Opinion
Case No. 13-cv-03999-BLF
06-23-2015
FINJAN, INC., Plaintiff, v. BLUE COAT SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant.
OMNIBUS ORDER ON SEALING MOTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH DAUBERT MOTIONS [Re: ECF 244, 249, 268, 273, 291, 296]
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 ThatDesignated theInformation AsConfidential | Court's Order |
---|---|---|
Defendant Blue Coat Systems, Inc.'s DaubertMotion ("Blue Coat's Daubert Motion"),redacted at 9:5-14, 13:26-28 and 16:28-17:3. | Blue Coat | GRANTED |
Ex. 1 to Declaration of Olivia M. Kim inSupport 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. | Blue Coat | GRANTED |
Ex. 1 to Kim Declaration, redacted at 2:24,3:1-3, 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- | Finjan | GRANTED |
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 16-17,26-27, 31-35. | Blue Coat | GRANTED |
Ex. 7 to Kim Declaration, redacted at 382:23-383:6. | Blue Coat | GRANTED |
Ex. 8 to Kim Declaration, redacted at pp. 25-30, 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 atpp. 9-19. | Blue Coat | GRANTED |
Ex. 9 to Kim Declaration, redacted at pp. 22-23, 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. | Blue Coat | GRANTED |
ii. ECF 268
Identification of Documents to be Sealed | Entity ThatDesignated theInformation AsConfidential | Court's Order | |
---|---|---|---|
Defendant Blue Coat Systems, Inc.'sOpposition to Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.'s DaubertMotion ("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 | GRANTED | |
Blue Coat's Daubert Opposition, redactedportions at 14:23-15:2, 15:5-8, 15:10-17, and15:19-20. | Finjan | GRANTED |
Ex. B to Declaration of Olivia M. Kim inSupport of Blue Coat's Daubert Opposition("Kim Declaration"), redacted portions at pp.43, 80, 97, and 162. | Blue Coat | GRANTED |
---|---|---|
Ex. C to Kim Declaration, redacted portionsat pp. 28, 45, and 46. | Blue Coat | GRANTED |
Ex. D to Kim Declaration, in its entirety.redacted portions at 216:2-13, 217:7-220:13,221:4-222:20, as set forth at | Finjan | GRANTED as toversion at ECF280. |
Ex. E to Kim Declaration, redacted portionsat 1:10-18 and 1:24-28. | Blue Coat | GRANTED |
iii. ECF 291
Identification of Documents to be Sealed | Entity ThatDesignated theInformation AsConfidential | Court's Order |
---|---|---|
Exhibit 11 to Supplemental Declaration ofOlivia M. Kim in Support of Defendant BlueCoat Systems, Inc.'s Daubert Motion ("KimDeclaration"), in its entirety. | Blue Coat | GRANTED |
B. Plaintiff's Motions
i. ECF 249
Identification of the documents to be sealed | Entity that designatedthe information to beConfidential | Court's Order |
---|---|---|
Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.'s Notice of DaubertMotion and Motion to Exclude CertainOpinions of Dr. Michael Hicks and Dr. GeorgeNecula and to Exclude the Opinions of Ms.Julie Davis ("Finjan's Daubert Motion") at | Blue Coat | GRANTED as toversion at ECF 254. |
Declaration of James Hannah in Support ofFinjan's Daubert Motion ("Hannah Decl."),Exhibits 8, 11 in their entirety. | Blue Coat | DENIED becauseDefendant providedno reasons insupport of sealing. |
Hannah Decl., Exhibit 9, redacted portions atTable of Contents, pp. 7-9, 12-48, 50-63,Exhibits 3-6 and Appendices A-D andAppendix F. | Finjan or Blue Coat | GRANTED as toDefendant'sproposed redactionsat 31-37, 42-45, 51-52, 55, 57, 61-62,Exhibits 3-6, andAppendices A, B, D,F and G. DENIEDas to the remainder,without prejudice toPlaintiff proposingnarrowly tailoredredactions to protectits confidentiallicensinginformation. |
Hannah Decl., Exhibit 10 in its entirety. | Finjan or Blue Coat | GRANTED as toDefendant'sproposed redactionsat 47:21-48:14,49:11-21, 74:17-20,and 75:1-4.DENIED as to theremainder, withoutprejudice to Plaintiffproposing narrowlytailored redactions toprotect itsconfidentiallicensinginformation. |
Hannah Decl., Exhibit 12, redacted portions atpp. 80, 97 and 162. | Blue Coat | GRANTED |
Hannah Decl., Exhibit 19 in its entirety. | Finjan | GRANTED as to220:1-13. DENIEDas to remainder,which discussesPlaintiff's publicfilings. |
Hannah Decl., Exhibit 20 redacted portions atpp. 28 and 45. | Blue Coat | GRANTED |
ii. ECF 273
Identification of the documents to be sealed | Entity that designatedthe information to beConfidential | Court's Order |
---|---|---|
Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.'s Opposition to DefendantBlue Coat Systems, Inc.'s Daubert Motion("Finjan's Opposition"), redacted portions at | Blue Coat | GRANTED as toversion at ECF 278 |
Declaration of James Hannah in Support ofFinjan's Opposition ("Hannah Decl."),Exhibits 3-5, 7-9, and 32 in their entirety | Blue Coat | DENIED as toExhibits 3, 5, 8, 9,and 32 becauseDefendant providedno reasons insupport of sealing.GRANTED as toPlaintiff's proposedredactions forExhibit 4 (redactedportions at 100:8-101:25, 112:1-113:7,113:9-114:20,114:22-25, and119:5-25) andExhibit 7 (redactedportion at 382:21-25) at ECF 278 |
Hannah Decl., Exhibit 1 redacted portions onpgs. 61-62, 76, 78-81 | Finjan or Blue Coat | GRANTED |
Hannah Decl., Exhibit 2 redacted portions onpgs. 16-17, 26-27, 31-35 | Blue Coat | GRANTED |
Hannah Decl., Exhibit 6 redacted portions onpgs. 26-27, 37 | Blue Coat | GRANTED |
Hannah Decl., Exhibit 10 redacted portions onpgs. 163, 503-504 | Blue Coat | GRANTED |
iii. ECF 296
Identification of the documents to be sealed | Entity that designatedthe information to beConfidential | Court's Order |
---|---|---|
Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of James Hannahin Support of Reply Brief in Support of itsMotion to Exclude Certain Opinions of Dr.Michael Hicks and Dr. George Necula and toExclude the Opinions of Ms. Julie Davis("Hannah Declaration") | Finjan | GRANTED |
Exhibit 4 to the Hannah Declaration redactedportions at 341:19-24, 342:23-343:3, 343:14-17; and 345:20-346:6. | Blue Coat | GRANTED as toversion at ECF 313 |
Exhibit 5 to the Hannah Declaration at 51, 55,62, 63 | Blue Coat | GRANTED |
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. Dated: June 23, 2015
/s/_________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge