Opperman et al v. Path, Inc. et al

Filing 867

ORDER REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting in part and denying in part 750 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 780 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and de nying in part 798 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 800 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 801 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 814 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 817 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 825 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/17/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MARC OPPERMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, 8 v. 9 10 PATH, INC., et al., Defendants. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ORDER REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL Re: ECF Nos. 750, 780, 798, 800, 801, 814, 817, 825 12 13 Case No.13-cv-00453-JST The parties have moved to file several documents under seal. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the administrative motions at ECF No. 780 and ECF No. 814; grant in part and deny in part the administrative motions at ECF Nos. 750, 798, 800, 801, and 817; and deny the administrative motion at ECF No. 825. I. LEGAL STANDARD A party seeking to seal a document filed with the court must (1) comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5; and (2) rebut the “a strong presumption in favor of access” that applies to all documents other than grand jury transcripts or pre-indictment warrant materials. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation and internal quotations omitted). With respect to the first prong, Local Rule 79-5 requires, as a threshold, a request that 23 (1) “establishes that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged, protectable as a trade secret 24 or otherwise entitled to protection under the law”; and (2) is “narrowly tailored to seek sealing 25 only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). An administrative motion to seal must also fulfill 26 the requirements of Civil Local Rule 79-5(d). “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that 27 28 allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a 1 2 document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Civil L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). With respect to the second prong, the showing required for overcoming the strong 3 presumption of access depends on the type of motion to which the document is attached. “[A] 4 ‘compelling reasons’ standard applies to most judicial records. This standard derives from the 5 common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records 6 and documents.’” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting 7 Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 n.7 (1978)). To overcome this strong 8 presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record must “articulate compelling reasons 9 supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79 (internal citations omitted). 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 “‘[C]ompelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify 12 sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper 13 purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate 14 libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 15 U.S. at 598. The Ninth Circuit, in an unpublished opinion, has identified a trade secret in this 16 context as “any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is used in one’s 17 business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not 18 know or use it.” In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting 19 Restatement of Torts § 757, cmt. b). In that case, applying Kamakana and Nixon, the Ninth 20 Circuit reversed a district court for refusing to seal information that qualified under this standard. 21 In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 Fed. App’x at 569. The Federal Circuit has similarly concluded that 22 under Ninth Circuit law, detailed product-specific financial information, customer information, 23 and internal reports are appropriately sealable under the “compelling reasons” standard where that 24 information could be used to the company’s competitive disadvantage. Apple Inc. v. Samsung 25 Elecs. Co., 727 F.3d 1214, 1226, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2013).] 26 On the other hand, records attached to motions that are only “tangentially related to the 27 merits of a case” are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. 28 Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, a party need only make a 2 1 showing under the good cause standard of Rule 26(c) to justify the sealing of the materials. Id. at 2 1097. A court may, for good cause, keep documents confidential “to protect a party or person 3 from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). 