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)

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