1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

9

10 FINJAN, INC., 11 Plaintiff, No. C 17-05659 WHA

12 v.

13 JUNIPER NETWORK, INC., et al., ORDER RE MOTION TO SEAL 14 Defendants.

15 16 17 Juniper Network, Inc. moves to seal three documents filed in conjunction with its 18 objections to the special master’s report and recommendation on fees (Dkt. No. 660). 19 There is a strong public policy in favor of openness in our court system and the public is 20 entitled to know to whom we are providing relief (or not). See Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 21 Honolulu,

, 1178–80 (9th Cir. 2006). To seal records in connection with a 22 “dispositive” motion, or one “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case,” requires 23 “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of 24 access and the public policies favoring disclosure”; sealing records connected with non- 25 dispositive motions requires a showing of good cause. See ibid. (quotations and citations 26 omitted); Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC,

(9th Cir. 2016). A 27 classic example of a compelling reason is “business information that might harm a litigant’s 1 2016) (quotations and citations omitted). “Supporting declarations may not rely on vague 2 boilerplate language or nebulous assertions of potential harm but must explain with 3 particularity why any document or portion thereof remains sealable under the applicable legal 4 standard.” Bronson v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., No. C 18-02300 WHA,

, at 5 *1 (N.D. Cal. May 28, 2019) (citing Civ. L.R. 79-5). 6 First, Exhibit D to the declaration of Jonathan S. Kagan in support of Juniper’s request 7 for fees and expenses contains redactions of personal home addresses for attorneys and experts 8 involved in this litigation. This order finds these narrow redactions of private, personal 9 information compelling, and the motion to seal excerpts of Exhibit D is accordingly GRANTED. 10 Second, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e), Juniper conditionally filed under seal the 11 entirety of Finjan’s brief regarding Juniper’s submission on fees and the declaration of Robert 12 Courtney supporting Finjan’s brief regarding Juniper’s submission on fees. Finjan has not 5 13 filed a declaration establishing that the designated material is sealable. Accordingly, the 14 motion to seal as to Finjan’s brief and the supporting Courtney declaration is DENIED. 3 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16

= 17 Dated: September 7, 2021 18 Pee 19 { See WILLIAM ALSUP 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28