Finjan LLC v. Sonicwall, Inc.
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:17-cv-04467
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Finjan v. SonicWall, Judge DeMarchi granted SonicWall’s motion to seal specified discovery-dispute materials.
Finjan, Inc. and SonicWall, Inc.; the order also limited public access to the specified portions of the discovery materials.
What happened
Finjan, Inc. v. SonicWall, Inc. involved SonicWall’s request to seal parts of a joint discovery-dispute letter and an exhibit. The dispute concerned SonicWall’s effort to obtain documents from another action and Finjan’s claim that the documents were protected by attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product protection.
The court applied the lower “good cause” standard because the materials related to a discovery dispute rather than directly to the merits of the case. It found good cause to seal material derived from documents marked “Confidential — Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” including information that Finjan described as confidential business and competitive information.
Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi granted SonicWall’s administrative motion to seal the highlighted portions on pages 2 and 3 of the joint discovery letter and Exhibit A.
The detailed version
- Finjan LLC v. Sonicwall, Inc. · No. 5:17-cv-04467
- Virginia Demarchi
- Apr. 22, 2020
Background
The order addressed SonicWall’s administrative motion to file under seal portions of the parties’ joint discovery-dispute letter and an associated exhibit. The discovery dispute concerned SonicWall’s requests for documents from another action. Finjan argued that the documents were protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product doctrine.
Legal standard
The court explained that judicial records connected to dispositive motions generally receive a strong presumption of public access that can be overcome only by compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings. That stronger standard does not apply in the same way to materials related only indirectly to the merits of a case. Because the underlying dispute concerned discovery and the asserted privilege and work-product protections—not the merits of the parties’ claims or defenses—the court applied the “good cause” standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c).
Ruling
The material SonicWall sought to seal came from documents designated “Confidential — Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” Finjan said the material contained confidential business and competitive information and also was privileged, although the parties disputed the privilege issue. The court found good cause to seal the highlighted portions on pages 2 and 3 of the joint discovery letter and Exhibit A. Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi therefore granted the administrative motion to file those materials under seal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.