Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corporation

Filing 55

ORDER by Judge Alsup granting 54 Motion for Protective Order. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/3/2009)

Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corporation

Doc. 55

Case3:08-cv-03251-WHA Document55

Filed03/03/09 Page1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 APPLE INC., a California corporation Plaintiff, v. PSYSTAR CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Defendant. / ORDER APPROVING STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER SUBJECT TO STATED CONDITIONS No. C 08-03251 WHA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The stipulated protective order submitted by the parties is hereby APPROVED, subject to the following conditions, including adherence to the recently announced strict caution against sealing orders by the Ninth Circuit (as set out below): 1. The parties must make a good-faith determination that any

information designated "confidential" truly warrants protection under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Designations of material as "confidential" must be narrowly tailored to include only material for which there is good cause. A pattern of over-designation may lead to an order un-designating all or most materials on a wholesale basis. 2. In order to be treated as confidential, any materials filed with the

Court must be lodged with a request for filing under seal in compliance with Civil Local Rule 79-5. Please limit your requests for sealing to only those narrowly tailored portions of materials for which good cause to seal exists. Please include all other portions of your materials in the public file and clearly indicate therein
Dockets.Justia.com

Case3:08-cv-03251-WHA Document55

Filed03/03/09 Page2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

where material has been redacted and sealed. Each filing requires an individualized sealing order; blanket prospective authorizations are no longer allowed by Civil Local Rule 79-5. 3. Chambers copies should include all material -- both redacted and

unredacted -- so that chambers staff does not have to reassemble the whole brief or declaration. Although chambers copies should clearly designate which portions are confidential, chambers copies with confidential materials will be handled like all other chambers copies of materials without special restriction, and will typically be recycled, not shredded. 4. In Kamakana v. Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006),

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

the Ninth Circuit held that more than good cause, indeed, "compelling reasons" are required to seal documents used in dispositive motions, just as compelling reasons would be needed to justify a closure of a courtroom during trial. Otherwise, the Ninth Circuit held, public access to the work of the courts will be unduly compromised. Therefore, no request for a sealing order will be allowed on summary judgment motions (or other dispositive motions) unless the movant first shows a "compelling reason," a substantially higher standard than "good cause." This will be true regardless of any stipulation by the parties. Counsel are warned that most summary judgment motions and supporting material should be completely open to public view. Only social security numbers, names of juveniles, home addresses and phone numbers, and trade secrets of a compelling nature (like the recipe for Coca Cola, for example) will qualify. If the courtroom would not be closed for the information, nor should any summary judgment proceedings, which are, in effect, a substitute for trial. Motions in limine are also part of the trial and must likewise be laid bare absent compelling reasons. Please comply fully. Noncompliant submissions are liable to be stricken in their entirety.

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

2

Case3:08-cv-03251-WHA Document55

Filed03/03/09 Page3 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

5.

Any confidential materials used openly in court hearings or trial

will not be treated in any special manner absent a further order. 6. This order does not preclude any party from moving to

undesignate information or documents that have been designated as confidential. The party seeking to designate material as confidential has the burden of establishing that the material is entitled to protection. 7. The Court will retain jurisdiction over disputes arising from the

proposed and stipulated protective order for only NINETY DAYS after final termination of the action.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 Dated: March 2, 2009

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE