DSS Technology Management, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 435

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ON 428 MOTIONS TO SEAL.(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/30/2020)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

DSS TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT,
INC.,
Plaintiff,

9

Case No. 14-cv-05330-HSG
ORDER ON MOTIONS TO SEAL
Re: Dkt. No. 428

v.
10
11

APPLE, INC.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendant.
12
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff DSS Technology Management Inc. and Defendant

13
14

Apple, Inc.’s renewed motion to seal. See Dkt. No. 428. For the reasons detailed below, the Court

15

GRANTS the motion.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

I.

LEGAL STANDARD
Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal

documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana
v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the
common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records
and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of
access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this

23
strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion
24

must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the

25
general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in
26

understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations

27
omitted).
28

Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of

1
2

Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only

3

tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” Id. at 1179–80 (quotation omitted). This

4

requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information

5

is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th

6

Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific

7

examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966

8

F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted).
Because the parties move to file documents related to nondispositive motions, the Court

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

will apply the lower good cause standard.
II.

ANALYSIS
The parties have provided good cause for sealing portions of the various documents listed

12
13

below because they contain confidential business and proprietary information relating to the

14

operations of Defendant. See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK,

15

2012 WL 6115623 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2012); see also Agency Solutions.Com, LLC v. TriZetto

16

Group, Inc., 819 F. Supp. 2d 1001, 1017 (E.D. Cal. 2011); Linex Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard

17

Co., No. C 13-159 CW, 2014 WL 6901744 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2014). The Court originally denied

18

the parties’ motions to seal the entirety of the exhibits as the request was not narrowly tailored.

19

The parties have now tailored the request to conceal only the information regarding the identity

20

and operations of third party supplied components in Apple’s products or containing confidential

21

information regarding the operations of source code for Apple’s products. The parties have

22

identified portions of the unredacted versions of motions and exhibits as containing confidential

23

and proprietary business information, and the Court finds good cause to grant the motion to seal.

24

III.

25
26

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the parties’ renewed motion to seal. The following

portions of exhibits shall remain sealed:

27

1. Exhibits 11, 25, 26, 27 and 29 to DSS’ Administrative Motion to Seal DSS’ Motion

28

to Amend Infringement Contentions (Dkt. 215-12, 215-26, 215-27, 215-28, 2152

1
2

30/(213-15, 214-11, 214-12, 214-13, 214-15)),
2. Exhibit K to Apple’s Opposition to DSS’ Motion to Amend Infringement

3

Contentions and Cross-Motion to Strike Expert Report (Dkt. 220-12/(219-16)),

4

3. Exhibit 2 to DSS’ Opposition to Apple’s Cross-Motion to Strike Expert Report

5
6
7
8

(Dkt. 234-3/(233-8))
4. Exhibits 4 and 36 to DSS’ Reply ISO Motion to Amend Infringement Contentions
(Dkt. 232-5, 232-37/(231-9, 231-41)).
Redacted versions of these documents, consistent with this order, are available at Dkt. No. 428.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 1/30/2020
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3