Finjan LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:14-cv-04908
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 8
In Finjan LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., Judge Donato granted most sealing requests and denied one, keeping technical information confidential and requiring unredacted filings.
Finjan LLC, Palo Alto Networks, Inc., and the public’s access to the court filings covered by the sealing requests.
What happened
In Finjan LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., the court considered several requests to keep parts of filings and exhibits from public view. The materials included information about source code, technical details, patent valuations, and a privilege log.
The court granted the sealing requests for specific source-code and product information, and granted the request to keep the privilege log sealed. It denied the request to seal portions of a discovery-dispute letter because Finjan did not file the required supporting statement or declaration. The parties must file unredacted versions of the documents the court declined to seal within seven days.
The order was signed by Judge James Donato. The court said sealed materials may later be made public if circumstances change, and that public access remains the default for materials not covered by the sealing rulings.
The detailed version
- Finjan LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. · No. 3:14-cv-04908
- Richard Seeborg
- Aug. 14, 2023
Background
The court addressed sealing motions identified by docket numbers 195, 199, 203, 208, 229, 234, and 237, 241. The requests sought to keep portions or all of various filings and exhibits from public access in this patent case.
The court explained that federal court records are subject to a strong presumption of public access. For records connected to non-dispositive motions, a party must make a particularized showing of good cause to seal them. For records connected to dispositive motions, such as summary judgment motions, the party must provide specific facts showing a compelling reason for sealing. General claims of possible competitive or commercial harm, or a confidentiality designation under a protective order, are not enough by themselves.
Rulings
The court granted the requests to seal limited portions of filings that contained specific technical information, source code, and source-code pathnames or filenames relating to Palo Alto Networks’ PAN-OS, hardware, Next-Generation Firewall products, and WildFire products. The granted requests included materials submitted with motions to strike, oppositions, replies, and supporting declarations and exhibits.
The court also granted the request to seal the entire privilege log attached to a discovery-dispute letter. Although Finjan had not filed a sealing statement or declaration in response, the court found good cause to keep the privilege log sealed.
The court denied the request to seal highlighted portions of the discovery-dispute letter concerning Finjan’s patent valuations. The court stated that Finjan had not filed the required sealing statement or declaration in response. The court directed the parties to file unredacted versions of the relevant documents on the electronic filing system within seven days.
Effect of the Order
Documents or portions of documents covered by granted sealing requests will remain sealed until a further court order, although the sealing decisions may be revisited as circumstances warrant. For materials the court declined to seal, the default rule of public access applies. The order was signed by James Donato, United States District Judge.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.