Filed: Aug. 08, 2017
Latest Update: Aug. 08, 2017
Summary: ORDER MODIFYING ORDER RE CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL [Re: ECF 56, 64] BETH LABSON FREEMAN , District Judge . 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
Summary: ORDER MODIFYING ORDER RE CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL [Re: ECF 56, 64] BETH LABSON FREEMAN , District Judge . 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 ..
More
ORDER MODIFYING ORDER RE CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL
[Re: ECF 56, 64]
BETH LABSON FREEMAN, District Judge.
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). 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 Document to be Result Reasoning
No. Sealed
56-4 Cisco's Motion to DENIED. Finjan, the designating party, has not provided
Dismiss 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 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.
