Elan Microelectronics Corporation v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 204

ORDER RE: 198 DENYING MOTION TO SEAL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE. by Judge Richard Seeborg (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/11/2011)

*E-Filed 5/11/11*

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

SAN JOSE DIVISION

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 09-01531 RS

ELAN MICROELECTRONICS
CORPORATION,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
SEAL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiff,
v.

12
13

APPLE, INC.,

14

Defendant.
____________________________________/

15
16

Elan has filed a motion (Dkt. No. 198) to file under seal virtually all of the documents

17

submitted in connection with its motion for partial summary judgment, including its brief, the

18

supporting declarations, and virtually all of the exhibits thereto. The motion is denied, without

19

prejudice to a renewed motions filed in compliance with Civil Local Rule 79-5 and the directions of

20

this order.

21

The commentary to Rule 79-5 notes that, “[a]s a public forum, the Court has a policy of

22

providing to the public full access to papers filed in the Office of the Clerk.” Accordingly Rule 79-

23

5, “is designed to ensure that . . . a public copy is filed and available for public review that has the

24

minimum redactions necessary to protect sealable information.” (Emphasis added).

25

The request to seal the entirety of the supporting brief rather than only redacted portions

26

thereof is manifestly inappropriate. In the case of declaration exhibits, practical considerations

27

warrant some flexibility in applying the rule. Thus, where an exhibit predominately consists of

28
1

NO. C 09‐01531 RS

1

sealable information, it may be appropriate to seal the entire document rather than requiring

2

submission of a heavily redacted document that would not substantially further the policy of

3

providing public access to, and understanding of, court proceedings. Parties must, however, give

4

particularized consideration to each exhibit prior to requesting that it be sealed, either in its entirety,

5

or through redactions. The mere fact that a document may have been designated by a party as

6

confidential during the discovery process does not automatically establish that sealing is

7

appropriate.

8

Elan’s sealing request is based on the assertion that the materials constitute, or disclose

in this action. Ordinarily, upon the filing of such a motion, it would be Apple’s burden to submit a

11
For the Northern District of California

information contained in, documents designated by Apple as confidential under the protected order

10

United States District Court

9

declaration establishing what materials qualify for sealing, and a proposed sealing order, within 7

12

days. See Rule 79-5(d). In this instance, to facilitate Apple’s ability to withdraw confidentiality

13

designations if and to the extent appropriate without unduly confusing the record, the parties are

14

ordered to meet and confer before Elan files its renewed sealing motion, such that it only requests

15

sealing of materials as to which Apple believes there exists a good faith basis to permit sealing,

16

bearing in mind the considerations mentioned above. Apple shall then submit the requisite

17

declaration and proposed sealing order within 7 days of the filing of the renewed motion. Elan need

18

not re-submit chambers copies of its motion for summary judgment, or the supporting declarations

19

and exhibits.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23
24

Dated: 5/11/11
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2

NO. C 09‐01531 RS