OMNIBUS ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Re: ECF 173, 175, 185, 187, 193, 195]

BETH LABSON FREEMAN, District Judge.

Before the Court are six administrative motions to file under seal in connection with the parties' respective briefing on summary judgment. ECF 173, 175, 185, 187, 193, 195. Each motion is supported by declarations from the party that designated the material as confidential. For the reasons stated herein, the motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART with leave to propose sealing that is more narrowly tailored to only the sealable material.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

"Unless a particular court record is one `traditionally kept secret,'" a "strong presumption in favor of access" to judicial records "is the starting point." Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). A party seeking to seal judicial records relating to a dispositive motion—such as the motions for summary judgment in connection with which the present sealing motions were filed—bears the burden of overcoming this presumption by articulating "compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure." Id. at 1178-79. This standard is invoked "even if the dispositive motion, or its attachments, were previously filed under seal or protective order." Id. at 1179 (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136). Compelling reasons for sealing court files generally exist when such "`court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,' such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets." Id. (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). However, "[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant's embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records." Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.

In this District, parties seeking to seal judicial records must furthermore follow Civil Local Rule 79-5, which requires, inter alia, that a sealing request be "narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material." Civil L.R. 79-5(b) (emphasis added). Where the submitting party seeks to file under seal a document designated confidential by another party, the burden of articulating compelling reasons for sealing is placed on the designating party. Id. 79-5(e).

II. DISCUSSION

The parties' respective sealing motions are not narrowly tailored. For example, both parties request that the parties' respective expert reports on infringement/non-infringement be filed entirely under seal. The reason offered in support of this request is that the reports "contain reference to highly confidential Blue Coat technical information regarding the nomenclature, functionality, operation, architecture, development, and source code of Blue Coat's products." Decl. of Olivia M. Kim ISO Sealing ¶ 3(c) (emphasis added), ECF 173-1; see also, e.g., Decl. of Paul A. McAdams ISO Sealing ¶ 4(g), ECF 184. Certainly, there is sealable matter in the reports. There is also non-confidential matter, such as each expert's qualifications and general statements about the law, the technological background of this lawsuit, the patents-in-suit, and the accused products. The rules of this District require narrow tailoring to the sealable matter and do not permit wholesale sealing when portions of the document are not otherwise sealable.

Furthermore, for many documents sought to be filed under seal, Blue Coat asserts generically that they contain reference to "highly confidential Blue Coat technical information regarding the nomenclature, functionality, operation, architecture, and source code of Blue Coat's products." E.g., Kim Decl. ¶ 3(b), ECF 173-1. It is not entirely clear why "nomenclature" and generalized descriptions of "functionality" are confidential and sealable. For example, the parties have not been consistent in redacting references to accused components like "Cookie2" or "DRTR," and mere mention of these components and generalized explanations as to why they do not infringe the patents-in-suit would not be sealable. Nor is it clear why the names of certain documents are so confidential that they must be filed under seal. See, e.g., McAdams Decl. ¶ 4(b) (requesting sealing of portions of Declaration of James Hannah at p. 2, ll. 6, 8; p. 3, ll. 21-22; and p. 7, ll. 7-8). As such, the parties' sealing requests are generally overbroad and, in certain instances, not supported by specific facts establishing compelling reasons for sealing.

III. ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the parties' respective administrative motions to file under seal are GRANTED IN PART as set forth in the tables below, and those documents or portions thereof shall remain under seal. The motions are DENIED IN PART with respect to any document, exhibit, or portion thereof not addressed in the tables below. Such denial is without prejudice to a renewed request that is appropriately narrowly tailored and supported by specific facts demonstrating compelling reasons for sealing. The parties are encouraged to meet and confer to develop narrowly tailored redactions and shall have leave to file a renewed sealing request by no later than May 1, 2015.

A. Blue Coat's Sealing Motions

i. Motion at ECF 173

ii. Motion at ECF 185

B. Finjan's Sealing Motions

i. Motion at ECF 175

ii. Motion at ECF 187

iii. Motion at ECF 195

IT IS SO ORDERED.