Filed: Jun. 23, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 23, 2015
Summary: OMNIBUS ORDER ON SEALING MOTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH DAUBERT MOTIONS [Re: ECF 244, 249, 268, 273, 291, 296] BETH LABSON FREEMAN , District Judge . Before the Court are six administrative motions to file under seal in connection with the parties' respective Daubert motions. 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 Honolu
Summary: OMNIBUS ORDER ON SEALING MOTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH DAUBERT MOTIONS [Re: ECF 244, 249, 268, 273, 291, 296] BETH LABSON FREEMAN , District Judge . Before the Court are six administrative motions to file under seal in connection with the parties' respective Daubert motions. 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 Honolul..
More
OMNIBUS ORDER ON SEALING MOTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH DAUBERT MOTIONS
[Re: ECF 244, 249, 268, 273, 291, 296]
BETH LABSON FREEMAN, District Judge.
Before the Court are six administrative motions to file under seal in connection with the parties' respective Daubert motions.
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 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. While not always the case, Daubert motions can be effectively dispositive, especially where a party seeks to entirely exclude an expert from testifying at trial. In re Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Practices Litig., 686 F.3d 1115, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2012). 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." Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (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." Id. at 1179.
In this District, parties seeking to seal judicial records must furthermore follow Civil L.R. 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 Court has reviewed the parties' sealing motions and the declarations of the designating parties submitted in support. The Court finds that the parties have articulated compelling reasons to seal certain portions of the submitted documents. While the proposed redactions are, for the most part, narrowly tailored, some are not. The Court's rulings on the sealing requests are set forth in the tables below.
A. Defendant's Motions
i. ECF 244
Identification of Documents to be Sealed Entity That Court's Order
Designated the
Information As
Confidential
Defendant Blue Coat Systems, Inc.'s Daubert Blue Coat GRANTED
Motion ("Blue Coat's Daubert Motion"),
redacted at 9:5-14, 13:26-28 and 16:28-17:3.
Ex. 1 to Declaration of Olivia M. Kim in Blue Coat GRANTED
Support of Defendant Blue Coat Systems,
Inc.'s Daubert Motion ("Kim Declaration"),
redacted at 16:16, 16:19, 17:3, 17:7-8, 18:1-6,
20:1-8, 27:8-11, 38:13-21, 40:1-5, 40:13-16,
41:1-21, 42:12-18, 43:17-21, 44:1-2,
45:8-18, 45:23-26, 46:4-8, 46:15-20, 47:1-2,
55:10-12, 61:14-19, 62:4-9, 62:13-18, 64:15-16,
76:3-7, 80:7-18, and 81:3-5.
Ex. 1 to Kim Declaration, redacted at 2:24, Finjan GRANTED
3:1-3, 3:6-7, 6:5-6, 6:11-18, 7:2-13, 7:16-18,
10:4-8, 11:2-4, 11:7-8, 28:11-12, 28:19-24,
29:1-18, 29:23-24, 30:1-19, 30:22, 30:25-27,
31:1-20, 31:24-25, 32:1-18, 32:20-21, 32:25-28,
33:1-28, 34:1-24, 35:1-23, 36:1-21, 37:1-22,
37:24-26, 38:1-9, 38:24-26, 50:10-11,
51:1-4, 51:6-7, 54:4-21, 54:27, 57:1-14,
57:16, 58:11-14, 59:1, 59:3-11, 59:23, 60:8-22,
61:1-2, 65:10-13, 78:19-22, 79:3-8,
79:12-13, and 79:17-18.
Ex. 2 to Kim Declaration, in its entirety. Blue Coat GRANTED
Ex. 5 to Kim Declaration, in its entirety. Blue Coat GRANTED
Ex. 6 to Kim Declaration, redacted at 16-17, Blue Coat GRANTED
26-27, 31-35.
