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)

Download PDF
*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

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?