Rembrandt Patent Innovations, LLC et al v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 197

ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS. Signed by Judge Alsup on 6/8/16. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/8/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

REMBRANDT PATENT INNOVATIONS
LLC, and REMBRANDT SECURE
COMPUTING, LP,

12
13
14
15
16
17

No. C 14-05094 WHA (lead)
No. C 14-05093 WHA (consolidated)

Plaintiffs,
v.
APPLE INC.,

ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS
Defendant.
/

Apple moves to file under seal certain exhibits submitted in support of its motion or

18

summary judgment and its reply (Dkt. Nos. 174, 190). Rembrandt moves to file under seal its

19

brief and certain exhibits submitted in support of its opposition to Apple’s motion (Dkt. No.

20

177). Apple’s declaration in support of Rembrandt’s sealing motion dedesignates Exhibits 8,

21

10, and 11 to the declaration of Jacob A. Schroeder, so Rembrandt’s motion is DENIED as to

22

those materials. Apple contends that the remaining materials sought to be sealed contain

23

confidential information including Apple’s source code, the supply chain and testing process for

24

its hardware, and business and financial information, the dissemination of which, Apple

25

contends, could be materially harmful to Apple.

26

Rembrandt’s brief cites the deposition testimony of Apple’s 30(b)(6) witness and the

27

report of Apple’s expert all discussing the nature of the accused products recovery process, a

28

key issue in the upcoming motion. Apple has offered no explanation of how the public release
of those materials could be harmful at all particularly since similar materials appear unredacted

1

in Apple’s own briefs. Accordingly, Rembrandt’s motion is DENIED as to the redacted

2

materials on pages 13–15 of Rembrandt’s opposition brief.

3

The parties’ sealing motions are otherwise GRANTED. This is without prejudice to

4

whether these materials could be sealed if presented at trial or at the upcoming oral argument on

5

the parties’ respective motions.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9
Dated: June 8, 2016.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2