Apple Inc. v. NSO Group Technologies Limited et al

Filing 88

ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL. Signed by Judge James Donato on 1/23/2024. (jdlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2024)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

APPLE INC.,
Plaintiff,

7

ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL

v.

8
9

Case No. 3:21-cv-09078-JD

NSO GROUP TECHNOLOGIES
LIMITED, et al.,

10

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
A hallmark of our federal judiciary is the “strong presumption in favor of access to court

12
13

records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003); see In re

14

Google Play Store Antitrust Litig., 556 F. Supp. 3d 1106, 1107 (N.D. Cal. 2021). Public access

15

maintains confidence in the fair and impartial administration of justice, and protects the integrity

16

and independence of the courts. This is why the business of the federal judiciary is done in open

17

court.

18

In limited circumstances, there may be grounds for curtailing public access. This is an

19

exception to the rule, and so a party requesting that a document or evidence be sealed from the

20

public needs to present a good reason explaining why. A compelling reason supported by specific

21

facts is needed before the Court will consider sealing records involving dispositive motions. See

22

Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 2006); DZ Rsrv. v.

23

Facebook, Inc., No. 18-cv-04978-JD, 2021 WL 75734, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2021). Cursory

24

assertions of confidentiality are not enough, and the “fact that the parties may have designated a

25

document as confidential under a stipulated protective order is also not enough to justify sealing.”

26

In re Google Play Store, 556 F. Supp. 3d at 1107.

27
28

NSO has made a number of sealing requests in connection with a motion to dismiss the
complaint and Apple’s response to the motion. Dkt. Nos. 62, 64, 68, 70, 73, 76, 78. The requests

1

are based on NSO representations that the material to be sealed are subject to similar treatment by

2

courts in Israel. The Court has denied the motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 87, and grants the sealing

3

requests based primarily on comity for the Israeli courts. This order is without prejudice to

4

whether the documents should be unsealed at a party or nonparty’s request at a later date.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 23, 2024

7
8
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

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
2