Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Network, Inc.
- William Alsup
- 3:17-cv-05659
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Network, Inc., Judge Alsup granted part of Juniper’s sealing motion and denied it in part.
Juniper Network, Inc., Finjan, Inc., and the attorneys and experts whose personal home addresses appeared in the litigation materials.
What happened
In Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Network, Inc., Juniper asked to seal three documents filed with its objections to a special master’s report and recommendation about fees.
Judge Alsup granted the request to redact attorneys’ and experts’ personal home addresses in one exhibit. He denied the request to seal Finjan’s brief about Juniper’s fee submission and the supporting declaration because Finjan did not provide a declaration showing that the material could be sealed.
The court applied rules requiring strong reasons or good cause to overcome the public’s right to access court records. Judge Alsup entered the order on September 7, 2021.
The detailed version
- Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Network, Inc. · No. 3:17-cv-05659
- William Alsup
- Sept. 7, 2021
Background
Juniper Network, Inc. moved to seal three documents filed in connection with its objections to a special master’s report and recommendation on fees. The documents included an exhibit to a declaration supporting Juniper’s request for fees and expenses, Finjan’s brief concerning Juniper’s fee submission, and a supporting declaration by Robert Courtney.
Legal standard
The court explained that court records are generally open to the public. Records connected to a dispositive motion, or to a motion more than tangentially related to the case’s merits, may be sealed only for compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the public’s interest in access. Records connected to nondispositive motions may be sealed upon a showing of good cause. The court also stated that supporting declarations must explain specifically why material should remain sealed and may not rely on vague or boilerplate assertions of possible harm.
Ruling
The court found compelling reasons for the narrow redactions of personal home addresses for attorneys and experts involved in the litigation. It therefore GRANTED the motion to seal the excerpts of Exhibit D containing those redactions.
Juniper had conditionally filed under seal the entirety of Finjan’s brief concerning Juniper’s fee submission and Courtney’s supporting declaration. Finjan did not file a declaration establishing that the designated material was sealable. The court therefore DENIED the motion to seal Finjan’s brief and the supporting Courtney declaration.
The court entered the order on September 7, 2021.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.