Finjan, Inc. v. Bitdefender Inc.
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:17-cv-04790
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Finjan v. Bitdefender, Judge Gilliam denied Bitdefender’s requests to add a counterclaim and seal related materials.
Bitdefender was denied permission to add a breach-of-contract counterclaim and was denied its requests to seal related materials. Finjan avoided reopening discovery for that proposed claim, but could file a supporting declaration concerning the requested redactions within seven days.
What happened
Finjan, Inc. v. Bitdefender Inc. involved Bitdefender’s request to add a breach-of-contract counterclaim to an existing patent-infringement case. Bitdefender argued that it had acted diligently after learning of allegedly confidential information.
Finjan opposed the amendment, arguing that adding an unrelated claim after discovery had closed would cause unfair delay and require additional discovery. Bitdefender also asked to seal parts of its briefs, declarations, exhibits, transcripts, and a presentation because Finjan had designated the information as confidential.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied the motion for leave to amend because the proposed claim was unrelated, late, and prejudicial. He also denied the motions to seal because Bitdefender did not show specific harm from disclosure and Finjan did not provide the required supporting declaration; the order allowed specified filings within seven days.
The detailed version
- Finjan, Inc. v. Bitdefender Inc. · No. 4:17-cv-04790
- Haywood Gilliam
- Nov. 8, 2019
Background
Finjan, Inc. sued Bitdefender Inc. and Bitdefender S.R.L. Bitdefender had filed an answer, counterclaims, and a first amended answer. Bitdefender later sought permission to file another amended answer adding a breach-of-contract counterclaim. The proposed claim concerned allegedly confidential information that Finjan had disclosed on April 5, 2019. Bitdefender also filed two administrative motions asking the court to seal portions of its briefs and supporting materials.
Motion to Amend
The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), which requires good cause to modify a scheduling order, and Rule 15(a)(2), which generally favors allowing amendments when justice requires. The court found that Bitdefender had shown the required diligence: after Finjan refused to remove the challenged language, Bitdefender filed a discovery motion and then promptly filed the motion to amend after that motion was denied.
The court nevertheless concluded that the factors governing amendment weighed against Bitdefender. The proposed breach-of-contract claim was unrelated to the existing patent-infringement claims and counterclaims. Fact discovery had closed, expert discovery had closed, and summary-judgment motions were due. Adding the new claim would require Finjan to reopen discovery and would disrupt the case schedule. The court also found undue delay because the case had been pending for more than two years and Bitdefender had no substantial reason for adding the claim after discovery closed. The court noted that Bitdefender could challenge use of the allegedly protected material at summary judgment or through a motion in limine, and could bring a separate breach-of-contract action.
The court denied Bitdefender’s motion for leave to amend.
Motions to Seal
Bitdefender sought to seal excerpts of its briefs and portions of declarations and exhibits, including transcripts and a presentation. Bitdefender relied on Finjan’s designation of the material as confidential. The court held that this was not a particularized showing of specific prejudice or harm from disclosure. Bitdefender did not provide authority showing that the information was sufficiently sensitive, proprietary, or confidential to justify sealing. Finjan also failed to file a declaration supporting the requested redactions as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(e).
The court therefore denied Bitdefender’s motions to seal. Under Civil Local Rule 79-5(f), Bitdefender could file unredacted versions within seven days. Alternatively, Finjan could file a supporting declaration within seven days explaining the specific basis for each proposed redaction and citing authority supporting sealing.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.