4 A district court must “articulate [the] . . . reasoning or findings underlying its decision to 5 seal.” Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 6 2374 (2012). 7 II. DISCUSSION 8 A. ECF No. 750 9 Plaintiffs move to file under seal portions of their Opposition brief to Electronic Arts Inc. and Chillingo Ltd.’s (collectively “EA/Chillingo”) Motion for Summary Judgment, as well as 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 portions of the exhibits attached to their Opposition brief. ECF No. 750. These documents were 12 designated as confidential by Apple and/or EA/Chillingo. Id. Because this motion relates to the 13 merits of the case, the Court applies the compelling reasons standard. 14 The Court grants the motion in part and denies the motion in part. 15 Apple has filed a declaration in support of sealing Exhibits A, C, and H. ECF No. 752. 16 Apple stresses that the exhibits contain excerpts of developers’ proprietary source code for its 17 apps. Id. Revelation of such proprietary information could cause harm to Defendants’ 18 competitive standing. See Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. In addition, this Court has previously granted 19 a motion to seal the same portions of Exhibit H now at issue. See ECF No. 740. The Court has 20 viewed the documents and redacted information and finds that compelling reasons justify sealing 21 portions of the Plaintiffs’ Opposition and Exhibits A, C, and H to the Busch Declaration. The 22 parties also narrowly tailored their requests to seal only sealable information, as Local Rule 79-5 23 requires. 24 EA/Chillingo designated the entirety of Exhibits F and G confidential. Local Rule 79-5 25 requires that, within four days of the filing of the administrative motion to file under seal, the 26 designating part file a declaration establishing that the designated material is sealable. 27 EA/Chillingo did not file a supporting declaration for Exhibits F and G, so the Court denies 28 Plaintiffs’ motion with respect to those exhibits, noting that the exhibits were “not supported by a 3 1 declaration.” The Court will reconsider Plaintiffs’ motion with respect to those exhibits if a 2 supporting declaration is filed with seven days of the filing date of this Order. If no such 3 declaration is filed within seven days of the filing date of this order, Plaintiffs may file the 4 documents in the public record. 5 Document Name Portions to be Filed Under Seal or Redacted Court’s Ruling 6 Plaintiff’s Opposition to EA/Chillingo’s Motion for Summary Judgment Excerpts on pages 4 and 5 Granted. Exhibit A to the Busch Opposition Declaration Excerpts throughout (APL-PATH_00000350416) Granted. Exhibit C to the Busch Opposition Declaration Excerpts throughout (APL-PATH_00000893913) Granted. Exhibit F to the Busch Opposition Declaration Entire exhibit (EA0000201-02) Denied: not supported by a declaration. Exhibit G to the Busch Opposition Declaration Entire exhibit (EA0000586-602) Denied: not supported by a declaration. Exhibit H to the Busch Opposition Declaration Excerpts throughout (APL-PATH_0002876798) Granted. 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 B. ECF No. 780 Plaintiffs move to file under seal portions of their Opposition brief to Twitter’s Motion for Summary Judgment, as well as portions of the exhibits attached to their Opposition brief. ECF No. 780. These documents have been designated as confidential by Apple and/or Twitter. Id. Because this motion relates to the merits of the case, the Court applies the compelling reasons standard. The Court grants the motion in its entirety. Apple has filed a declaration in support of sealing Exhibits C, F, and G. ECF No. 784. 28 4 1 Apple stresses that the exhibits contain excerpts of developers’ proprietary source code for its 2 apps. Id. Revelation of such proprietary information could cause harm to Defendants’ 3 competitive standing. See Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. In addition, this Court has previously granted 4 a motion to seal the same portions of Exhibit F now at issue. See ECF No. 740. The Court has 5 viewed the documents and redacted information and finds that compelling reasons justify sealing 6 portions of Exhibits C, F, and G to the Busch Declaration. The parties also narrowly tailored their 7 requests to seal only sealable information, as Local Rule 79-5 requires. 