Finjan LLC v. Sonicwall, Inc.
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:17-cv-04467
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Finjan v. SonicWall, Judge Demarchi granted motions to seal technical information and source code tied to SonicWall’s motion to strike infringement contentions.
Finjan, Inc. and SonicWall, Inc.; the order limits public access to the specified portions of their filings, declarations, briefs, and exhibits.
What happened
Finjan, Inc. v. SonicWall, Inc. involved motions to seal parts of the parties’ filings and supporting documents connected to SonicWall’s motion to strike Finjan’s second supplemental infringement contentions. The court said that motion concerned whether Finjan followed an earlier court order, not the merits of the infringement claims.
The court applied the lower “good cause” standard for sealing materials related only indirectly to the merits. It found that SonicWall showed good cause to seal specified portions of briefs, declarations, exhibits, technical information, and source code because disclosure could cause competitive harm.
The court granted the administrative motions to seal as listed in the order. Judge Virginia K. Demarchi signed the order on November 22, 2019.
The detailed version
- Finjan LLC v. Sonicwall, Inc. · No. 5:17-cv-04467
- Virginia Demarchi
- Nov. 22, 2019
Background
The parties filed administrative motions asking the court to seal portions of their briefing and related documents concerning SonicWall’s motion to strike Finjan’s second supplemental infringement contentions. The order addressed motions associated with Dkt. Nos. 163, 169, 173, 182, and 184.
Legal standard
The court explained that judicial records and documents accompanying dispositive motions generally receive a strong presumption of public access. That presumption can be overcome by compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings. But for motions only tangentially related to the merits of a case, a party seeking to seal information must satisfy the lower “good cause” standard under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The court determined that SonicWall’s motion to strike did not address the merits of the parties’ claims or defenses. Instead, it concerned whether Finjan’s infringement contentions complied with a prior court order. The court therefore applied the good-cause standard.
Court’s findings
The court found that most of the proposed sealed material consisted of technical information and source code concerning the SonicWall products and services at issue. SonicWall represented that much of the material was confidential or highly confidential and that public disclosure would cause competitive harm. The court agreed and found good cause to seal the material identified in the order.
The identified material included specified portions of SonicWall’s motion to strike, declarations and exhibits supporting the parties’ filings, SonicWall’s reply and supplemental brief, and Finjan’s supplemental brief and exhibits. For Finjan’s supplemental brief, the order identified the entire document and Exhibits 1 through 4 for sealing.
Disposition
The court granted the administrative motions to seal as set forth in the order. This was an order about access to specified filings and documents; it did not decide SonicWall’s motion to strike or the underlying infringement dispute.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.