"The Apple iPod iTunes Anti-Trust Litigation"

Filing 317

Response to 304 Plaintiff's Motion to Seal filed by Apple Inc.. (Kiernan, David) (Filed on 1/22/2010) Modified on 1/22/2010,(counsel selected incorrect event. Correct event to be used is response, and also failed to link to motion.) (cv, COURT STAFF).

"The Apple iPod iTunes Anti-Trust Litigation" Doc. 317 Case5:05-cv-00037-JW Document317 Filed01/22/10 Page1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Robert A. Mittelstaedt #60359 ramittelstaedt@jonesday.com Craig E. Stewart #129530 cestewart@jonesday.com David C. Kiernan #215335 dkiernan@jonesday.com Michael Scott #255282 michaelscott@jonesday.com JONES DAY 555 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 626-3939 Facsimile: (415) 875-5700 Attorneys for Defendant APPLE INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION THE APPLE iPOD iTUNES ANTI-TRUST LITIGATION. Case No. C 05-00037 JW C 06-04457 JW DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL Date: Time: Place: February 10, 2010 9:30 A.M. Courtroom 2, 5th floor I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to Local Rule 79-5(c) and (d), Apple supports Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (Dkt. 304), specifically the portions of the Motion to Compel and Roach Declaration which refer to information that Apple designated as "Confidential--Attorneys Eyes Only" under the Stipulation and Protective Order Regarding Confidential Information ("Protective Order") entered June 13, 2007 (Document No. 112). Pursuant to Local Rule 79-5, Apple files this Response and the accompanying declaration in support of a narrowly tailored order authorizing sealing those documents, on the grounds that there is good cause to protect the confidentiality of that information. The proposed sealing order 1 Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to Seal C 05-00037 JW; C 06-04457 JW Dockets.Justia.com Case5:05-cv-00037-JW Document317 Filed01/22/10 Page2 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 is based on the Protective Order in this action and proof that particularized injury to defendant will result if the sensitive information is publicly released. II. STANDARD Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), this Court has broad discretion to permit sealing of court documents to protect "a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Based on this authority, the Ninth Circuit has "carved out an exception to the presumption of access to judicial records for a sealed discovery document [attached] to a non-dispositive motion." Navarro v. Eskanos & Adler, No. C-06 02231 WHA (EDL), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24864, at *6 (N.D. Cal. March 22, 2007) (citing Kamakana v. Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006)). III. ARGUMENT A. There is Good Cause to Support Filing Under Seal. Apple has designated the documents containing the information as "ConfidentialAttorneys' Eyes Only" under the Protective Order. The accompanying declaration establishes good cause to permit filing under seal. It establishes that Apple itself treats the information at issue as confidential within its own organization. See Declaration of Eddy Cue in Support of Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to Seal, 2-8. Moreover, disclosure of the redacted contents of these documents would cause Apple to suffer injury. See Id. IV. CONCLUSION Defendant respectfully requests that this Court grant Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portions of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Further Response From Defendant Apple Inc. and Exhibits 11, 17, 22, 23, 24, 27, 30, 35 to the Roach Declaration Pursuant to Local Rule 79-5(b)-(c). Dated: January 22, 2010 JONES DAY By: /s/ David Kiernan David Kiernan Attorneys for Defendant APPLE INC. SFI-623760v1 -2- Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to Seal C 05-00037 JW; C 06-04457 JW