Intertrust Technologies Corporation v. Apple, Inc

Filing 58

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting 47 Unopposed Administrative Motion for Leave to Amend Infringement Contentions; Denying Administrative Motion to Seal. The Court VACATES the hearing set for January 7, 2014. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/3/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 10 INTERTRUST TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 v. Case No.: 13-CV-1235 YGR ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS; DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL APPLE INC., 14 Defendant. 15 Now before the Court are two motions: (1) the Motion of Plaintiff Intertrust Technology 16 17 Corporation for Leave to Amend Its Infringement Contentions (Dkt. No. 47-3 ("Motion for Leave 18 to Amend")), noticed for hearing on January 7, 2014, and (2) an Administrative Motion to Seal 19 exhibits filed in support of the Motion for Leave to Amend (Dkt. No. 47 ("Motion to Seal"). 20 Intertrust filed its Motion for Leave to Amend on December 3, 2013, as an exhibit to the Motion to 21 Seal.1 On December 17, 2013, Defendant Apple, Inc., filed a statement of non-opposition to the 22 Motion for Leave to Amend. (Dkt. No. 51.) Intertrust replied on December 24, 2013. (Dkt. No. 23 57.) Neither Apple's statement of non-opposition nor Intertrust's reply mention the Motion to Seal, 24 but the Motion to Seal itself represents that Apple does not oppose it. (Motion to Seal at 1-2.) 25 26 27 28 1 Both parties are ORDERED henceforth to file noticed motions as separate electronic docket entries rather than as exhibits to non-noticed motions (such as administrative motions, including motions to seal). The Court's electronic filing system does not automatically add noticed motions to the Court's calendar when the noticed motion is filed as an exhibit. Accordingly, to reduce the administrative burden on the Court, noticed motions must be filed as separate docket entries. The Motion for Leave to Amend being unopposed, and for good cause appearing, the Court 1 2 GRANTS it and VACATES the hearing set for January 7, 2014.2 The Motion to Seal is a different matter. Though that motion, too, is unopposed (Motion to 3 Seal at 1-2), no good cause appears to seal the requested material. To establish that material is 5 sealable, the party wishing to exclude it from the public record—here, Intertrust—must establish 6 that it is "privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law 7 . . . ." Civ. L.R. 79-5(a). Here, the material sought to be sealed is a single paragraph which 8 appears, in identical form, in both Exhibit G and Exhibit H to the Declaration of James Stein (Dkt. 9 Nos. 47-1 (Stein Decl.), 47-12 (Ex. G), 47-14 (Ex. H). The paragraph references nothing more than 10 the existence of pre-litigation patent licensing discussions between Apple and Intertrust. It divulges 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 4 nothing more than the dates of conversations, and the titles of documents and presentations given 12 by Intertrust to Apple. Intertrust urges the Court to seal the material because its disclosure "is 13 likely to cause Intertrust harm as potential licensees could use the information adversely against 14 Intertrust in future licensing negotiations." (Motion to Seal at 1.) This generic invocation of 15 possible harm by unidentified persons someday in the future is insufficient to sustain a request to 16 cut off public access to materials in this case—especially when the documents reveal nothing more 17 than that attempts to resolve this matter before litigation failed, a fact which is evidenced amply by 18 the litigation itself. In short, nothing in the paragraph itself is manifestly sealable, nor has Intertrust 19 supplied good cause to seal it. Accordingly, the Motion to Seal is DENIED. Intertrust shall file in 20 the public record unredacted versions of Exhibits G and H to the Stein Declaration within five 21 business days of the signature date of this Order. 22 /// 23 /// 24 25 26 27 28 2 The Court acknowledges certain disagreements contained in the statement of non-opposition and reply, but, as neither party requests judicial intercession, the Court refrains from commenting other than to remind the parties that moving papers should be directed to the substance of the motion at bar, rather than to ancillary matters such as "clarifying" one's opponent's position, a gesture that predictably leads to the opponent's "correction" of perceived misstatements. Being irrelevant to the motion at bar, both of these non-issues merely waste judicial resources and do not comport with the level of professionalism that the Court expects from practitioners in this District. 2 1 This Order terminates Docket No. 47. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 4 5 Date: January 3, 2014 _______________________________________ YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3