8 Twitter has filed a declaration in support of sealing Exhibits B, J, K, L, and portions of 9 Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Twitter’s Motion for Summary Judgment that refer to those Exhibits. ECF No. 785. Twitter argues that the internal emails between Twitter personnel in those Exhibits 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 contain confidential information about Twitter’s products, proposed features, design concepts, and 12 internal review processes that constitute trade secrets. Id. Having reviewed the documents, the 13 Court finds that the Exhibits contain trade secrets and, as a result, compelling reasons outweigh 14 the public’s interest in disclosure. In addition, Exhibits B and L discuss products and product 15 features that are not at issue in this litigation. Although Twitter seeks to seal the email exchanges 16 in their entirety, their request is narrowly tailored given the brevity of the email exchanges. 17 18 19 20 21 22 Document Name Portions to be Filed Under Seal or Redacted Court’s Ruling Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Twitter’s Motion for Summary Judgment Excerpts throughout Granted. Exhibit B to the Busch Opposition Declaration Entire exhibit Granted. Exhibit C to the Busch Opposition Declaration Excerpts throughout (APLPATH_00000661˗669) Granted. Exhibit F to the Busch Opposition Declaration Excerpts throughout (APLPATH_00028767˗798) Granted. 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 1 Document Name Portions to be Filed Under Seal or Redacted Court’s Ruling 2 Exhibit G to the Busch Opposition Declaration Excerpts on page APL-PATH_00000852˗853 Granted. Exhibit J to the Busch Opposition Declaration Entire exhibit Granted. Exhibit K to the Busch Opposition Declaration Entire exhibit Granted. Exhibit L to the Busch Opposition Declaration Entire exhibit Granted. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 C. 12 Plaintiffs move to seal several exhibits filed in support of their omnibus Motion for Class ECF Nos. 798, 800 13 Certification Re Certain App Defendants, portions of the Declaration of Arno Puder, and portions 14 of Defendants’ responses to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories. ECF Nos. 798, 800.1 These documents 15 have been designated as confidential by Apple, Foursquare, Instagram, and Twitter. Id. Because 16 this motion relates to the merits of the case, the Court applies the compelling reasons standard. 17 The Court grants the motion in part and denies the motion in part. 18 Instagram filed a declaration in support of sealing Exhibit P. ECF No. 814. Exhibit P 19 contains proprietary source code, the disclosure of which would result in competitive harm to 20 Instagram. See Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. This Court has previously sealed proprietary source code 21 in this case. ECF No. 740. In addition, Exhibit P appears to contain the names, email addresses, 22 and phone numbers of non-party Instagram users. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 23 F.3d 1122, 1137 (9th Cir. 2003) (acknowledging privacy interests implicated by sensitive, 24 personal identifying information). Therefore, both the protection of trade secrets and the privacy 25 interests of non-parties provide compelling reasons to seal Exhibit P in its entirety. Because this 26 27 28 1 The motions at ECF Nos. 798 and 800 are identical, so the Court considers them together. The filing at ECF No. 800 just includes attached unredacted documents that were omitted from the filing at ECF No. 798. 6 1 information appears throughout the Exhibit, the request is narrowly tailored as required by Local 2 Rule 79˗5. Twitter filed a declaration in support of sealing Exhibits H, T, U, W, as well as portions of 4 the Plaintiffs’ Omnibus Motion for Class Certification that refer to those Exhibits. ECF No. 816.2 5 Twitter argues that each of these Exhibits contain trade secrets that could harm Twitter’s 6 competitive standing. Id. Exhibit H, which contains Twitter’s responses to interrogatories, does 7 not include any such trade secrets. Neither does Exhibit U, which is a generic internal meeting 8 invite. The Court accordingly denies the request to file these documents under seal. However, 9 Exhibits T and W include information about Twitter’s internal review processes that constitute 10 trade secrets, and the request is narrowly tailored, so the Court grants the request to seal those 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 3 documents. Foursquare filed a declaration in support of sealing Exhibit G, Exhibit N, portions of the 12 13 Declaration of Arno Puder, and portions of the Plaintiffs’ Omnibus Motion for Class Certification 14 that refer to those documents. ECF No. 820. Foursquare argues that these documents contain 15 proprietary source code and/or other trade secrets. Id. Exhibit G, which contains Foursquare’s 16 responses to interrogatories, does not contain any source code or trade secrets. Neither does 17 Exhibit N, which contains a portion of Apple’s developer agreement with Foursquare. The Court 18 accordingly denies the request to seal those exhibits and portions of the motion that refer to those 19 exhibits. The redacted portions of Arno Puder’s declaration contain proprietary source code, the 20 disclosure of which would result in competitive harm to Foursquare. The Court therefore grants 21 the request to seal the redacted portions of Arno Puder’s declaration, as well as references to those 22 portions in the Plaintiffs’ Omnibus Motion for Class Certification. Apple filed a declaration in support of sealing Exhibits M, BB, and CC. ECF No. 824. 