Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 111

ORDER PERMITTING APPLE TO FILE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WITHOUT PREFILING CONFERENCE; AND granting in part and denying in part 108 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/15/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 6 Plaintiff, 7 8 v. APPLE INC., 9 10 Case No. 11-CV-06357 YGR ORDER (1) PERMITTING APPLE TO FILE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WITHOUT PRE-FILING CONFERENCE; AND (2) GRANTING IN PART APPLE’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL Defendant. AND RELATED ACTION 11 The Court has reviewed the parties’ letter briefs in connection with Apple Inc.’s request 12 13 for leave to move for summary judgment of non-infringement and finds that a pre-filing 14 conference will not be necessary. Apple may file its Summary Judgment Motion. The parties 15 are reminded that only one summary judgment motion may be filed per side, absent leave of 16 court. Additionally, Apple has moved the Court for an Order sealing various portions of its 17 18 Letter Brief re Motion for Summary Judgment. Two very different standards govern motions to seal. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 565 19 F.3d 1106, 1115-16 (9th Cir. 2009) opinion amended and superseded on denial of reh’g, 605 20 21 22 F.3d 665 (9th Cir. 2010). The Rule 26(c) “good cause” standard applies to documents submitted in connection with non-dispositive motions, such as discovery motions, and the court may seal the documents “to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or 23 undue burden or expense.” Id. at 1116. However, a motion to seal documents in connection 24 with a motion for summary is governed by the “compelling reasons” standard. Id. (citing 25 Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)).1 26 27 28 1 If either party intends to seal documents in connection with the briefing of the motion for summary judgment, it “must show that ‘compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings … outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.’” Pintos, supra, 605 F.3d at 678 (quoting Kamakana, supra, 447 F.3d at 1178-79). The Court will weigh the relevant factors, including 1 2 The Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Apple’s Letter re Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: 3 The Motion to File Under Seal is GRANTED as to the redacted information on page 2, at 4 lines 4 and 21, the full sentence that begins on line 33 and continues to line 34, and footnote 1. 5 Otherwise, the Motion is DENIED. 6 7 Should Apple Inc. elect to file a redacted version of the document as set forth herein, it must do so no later than five business days from the date this Order is filed. 8 This Order Terminates Docket Number 108. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: February 15, 2013 ____________________________________ YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the “public interest in understanding the judicial process and whether disclosure of the material could result in improper use of the material for scandalous or libelous purposes or infringement upon trade secrets.” Id. at 679 n.6 (quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)). While the decision to grant or deny a motion to seal is within the Court’s discretion, the Court must articulate its reasoning in deciding a motion to seal. Id. Given the importance of the competing interests at stake, any sealing order must be narrowly tailored. Civ. L.R. 79-5 (a). 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?