Finjan LLC v. Sonicwall, Inc.

Background

The order concerns a discovery dispute about Finjan’s assertions of attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product protection. Those assertions involved portions of, and exhibits to, depositions of four witnesses who had testified in separate litigation.

The parties filed administrative motions seeking permission to file under seal exhibits attached to supplemental declarations supporting their respective positions. The proposed sealed material came from documents designated “Confidential — Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” Finjan said the material contained confidential business and competitive information and was also privileged or otherwise protected; the parties disputed those assertions.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that judicial records generally are presumed open to the public. But that presumption is less demanding for materials connected to matters only tangentially related to the merits of a case. Because the underlying dispute concerned whether Finjan’s privilege and work-product assertions were proper—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 court found good cause to seal the following materials:

- Exhibits 1 through 4 to Adam Frankel’s declaration supporting Finjan’s submission of documents for in-camera review concerning the April 17, 2020 joint discovery letter brief. - Exhibits 1 through 6 to Matthew Gaudet’s declaration submitted under an interim order concerning the same joint discovery letter brief.

The court granted the administrative motions to file under seal, Docket Nos. 256 and 257. Judge Virginia K. Demarchi signed the order.