23 24 Apple argues that these exhibits are sealable because they contain email exchanges between 25 Apple’s app review team that, if disclosed to the public, would compromise the app review 26 27 28 2 Although the Plaintiffs moved to seal Exhibits V, X, and Z, Twitter has clarified that it does not seek to seal those Exhibits. Id. Therefore, the Plaintiffs may file those Exhibits on the public docket. 7 1 process. Id. ¶ 7˗9. Apple further argues that these exhibits contain excerpts of app developers’ 2 proprietary source code. Id. ¶ 11. The Court agrees that Exhibits M, BB, and CC contain 3 proprietary source code and sensitive information about Apple’s internal review process, and the 4 request is narrowly tailored. Accordingly, the Court grants the motion to seal those exhibits. 5 Apple designated portions of Exhibits K and L as confidential. ECF No. 800 at 2. Local 6 Rule 79-5 requires that, within four days of the filing of the administrative motion to file under 7 seal, the designating part file a declaration establishing that the designated material is sealable. 8 Apple did not file a supporting declaration for Exhibits K and L, so the Court denies Plaintiffs’ 9 motion with respect to those exhibits, noting that the exhibits were “not supported by a declaration.” The Court will reconsider Plaintiffs’ motion with respect to those exhibits if a 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 supporting declaration is filed with seven days of the filing date of this Order. If no such 12 declaration is filed within seven days of the filing date of this order, Plaintiffs’ may file the 13 documents in the public record. 14 Document Name Portions to be Filed Under Seal or Redacted Court’s Ruling 15 Plaintiffs’ Omnibus Motion for Class Certification Excerpts Granted as to exhibits sealed by the Court; denied as to exhibits not sealed by the Court. Exhibit K to the Buck Declaration APL-PATH_00017762 Denied: not supported by a declaration. Exhibit L to the Buck Declaration APL-PATH_00032230- APL-PATH_00032231 Denied: not supported by a declaration. Exhibit M to the Buck Declaration APL-PATH_00018321˗ APL-PATH_00018322 Granted. Exhibit BB to the Buck Declaration APL-PATH_00018252- APL-PATH_00018254 Granted. Exhibit CC to the Buck Declaration APL-PATH_00018238- APL-PATH_00018240 Granted. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 1 Document Name Portions to be Filed Under Seal or Redacted Court’s Ruling 2 Exhibit N to the Buck Declaration Excerpt at Bates No. FS_S201 Denied. Exhibit G to the Buck Declaration Response to Interrogatory No. 12 Denied. Declaration of Arno Puder Portions of paragraphs 3˗5 Granted. Exhibit P to the Buck Declaration Entire exhibit Granted. Exhibit T to the Buck Declaration Entire exhibit Granted. Exhibit U to the Buck Declaration Entire exhibit Denied. Exhibit W to the Buck Declaration Entire exhibit Granted. Exhibit H to the Buck Declaration Responses to Interrogatories No. 12 and 18 Denied. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 D. ECF No. 801 16 Plaintiffs move to seal several exhibits filed in support of their Motion for Class 17 Certification re False Advertising and Related Claims against Defendant Apple, as well as 18 portions of their Motion that refer to those exhibits. ECF No. 801. These documents have been 19 designated as confidential by Apple. Id. Apple filed a declaration in support of sealing some of 20 these exhibits. ECF No. 824. Because this motion relates to the merits of the case, the Court 21 applies the compelling reasons standard. 22 The Court grants the motion in part and denies the motion in part. 23 Apple argues that Exhibit A contains competitively sensitive financial information 24 regarding Apple’s advertising spending and revenue associated with particular apps. Id. ¶ 17. The 25 Court agrees, finds that the request is narrowly tailored, and accordingly grants the request to seal 26 Exhibit A. 27 Apple argues that Exhibits B, D, E, F, H, and Z contain internal discussions among Apple 28 9 1 personnel concerning software engineering and technical design issues that, if disclosed to the 2 public, could make it easier to compromise the security of Apple’s products. Id. ¶¶ 18˗20. The 3 Court agrees and accordingly grants the request to seal those exhibits. 4 Apple argues that Exhibits M, P, and Q are sealable because they contain email exchanges 5 between Apple’s app review team that, if disclosed to the public, would compromise the app 6 review process. Id. ¶ 7˗9. Apple further argues that these exhibits contain excerpts of app 7 developers’ proprietary source code. Id. ¶ 11. The Court agrees and grants the request to seal 8 these exhibits or the redacted portions of these exhibits. 