Thale v. Apple, Inc

Filing 72

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 62 Administrative Motion to File Documents Under Seal (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2012)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

TAEA THALE,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 11-cv-03778-YGR

v.
APPLE, INC.,

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT APPLE
INC.’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL IN
SUPPORT OF APPLE INC.’S MOTION FOR
PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendant.

12
13

On November 1, 2012, Defendant Apple Inc. filed an Administrative Motion to File

14

Documents Under Seal in Support of Its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“Motion”).

15

(Dkt. No. 62.) The documents sought to be sealed by the Motion (collectively, “Documents”)

16

consist of either (i) documents produced or designated as “Confidential” under the Protective

17

Order in this action (Dkt. No. 57), including deposition transcript excerpts, or (ii) selected

18

portions of Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment, separate statement, or declarations

19

in support thereof. (Motion at 1–2.) Defendant describes the Documents as containing

20

confidential business information (which it does not disclose publicly), such as financial or

21

iPhone sales information, information regarding business dealings with third parties (including

22

Defendant’s advertising agency), or other proprietary business practices. (Id.) Defendant asserts

23

that “[f]inancial data regarding Apple’s iPhone sales and the terms of certain license agreements

24

entered into by Apple are commercially sensitive, non-public business information that should

25

remain confidential,” that it has a “legitimate business interest in protecting the confidentiality of

26

its business dealings and agreements,” and that it “would be prejudiced if such information

27

became publicly available.” (Declaration of David M. Walsh in Support of Apple Inc.’s

28

Administrative Motion to File Documents Under Seal (Dkt. No. 62-1) ¶ 3.) No specific argument

1

is made in the Motion as to the precise harm that would result if the Documents were publicly-

2

disclosed.

3

A motion to seal documents attached to a dispositive motion that are part of the judicial

4

record is governed by the “compelling reasons” standard. Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605

5

F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010). A “party seeking to seal judicial records must show that

6

‘compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings . . . outweigh the general history of

7

access and the public policies favoring disclosure.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana v. City and County

8

of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006)). The trial court must weigh relevant

9

factors including the “public interest in understanding the judicial process and whether disclosure

10

of the material could result in improper use of the material for scandalous or libelous purposes or

11

infringement upon trade secrets.” Pintos, 605 F.3d at 679 n. 6 (quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser,

12

49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)). In effect, an order authorizing sealing of a document would

13

require the court to lock the courtroom doors as to the proffered material during trial. While the

14

decision to grant or deny a motion to seal is within the trial court’s discretion, the basis must be

15

compelling and the court must articulate its reasoning in approving such a request. Pintos, 605

16

F.3d at 679. Further, given the importance of the competing interests at stake, any sealing order

17

must be narrowly tailored. Civ. L.R. 79-5(a). “A stipulation . . . that allows a party to designate

18

documents as sealable[] will not suffice to allow the filing of documents under seal.” Id.

19

(emphasis supplied).

20

The majority of the Documents contain Defendant’s own confidential business or

21

financial information. While it appears that certain Documents may have been produced by a

22

third-party, the only explanations for why a sealing order is appropriate, however, come from

23

Defendant. No response to the Motion was filed by Plaintiff, nor did any third-party whose

24

business information may be implicated by the Motion make a showing for why their documents

25

should be sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d).

26

The Court hereby DENIES this Motion because Defendant has not met its burden of

27

showing that the Documents are sealable. It is insufficient to argue generically that the

28

information is confidential, not otherwise publicly-disclosed, and would cause “irreparable
-2-

1

injury” if disclosed. (Motion at 1.) No showing has been made that information at issue is a trade

2

secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. Moreover, designation under the

3

Protective Order as “Confidential” does not confer sealable status under Civ. L.R. 79-5. In fact,

4

the Protective Order states that “[p]ursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5 and General Order 62, a

5

sealing order will issue only upon a request establishing that the Protected Material at issue is

6

privileged, protectable as a trade secret, or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.”

7

(Emphasis supplied.) For these reasons, the Motion is DENIED.

8
9
10

The Documents at issue in this Motion must be publicly-filed by November 20, 2012. It
is Defendant’s responsibility to ensure that the Chambers binder of the moving papers and
supporting documents is updated, if necessary.

11

This Order terminates Dkt. No. 62.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: November 15, 2012

_______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-