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)
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F.3d 1106, 1115-16 (9th Cir. 2009) opinion amended and superseded on denial of reh’g, 605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?