9 Apple argues that Exhibit O, which contains training guidelines for app reviewers, could similarly compromise Apple’s review process if disclosed to the public. Id. ¶ 13. The Court 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 agrees and accordingly grants the request to seal Exhibit O. 12 The request to seal portions of the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification re False 13 Advertising Law and Related Claims is not narrowly tailored to sealable material, as required by 14 Local Rule 79˗5. Although some of the redacted portions refer to exhibits that have been sealed 15 by the Court, other redacted portions contain unsealable material or refer to exhibits for which no 16 supporting declaration has yet been filed. Therefore, this request is denied in part. 17 The Court denies the motion with respect to those exhibits that are not supported by a 18 declaration, noting that the exhibits were “not supported by a declaration.” The Court will 19 reconsider Plaintiffs’ motion with respect to those exhibits if a supporting declaration is filed with 20 seven days of the filing date of this Order. If no such declaration is filed within seven days of the 21 filing date of this order, Plaintiffs’ may file the documents in the public record. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Document Name Portions to be Filed Under Seal or Redacted Court’s Ruling Motion for Class Certification re False Advertising and Related Claims Excerpts throughout Denied in part. Exhibit A to the Busch Declaration Entire exhibit Granted. Exhibit B to the Busch Entire exhibit Granted. 10 Portions to be Filed Under Seal or Redacted Court’s Ruling Exhibit D to the Busch Declaration Entire exhibit Granted. Exhibit E to the Busch Declaration Entire exhibit Granted. Exhibit F to the Busch Declaration Entire exhibit Granted. Exhibit G to the Busch Declaration Entire exhibit Denied: not supported by a declaration. Exhibit H to the Busch Declaration Entire exhibit Granted. Exhibit K to the Busch Declaration Entire exhibit Denied: not supported by a declaration. Exhibit L to the Busch Declaration Entire exhibit Denied: not supported by a declaration. The Unredacted Version of Exhibit M to the Busch Declaration Excerpts throughout Granted. Exhibit N to the Busch Declaration Excerpts throughout Denied: not supported by a declaration. Exhibit O to the Busch Declaration Entire exhibit Granted. Exhibit P to the Busch Declaration Excerpts throughout Granted. Exhibit Q to the Busch Declaration Entire exhibit Granted. Exhibit R to the Busch Declaration Entire exhibit Denied: not supported by a declaration. 1 Document Name 2 Declaration 3 4 5 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 11 1 Document Name Portions to be Filed Under Seal or Redacted Court’s Ruling 2 Exhibit S to the Busch Declaration Entire exhibit Denied: not supported by a declaration. Exhibit U to the Busch Declaration Entire exhibit Denied: not supported by a declaration. Exhibit Y to the Busch Declaration Entire exhibit Denied: not supported by a declaration. Exhibit Z to the Busch Declaration Entire exhibit Granted. Exhibit KK to the Busch Declaration Entire exhibit Denied: not supported by a declaration. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 E. ECF No. 817 14 Plaintiffs move to seal several exhibits filed in support of their Opposition to Apple’s 15 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, as well as portions of their Opposition brief that refer to 16 those exhibits. ECF No. 817. These documents have been designated as confidential by Apple 17 and Twitter. Id. Both Apple and Twitter filed declarations in support of sealing some of these 18 exhibits. ECF Nos. 823, 824. Because this motion relates to the merits of the case, the Court 19 applies the compelling reasons standard. 20 The Court grants the motion in part and denies the motion in part. 21 Twitter argues that Exhibit U, which contains an email exchange between Twitter 22 personnel regarding the testing of an iOS feature, encompasses trade secrets related to Twitter’s 23 team, relationship with Apple, and a product feature that is not at issue in this case. ECF No. 823. 24 The Court agrees, concludes that the request is narrowly tailored given the brevity of the email 25 exchange, and accordingly grants the request to seal Exhibit U. 26 Apple argues that Exhibits H, T, Y, and Y-1 are sealable because they contain email 27 exchanges between Apple’s app review team that, if disclosed to the public, would compromise 28 the app review process. ECF No. 824, ¶ 7˗9. Apple further argues that these exhibits contain 12 1 excerpts of app developers’ proprietary source code. Id. ¶ 11. The Court agrees that Exhibits H, T, 2 Y, and Y-1 contain proprietary source code and sensitive information about Apple’s internal 3 review process, and the request is narrowly tailored. Accordingly, the Court grants the motion to 4 seal those exhibits. 