Ex. 7 to Kim Declaration, redacted at 382:23-383:6. Blue Coat GRANTED
Ex. 8 to Kim Declaration, redacted at pp. 25-30, Blue Coat GRANTED
35-37, 39-267, 270-271, 273, 275, 280-284,
287, 289-290, 295-303, 305-306, 308-312,
315, 317-318, 320-325, 330-334, 336-338,
342, 344-345, 349-354, 357, 363-364,
370-376, 378-385, 387-390, 394-395, 402-403,
406-414, 418-419, 421-423, 428-432,
438, 440-441, 443-451, 458-459, 465-473,
475, 479, 482-483, 485-493, and App. B at
pp. 9-19.
Ex. 9 to Kim Declaration, redacted at pp. 22-23, Blue Coat GRANTED
25, 26, 29-48, 51-55, 57-62, 64-69, 71-88,
90-100, 102-107, 112-121, 124-142, 144-154,
156-161, 163-172, 176-182, 186-191,
194-197, 200-201, 203-239, 247-282, 284-287,
291-295, 299-303, 305-310, 312-320,
324-339, 343-360, 364-418, 422-428, 431-434,
438-442, 444-449, 454-475, 479-505,
507-512, 515-518, 520-542, 544-548, 552-587,
591-597, 603-618, 620-625, 627-682,
686-697, 701-719, and App. B at pp. 7-17.
ii. ECF 268
Entity That
Designated the Court's Order
Identification of Documents to be Sealed Information As
Confidential
Defendant Blue Coat Systems, Inc.'s Blue Coat GRANTED
Opposition to Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.'s Daubert
Motion ("Blue Coat's Daubert Opposition"),
redacted portions at 10:1-4, 10:6-10, 10:12-16,
10:18-23, 10:25-11:6, and 11:10-14.
Blue Coat's Daubert Opposition, redacted Finjan GRANTED
portions at 14:23-15:2, 15:5-8, 15:10-17, and
15:19-20.
Ex. B to Declaration of Olivia M. Kim in Blue Coat GRANTED
Support of Blue Coat's Daubert Opposition
("Kim Declaration"), redacted portions at pp.
43, 80, 97, and 162.
Ex. C to Kim Declaration, redacted portions Blue Coat GRANTED
at pp. 28, 45, and 46.
Ex. D to Kim Declaration, in its entirety. Finjan GRANTED as to
redacted portions at 216:2-13, 217:7-220:13, version at ECF
221:4-222:20, as set forth at 280.
Ex. E to Kim Declaration, redacted portions Blue Coat GRANTED
at 1:10-18 and 1:24-28.
iii. ECF 291
Entity That Court's Order
Identification of Documents to be Sealed Designated the
Information As
Confidential
Exhibit 11 to Supplemental Declaration of Blue Coat GRANTED
Olivia M. Kim in Support of Defendant Blue
Coat Systems, Inc.'s Daubert Motion ("Kim
Declaration"), in its entirety.
B. Plaintiff's Motions
i. ECF 249
Identification of the documents to be sealed Entity that designated Court's Order
the information to be
confidential
Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.'s Notice of Daubert Blue Coat GRANTED as to
Motion and Motion to Exclude Certain version at ECF 254.
Opinions of Dr. Michael Hicks and Dr. George
Necula and to Exclude the Opinions of Ms.
Julie Davis ("Finjan's Daubert Motion") at p.
9, ll. 3-4; p. 10, ll. 2-6, 25-26; p. 11, ll. 4-5, 9-12,
26; p. 12, ll. 2, 11, 19, 26-27; p. 13, ll. 1-2;
p. 14, ll. 7-8, 16-18, 20-22, 24, 26-27; p. 15, ll.
3, 15, 23-24, 26; p. 16, l. 3; p. 17, ll. 14-16, 18-19,
27. 9:3-4, 11:26, 12:2, 12:11, 12:19, and
15:23-24
Declaration of James Hannah in Support of Blue Coat DENIED because
Finjan's Daubert Motion ("Hannah Decl."), Defendant provided
Exhibits 8, 11 in their entirety. no reasons in
support of sealing.
