Finjan, Inc. v. Bitdefender Inc.

Background

The court considered the parties’ administrative motions to file under seal documents connected with Bitdefender’s motion for summary judgment, motion addressing expert testimony, and motion to strike. The requested documents contained citations to highly sensitive source code, Bitdefender’s financial and sales information, Finjan’s confidential business practices and license terms, and the identities of third parties that Finjan was required to keep confidential.

Before the hearing on Bitdefender’s motions, the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice. The court therefore did not rely on the documents subject to the sealing motions and would not rule on Bitdefender’s underlying motions.

Legal standards

For documents connected with a dispositive motion, such as summary judgment, the court applied the “compelling reasons” standard. Under that standard, the party seeking secrecy must provide specific facts showing that the need for confidentiality outweighs the public’s presumptive right to inspect judicial records. The request must also be limited to material that is legally protectable, such as trade secrets or other confidential information.

For documents connected with nondispositive motions, such as the motion to strike and the expert-evidence motion, the court applied the lower “good cause” standard. That standard requires a particularized showing that disclosure would cause specific prejudice or harm.

Ruling

The court found that Bitdefender’s supporting declarations established that the unredacted information was sensitive and proprietary and that disclosure could cause irreparable harm to Bitdefender and possibly its clients. Finjan’s declaration represented that its documents contained confidential business and licensing information and the identities of third parties it was obligated to keep confidential.

The court concluded that the documents were unrelated to the public’s understanding of the proceedings because the court would not decide Bitdefender’s motions. It found both a compelling reason and good cause to seal the documents because they disclosed proprietary and confidential information. The court granted the parties’ administrative motions to file under seal and ordered that the documents covered by the granted motions remain sealed.