5 Apple argues that Exhibits E and F, which contain screen shots of an internal database that 6 Apple used to track app submissions, contains details about app submissions that, if disclosed to 7 the public, could compromise the app review process. Id. ¶ 15. Apple further argues that these 8 exhibits contain the names of Apple employees involved in the app review process. Id. The Court 9 agrees, finds that the request is narrowly tailored, and accordingly grants the request to seal 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Exhibits E and F. The Court has already granted requests to seal Exhibits C, P, Q, R, and S, which were also 12 attached to the Busch Declaration filed in support of the Motion for Class Certification re False 13 Advertising and Related Claims against Defendant Apple. See supra. 14 Apple argues that Exhibit D, which contains excerpts from the August 19, 2016 deposition 15 of Alexandre Ayes, is sealable to the extent it refers to Exhibit C. The Court agrees that Exhibit D 16 references internal discussions among Apple personnel concerning software engineering and 17 technical design issues that, if disclosed to the public, could make it easier to compromise the 18 security of Apple’s products. The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored. 19 Therefore, the request to seal Exhibit D is granted. 20 Apple argues that Exhibit Z similarly reflects Apple’s internal process regarding software 21 engineering and technical design issues and, as a result, could be used to compromise the security 22 of Apple’s products. ECF No. 824, ¶ 19˗20. The Court agrees and grants the request to seal 23 Exhibit Z in its entirety. 24 The Court denies the motion with respect to those exhibits that are not supported by a 25 declaration, noting that the exhibits were “not supported by a declaration.” The Court will 26 reconsider Plaintiffs’ motion with respect to those exhibits if a supporting declaration is filed with 27 seven days of the filing date of this Order. If no such declaration is filed within seven days of the 28 filing date of this order, Plaintiffs’ may file the documents in the public record. 13 The requests to seal portions of the Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Apple’s Motion for Partial 1 2 Summary Judgment and the Declaration of Frank Busch in Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition are 3 not narrowly tailored to sealable material, as required by Local Rule 79˗5. Although some of the 4 redacted portions refer to exhibits that have been sealed by the Court, other redacted portions 5 contain unsealable material or refer to exhibits for which no supporting declaration has yet been 6 filed. Therefore, this request is denied in part. 7 Document Name Portions to be Filed Under Seal or Redacted Court’s Ruling 8 Opposition to Apple’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Excerpts Denied in part. Busch MSJ Opposition Excerpts Declaration Denied in part. Exhibit B to the Busch MSJ Opposition Declaration Entire exhibit Denied: not supported by a declaration. Exhibit C to the Busch MSJ Opposition Declaration Entire exhibit Granted.3 Exhibit D to the Busch MSJ Opposition Declaration Entire exhibit Granted. Exhibit E to the Busch MSJ Opposition Declaration Entire exhibit Granted. Exhibit F to the Busch MSJ Opposition Declaration Entire exhibit Granted. Exhibit G to the Busch MSJ Opposition Declaration Entire exhibit Denied: not supported by a declaration. 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 This is the same document contained in Exhibit F to the Busch Declaration filed in support of the Motion for Class Certification re False Advertising and Related Claims against Defendant Apple. See ECF Nos. 801˗8, 817˗7. The Court already granted the request to seal this document. 14 1 Document Name Portions to be Filed Under Seal or Redacted Court’s Ruling 2 Exhibit H to the Busch MSJ Opposition Declaration Entire exhibit Granted. Exhibit I to the Busch MSJ Opposition Declaration Entire exhibit Denied: not supported by a declaration. Exhibit J to the Busch MSJ Opposition Declaration Entire exhibit Denied: not supported by a declaration. Exhibit K to the Busch MSJ Opposition Declaration Entire exhibit Denied: not supported by a declaration. Exhibit L to the Busch MSJ Opposition Declaration Entire exhibit Denied: not supported by a declaration. Exhibit O to the Busch MSJ Opposition Declaration Entire exhibit Denied: not supported by a declaration. Exhibit P to the Busch MSJ Opposition Declaration Excerpts Granted.4 Exhibit Q to the Busch MSJ Opposition Declaration Entire exhibit Granted.5 Exhibit R to the Busch MSJ Opposition Declaration Entire exhibit Granted.6 3 4 5 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 4 This is the same document contained in Exhibit M to the Busch Declaration filed in support of the Motion for Class Certification re False Advertising and Related Claims against Defendant Apple. See ECF Nos. 801˗13, 817˗19. The Court already granted the request to seal this document. 