Adkins et al v. Apple Inc et al

Filing 339

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' SEALING REQUESTS re 334 Sealed Document and 337 Brief. The unredacted Order will be unsealed by the Court. The parties are directed to re-file unredacted versions of documents in accordance with the "Administrative Motions" portion of the 334 Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 01/27/2017. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/27/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

FABRIENNE ENGLISH,
Plaintiff,
v.
APPLE INC, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 3:14-cv-01619-WHO
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS'
SEALING REQUESTS
Re: Dkt. Nos. 334, 337

12
13

In the Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, I indicated my “plan to

14

unredact [the] Order in its entirety and to unseal all general information related to the type of

15

devices used as replacement units.” Order at 30:16–17 (Dkt. No. 334). I directed Apple to

16

respond “with compelling reasons why any reference in this Order should remain under seal.” Id.

17

at 30:19–20. Apple responded, seeking only to maintain under seal two sentences in the

18

background section of the Order and one sentence in its Reply. Defs.’ Response at 1 (Dkt. No.

19

337). But instead of proffering compelling reasons, Apple urged that the “good cause” standard

20

should apply “because the information is not relevant to the Court’s resolution of Defendants’

21

motion for summary judgment.” Id. at 2:4–5. I disagree.

22

The Ninth Circuit recently clarified that the “compelling reasons” test is not merely limited

23

to “dispositive” motions. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1098 (9th

24

Cir. 2016)(“When using the words ‘dispositive’ and ‘nondispositive,’ we do not believe our court

25

intended for these descriptions to morph into mechanical classifications.”); see also id. at

26

1101(“[W]e make clear that public access to filed motions and their attachments does not merely

27

depend on whether the motion is technically ‘dispositive.’”) The test may also apply to sealing

28

documents related to “nondispositive” motions that are “directly related to the merits of the case.”

1

Id. at 1098; see also id. at 1101 (“[P]ublic access will turn on whether the motion is more than

2

tangentially related to the merits of a case.”) But none of that matters here, where the motion is

3

clearly dispositive, and the compelling reason standard undoubtedly applies. Id. at 1098.

4

Further, the standard for sealing depends on the motion as a whole, not whether individual

5

facts within the motion are material. Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180

6

(9th Cir. 2006)(“[W]e treat judicial records attached to dispositive motions differently from

7

records attached to non-dispositive motions.”); see also Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1102 (vacating

8

and remanding for the district court to consider the documents under the compelling reasons

9

standard); id. at 1103 (focusing on the relevance of the pleading, not individual facts within the
pleading). “Thus a ‘good cause’ showing alone will not suffice to fulfill the ‘compelling reasons’

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

standard that a party must meet to rebut the presumption of access to dispositive pleadings and

12

attachments.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180.

13

Here, the facts Apple wants to keep under seal are “more than tangentially related to the

14

merits of the case.” See Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101. They were used in the dispositive Order

15

authored by the Court. One of the lines in the Order that Apple wants sealed relates precisely to

16

the type of replacement units English received. See Order at 3:14–16 (discussing new iPhones as

17

replacement units). And, although English’s replacement phones were ultimately determined to be

18

new, the issues of whether or not they were reclaimed and what “reclaimed” means were clearly

19

relevant to the disposition of the case against Apple. That information is not “irrelevant to the

20

Court's resolution of the legal challenges raised… .” G&C Auto Body, Inc. v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co.,

21

No. C06-04898 MJJ, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124119, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2008). Nor can I

22

say that I “did not consider [the information] in connection with Defendant[s’] dispositive

23

motion.” Music Grp. Macao Commer. Offshore Ltd. v. Foote, No. 14-cv-03078-JSC, 2015 U.S.

24

Dist. LEXIS 85089, at *37 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2015). When balancing the competing interests of

25

the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret, I cannot ascertain a

26

compelling reason to keep this information under seal. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.

27
28

Accordingly, the information should be unredacted. The unredacted Order will be
unsealed by the Court. The parties are directed to re-file unredacted versions of documents in
2

1

accordance with the “Administrative Motions” portion of the Order Granting Defendants’ Motion

2

for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 334).

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5
6

Dated: January 27, 2017
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

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