprietary features of Cisco’s products. Id. If filed publicly, this 1 2 ECF No. Exh. 2B Document to be Sealed Result Transcript of Craig Brozefsky to the entire document. Excerpts of Deposition Transcript of Alfred Huger GRANTED as to the entire document. Excerpts of Deposition Transcript of Jacob Valentic GRANTED as to the entire document. March 29, 2019 Letter from counsel for Finjan, James Hannah, to counsel for Cisco, Jarrad Gunther GRANTED as to the entire document. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 322-12 10 Exh. 2C United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 322-14 Exh. 2D 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 322-16 25 Exh. 3 26 27 28 4 Reasoning 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. ¶¶ 2-4, ECF 344. In particular, Cisco’s competitors could use this confidential information to map proprietary features of Cisco’s products. Id. 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. ¶¶ 2-4, ECF 344. In particular, Cisco’s competitors could use this confidential information to map proprietary features of Cisco’s products. Id. 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. ¶¶ 2-4, ECF 344. In particular, Cisco’s competitors could use this confidential information to map proprietary features of Cisco’s products. Id. 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. ¶¶ 2-4, 1 ECF No. Document to be Sealed Result 2 3 4 5 6 322-18 Excerpts of Deposition Transcript of Charles Buck GRANTED as to the entire document. Excerpts of Deposition Transcript of Surya Allena GRANTED as to the entire document. Excerpts of Deposition Transcript of Dean De Beer GRANTED as to the entire document. Excerpts of Deposition Transcript of Matthew GRANTED as to the entire Exh. 3A 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 322-20 Exh. 3B 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 322-22 Exh. 3C 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 322-24 5 Reasoning ECF 344. In particular, Cisco’s competitors could use this confidential information to map proprietary features of Cisco’s products. Id. 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. ¶¶ 2-4, ECF 344. In particular, Cisco’s competitors could use this confidential information to map proprietary features of Cisco’s products. Id. 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. ¶¶ 2-4, ECF 344. In particular, Cisco’s competitors could use this confidential information to map proprietary features of Cisco’s products. Id. 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. ¶¶ 2-4, ECF 344. In particular, Cisco’s competitors could use this confidential information to map proprietary features of Cisco’s products. Id. If filed publicly, this confidential information could 1 2 ECF No. Exh. 3D Document to be Sealed Result Donnan document. April 18, 2019 Letter from counsel for Finjan, James Hannah, to counsel for Cisco, Jarrad Gunther GRANTED as to the entire document. Excerpts of Deposition Transcript of Philip Kwok GRANTED as to the entire document. Excerpts of Deposition Transcript of Srinivas Kuruganti GRANTED as to the entire document. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 322-26 Exh. 4 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 322-28 Exh. 4A 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 322-30 Exh. 4B 25 26 27 28 6 Reasoning be used to Cisco’s disadvantage by competitors, as it reveals the identification, organization, and/or operation of Cisco’s proprietary products. Bartow Decl. ¶¶ 2-4, ECF 344. In particular, Cisco’s competitors could use this confidential information to map proprietary features of Cisco’s products. Id. 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. ¶¶ 2-4, ECF 344. In particular, Cisco’s competitors could use this confidential information to map proprietary features of Cisco’s products. Id. 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. ¶¶ 2-4, ECF 344. In particular, Cisco’s competitors could use this confidential information to map proprietary features of Cisco’s products. Id. 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. ¶¶ 2-4, ECF 344. In particular, 1 ECF No. Document to be Sealed Result 2 3 4 5 322-32 Exh. 4C 6 7 8 Technical document marked as Ex. 7 to the Deposition Transcript of Philip Kwok, bates-labeled CISCOFINJAN_00000346.000119 GRANTED as to the entire document. Technical document bateslabeled CISCOFINJAN_00132230.000194 GRANTED as to the entire document. Presentation bates-labeled CISCOFINJAN_00000080.000148 GRANTED as to the entire document. Expert Report of Eric Cole Ph.D., Regarding Infringement by Cisco GRANTED as to the entire document. 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 322-34 Exh. 4D 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 322-36 Exh. 4E 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 322-38 Exh. 5 7 Reasoning Cisco’s competitors could use this confidential information to map proprietary features of Cisco’s products. Id. 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. ¶¶ 2-4, ECF 344. In particular, Cisco’s competitors could use this confidential information to map proprietary features of Cisco’s products. Id. 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. ¶¶ 2-4, ECF 344. In particular, Cisco’s competitors could use this confidential information to map proprietary features of Cisco’s products. Id. 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. ¶¶ 2-4, ECF 344. In particular, Cisco’s competitors could use this confidential information to map proprietary features of Cisco’s products. Id. If filed publicly, this confidential information could be used to Cisco’s 1 ECF No. Document to be Sealed Result Systems, Inc. of Patent Nos. 6,154,844 and 8,677,494 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 322-40 Exh. 6 10 Expert Report of Michael Mitzenmacher, Ph.D. Regarding Infringement by Cisco Systems, Inc. of Patent Nos. 6,804,780 and 8,141,154 GRANTED as to the entire document. Expert Report of Nenad Medvidovic, Ph.D. Regarding Infringement by Cisco Systems, Inc. of Patent No. 7,647,633 GRANTED as to the entire document. Rebuttal Expert Report of Dr. Kevin Almeroth on Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844 and 8,141,154 GRANTED as to the entire document. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 322-42 Exh. 7 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 322-44 Exh. 9 26 27 28 8 Reasoning disadvantage by competitors, as it reveals the identification, organization, and/or operation of Cisco’s proprietary products. Bartow Decl. ¶¶ 2-4, ECF 344. In particular, Cisco’s competitors could use this confidential information to map proprietary features of Cisco’s products. Id. 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. ¶¶ 2-4, ECF 344. In particular, Cisco’s competitors could use this confidential information to map proprietary features of Cisco’s products. Id. 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. ¶¶ 2-4, ECF 344. In particular, Cisco’s competitors could use this confidential information to map proprietary features of Cisco’s products. Id. 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. ¶¶ 2-4, ECF 344. In particular, Cisco’s competitors could use 1 ECF No. Document to be Sealed Result 2 3 4 5 322-46 Exh. 10 6 Rebuttal Expert Report of Dr. Patrick McDaniel Regarding the NonInfringement of the ‘494 and ‘780 Patents GRANTED as to the entire document. 7 8 9 10 Reasoning this confidential information to map proprietary features of Cisco’s products. Id. 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. ¶¶ 2-4, ECF 344. In particular, Cisco’s competitors could use this confidential information to map proprietary features of Cisco’s products. Id. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California III. 12 13 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to seal at ECF 322. No further action is necessary. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 18 19 Dated: September 16, 2019 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