5 This is the same document contained in Exhibit A to the Busch Declaration filed in support of the Motion for Class Certification re False Advertising and Related Claims against Defendant Apple. See ECF Nos. 801˗4, 817˗20. The Court already granted the request to seal this document. 6 This is the same document contained in Exhibit H to the Busch Declaration filed in support of the Motion for Class Certification re False Advertising and Related Claims against Defendant Apple. See ECF Nos. 801˗10, 817˗21. The Court already granted the request to seal this 15 1 Document Name Portions to be Filed Under Seal or Redacted Court’s Ruling 2 Exhibit S to the Busch MSJ Opposition Declaration Entire exhibit Granted.7 Exhibit T to the Busch MSJ Opposition Declaration Entire exhibit Granted. Exhibit U to the Busch MSJ Opposition Declaration Entire exhibit Granted. Exhibit V to the Busch MSJ Opposition Declaration Entire exhibit Denied: not supported by a declaration. Exhibit W to the Entire exhibit Busch MSJ Opposition Declaration Denied: not supported by a declaration. Exhibit X to the Busch MSJ Opposition Declaration Entire exhibit Denied: not supported by a declaration. Exhibit Y to the Busch MSJ Opposition Declaration Entire exhibit Granted. Exhibit Y-1 to the Entire exhibit Busch MSJ Opposition Declaration Granted. Exhibit Z to the Busch MSJ Opposition Declaration Granted. 3 4 5 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 Entire exhibit Denied: not supported by a declaration. Exhibit XX to the 23 Exhibit VV to the Excerpts Busch MSJ Opposition Declaration Denied: not 24 Excerpts 25 26 27 28 document. 7 This is the same document contained in Exhibit Q to the Busch Declaration filed in support of the Motion for Class Certification re False Advertising and Related Claims against Defendant Apple. See ECF Nos. 801˗18, 817˗22. The Court already granted the request to seal this document. 16 1 Document Name 2 Portions to be Filed Under Seal or Redacted Busch MSJ Opposition Declaration Court’s Ruling supported by a declaration. 3 F. 4 5 ECF No. 825 Twitter moves to seal excerpts of the transcript from C.K. Haun’s deposition, which was attached as Exhibit M to Twitter’s Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF 6 No. 825. The Court will deny the motion. 7 Although Apple designated the material as sealable, it failed to file a declaration in support 8 9 of sealing as required by Local Rule 79˗5. The Court accordingly denies Twitter’s motion, noting that the exhibit is “not supported by a declaration.” The Court will reconsider Plaintiffs’ motion 10 with respect to those exhibits if a supporting declaration is filed with seven days of the filing date 11 United States District Court Northern District of California of this Order. If no such declaration is filed within seven days of the filing date of this order, 12 Twitter may file the document in the public record. 13 14 15 Document Name Portions to be Filed Under Seal or Redacted Court’s Ruling Transcript of Haun Deposition Pages 242˗244 Denied: not supported by a declaration. 16 17 18 CONCLUSION With respect to the sealing requests that the Court has granted, “the document[s] filed 19 under seal will remain under seal and the public will have access only to the redacted version, if 20 any, accompanying the motion.” Civil L. R. 79-5(f)(1). 21 With respect to the sealing requests that the Court has denied, the documents will not be 22 considered by the Court unless the filing party files the document in the public record within seven 23 days from the date of this Order. 24 With respect to the sealing requests that the Court has denied in part, the Court will not 25 consider those portions of the documents that are unsealable unless the filing party files the 26 document in the public record without the redactions the Court has rejected, in conformance with 27 this Order, within seven days from the date of this Order. 28 With respect to the sealing requests that the Court has denied for failure to file a supporting 17 1 declaration, the Court will reconsider those requests if a supporting declaration is filed with seven 2 days of the filing date of this Order. If no such declaration is filed within seven days of the filing 3 date of this order, the filing party may file the documents in the public record. 4 5 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 9, 2017 ______________________________________ JON S. TIGAR United States District Judge 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 18

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?