Hannah Decl., Exhibit 9, redacted portions at Finjan or Blue Coat GRANTED as to
Table of Contents, pp. 7-9, 12-48, 50-63, Defendant's
Exhibits 3-6 and Appendices A-D and proposed redactions
Appendix F. at 31-37, 42-45, 51-52,
55, 57, 61-62,
Exhibits 3-6, and
Appendices A, B, D,
F and G. DENIED
as to the remainder,
without prejudice to
Plaintiff proposing
narrowly tailored
redactions to protect
its confidential
licensing
information.
Hannah Decl., Exhibit 10 in its entirety. Finjan or Blue Coat GRANTED as to
Defendant's
proposed redactions
at 47:21-48:14,
49:11-21, 74:17-20,
and 75:1-4.
DENIED as to the
remainder, without
prejudice to Plaintiff
proposing narrowly
tailored redactions to
protect its
confidential
licensing
information.
Hannah Decl., Exhibit 12, redacted portions at Blue Coat GRANTED
pp. 80, 97 and 162.
Hannah Decl., Exhibit 19 in its entirety. Finjan GRANTED as to
220:1-13. DENIED
as to remainder,
which discusses
Plaintiff's public
filings.
Hannah Decl., Exhibit 20 redacted portions at Blue Coat GRANTED
pp. 28 and 45.
ii. ECF 273
Identification of the documents to be sealed Entity that designated Court's Order
the information to be
confidential
Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.'s Opposition to Defendant Blue Coat GRANTED as to
Blue Coat Systems, Inc.'s Daubert Motion version at ECF 278
("Finjan's Opposition"), redacted portions at p.
2:17, 2:19-22, 3:13, 4:19-20, 5:19, 6:8-9, 6:11,
7:13-17, 7:21-24, 8:1-3, 8:9-10, 8:18-20, 8:22,
8:26-27, 9:11, 9:13, 9:15-24, 10:9-17, 10:19-22,
10:26, 11:6-7, 11:11, 11:19-20, 16:26,
17:1-8 7:24-8:2, 8:26-27, 9:17-24, 10:14-15,
10:19-20, and 16:26-17:8
Declaration of James Hannah in Support of Blue Coat DENIED as to
Finjan's Opposition ("Hannah Decl."), Exhibits 3, 5, 8, 9,
Exhibits 3-5, 7-9, and 32 in their entirety and 32 because
Defendant provided
no reasons in
support of sealing.
GRANTED as to
Plaintiff's proposed
redactions for
Exhibit 4 (redacted
portions at 100:8-101:25,
112:1-113:7,
113:9-114:20,
114:22-25, and
119:5-25) and
Exhibit 7 (redacted
portion at 382:21-25)
at ECF 278
Hannah Decl., Exhibit 1 redacted portions on Finjan or Blue Coat GRANTED
pgs. 61-62, 76, 78-81
Hannah Decl., Exhibit 2 redacted portions on Blue Coat GRANTED
pgs. 16-17, 26-27, 31-35
Hannah Decl., Exhibit 6 redacted portions on Blue Coat GRANTED
pgs. 26-27, 37
Hannah Decl., Exhibit 10 redacted portions on Blue Coat GRANTED
pgs. 163, 503-504
iii. ECF 296
Identification of the documents to be sealed Entity that designated Court's Order
the information to be
confidential
Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of James Hannah Finjan GRANTED
in Support of Reply Brief in Support of its
Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions of Dr.
Michael Hicks and Dr. George Necula and to
Exclude the Opinions of Ms. Julie Davis
("Hannah Declaration")
Exhibit 4 to the Hannah Declaration redacted Blue Coat GRANTED as to
portions at 341:19-24, 342:23-343:3, 343:14-17; version at ECF 313
and 345:20-346:6.
Exhibit 5 to the Hannah Declaration at 51, 55, Blue Coat GRANTED
62, 63
Exhibit 5 to the Hannah Declaration at 53-54 Finjan GRANTED
III. ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's sealing motions (ECF 244, 268, 291) are GRANTED. Plaintiff's sealing motions (ECF 249, 273, 296) are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. For any request that has been denied, Plaintiff shall file the unredacted (or lesser redacted) documents into the public record by June 29, 2015. For any request that has been denied without prejudice to seeking more narrowly tailored redactions, Plaintiff shall propose any such redactions by June 29, 2015.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
