Finjan LLC v. Sonicwall, Inc.

Background

In connection with Finjan’s motion for leave to amend its infringement contentions, the parties filed administrative motions to seal portions of their briefing and related documents. The sealing motions were docketed at Nos. 215, 220, and 224, and concerned materials submitted with Finjan’s amendment motion, docketed at No. 216.

Legal standard

The court explained that judicial records connected to dispositive motions ordinarily receive a strong presumption of public access, which may be overcome only by compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings. But that presumption is weaker for motions only tangentially related to the merits. Because Finjan’s amendment motion addressed whether Finjan made the showing required by Patent Local Rule 3-6 to amend its infringement contentions—not whether either party ultimately prevailed on infringement or another claim—the court applied the “good cause” standard under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Sealing ruling

The court found that most of the proposed sealed material consisted of technical information and source code concerning SonicWall’s products and services. SonicWall represented that much of the material was confidential or highly confidential and that disclosure would cause competitive harm. The court agreed and found good cause to seal specified portions of:

- Finjan’s motion for leave to amend its infringement contentions, including page 7, lines 14–16; - Exhibit 3 to Lisa Kobialka’s declaration supporting Finjan’s motion, including Appendices A-1 through J-7; - SonicWall’s response opposing Finjan’s motion, including the portions identified on pages 4, 5, 9, and 10; - Finjan’s reply supporting its motion, including the portions identified on pages 1 through 8; and - Exhibits 3 and 5–9 to Aakash Jariwala’s declaration supporting Finjan’s reply, as listed in the order.

The court therefore granted the administrative motions to seal, as set forth in the order. It noted that some proposed sealed information appeared to have been described publicly at a high level or in the court’s November 20, 2019 order. Because neither party had requested redactions to that earlier order, the court had re-filed it without redactions. The court directed that future sealing requests address whether the proposed information has already been publicly disclosed.

Disposition

Judge Demarch granted the administrative motions to seal. The order did not decide Finjan’s request to amend its infringement contentions or the merits of the parties’ underlying claims.