Netskope, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
NETSKOPE, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
FORTINET, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 22-cv-01852-TLT (AGT)
ORDER ON MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO SEEK RECONSIDERATION
Re: Dkt. No. 268
On January 26, 2026, the Court denied four of Netskope’s administrative motions to
consider whether another party’s material should be sealed. Dkt. 267. The Court denied the
motions because Fortinet, the designating party, didn’t file a statement in support of sealing,
as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3).
On January 27, 2026, Fortinet moved for leave to file a motion for reconsideration.
In its motion for leave, Fortinet acknowledges that it didn’t timely file a statement in support
of sealing but now offers such a statement. See Dkt. 268-1, Zivojnovic Decl. ¶¶ 5–8 (ex-
plaining that documents covered by the denied sealing motions reveal Fortinet’s product
strategy, the names of actual or potential customers, the size of potential deals, analysis of
acquisition targets, third-party agreements, pre-suit settlement communications, and a priv-
ilege log listing Fortinet employee email addresses).
In the exercise of reasonable diligence, Fortinet could have filed the statement it now
Case 3:22-cv-01852-TLT Document 285 Filed 01/30/26 Page 1 of 3

2
offers weeks or months ago, in response to Netskope’s administrative motions to consider
whether Fortinet’s material should be sealed. Fortinet’s failure to submit the statement ear-
lier was an oversight, which wouldn’t ordinarily warrant reconsideration. See Civil L.R. 7-
9. However, because many of the documents at issue are highly confidential and could com-
petitively harm Fortinet if disclosed; and because Fortinet swiftly moved for reconsideration
the day after the Court denied the sealing motions, the Court will reconsider its prior ruling.
The Court, however, is unlikely to do so again if, in response to a future motion to seal,
Fortinet does not file a statement in support of sealing.
The Court grants Fortinet’s motion for leave, treats Fortinet’s motion for leave as a
motion for reconsideration, and reconsiders the ruling denying the administrative motions to
consider whether another party’s material should be sealed at dkts. 208, 237, 239, and 250.
// //
// //
Case 3:22-cv-01852-TLT Document 285 Filed 01/30/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Netskope, the party that filed the administrative motions, is no longer required to file
unredacted public versions of the documents in question, with the exception that Netskope,
by February 6, 2026, must file unredacted public versions of the documents marked in the
chart below as “Withdrawn.” Fortinet no longer seeks to seal those documents.
Dkt. 268 at 3.
The Court vacates its January 26, 2026, order denying Netskope’s administrative
motions. Dkt. 267.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 30, 2026
______________________________
Alex G. Tse
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:22-cv-01852-TLT Document 285 Filed 01/30/26 Page 3 of 3