Elan Microelectronics Corporation v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 228

ORDER DENYING ELAN MICROELECTRONICS CORPORATION'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL by Judge Paul S. Grewal denying 211 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (psglc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/1/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

SAN JOSE DIVISION

12
13
14
15
16
17

ELAN MICROELECTRONICS CORP.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
APPLE, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )

Case No.: C 09-01531 RS (PSG)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF ELAN
MICROELECTRONICS
CORPORATION’S ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
(Docket No. 211)

18
Elan administratively moves to file under seal Exhibits B, E, F, G, H, I, J, L, and M to the
19
Declaration of Palani P. Rathinasamy. Elan submits these exhibits in support of its pending motion
20

to compel.1 Elan seeks to file entire exhibits under seal without also submitting a redacted, public

21
version of each exhibit. Elan claims that submission of heavily redacted documents would not
22
substantially further the policy of providing public access to, and understanding of, court
23
proceedings. For the reasons set forth herein, the motion is DENIED.
24
The Ninth Circuit has explained that “[h]istorically, courts have recognized a ‘general right
25
to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents. This
26
right is justfied by the interest of citizens in ‘keeping a watchful eye on the workings of public
27
28
1

See Docket No. 210.
ORDER, page 1

1

agencies.’”2
“[A] strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.”3 Under this standard, a

2
3

party seeking to seal a judicial record relating to a dispositive motion bears the burden of

4

overcoming the strong presumption of public access by articulating “compelling reasons” supported

5

by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies

6

favoring disclosure.4 For records relating to non-dispositive motions, a threshold lower than

7

“compelling” applies. “A ‘good cause’ showing under Rule 26(c) will suffice to keep sealed records

8

attached to nondispositive motions.”5

9

There is no question that the pending motion to compel filed by Elan is nondispositive in

10

nature, implicating the lower “good cause” standards of Rule 26(c). With two exceptions,6 however,

11

instead of establishing good cause to support their request, Elan merely cut-and-pasted variations of

12

the following generic statement to justify the wholesale sealing of each of the above-mentioned

13

exhibits: “Good cause exists to seal the entire exhibit as Apple’s response contain confidential

14

internal product names not publicly known.”7 Elan also stated that the exhibits contained

15

information that designated “Confidential-Attorneys’ Eyes Only” and the information is not publicly

16

known.

17
18
19

Elan’s motion falls short of meeting even the lower “good cause” standard that applies to
nondispositive motions.
First, the generic statement above does not justify or even address why Apple’s internal

20

product names could not simply be redacted in each of the exhibits at issue. If this is the only

21

justification for the sealing request–and it is for all but two exhibits–it is unclear why a modest effort

22
2

23

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal
citations omitted).

24

3

Id. at 1178.

25

4

See id. at 1178-79.

26

5

Id. at 1181.

27

6

28

With respect to Exhibits L and M, Elan further justifies its request by asserting that the
documents detail the internal operations of Apple’s products.
7

5/24/11 Declaration of P. Rathinasamy at 2.
ORDER, page 2

1

could not preserve both public access to the majority of each exhibit as well as Apple’s legitimate

2

proprietary interests. This not only runs afoul of Kamakana, but Civil Local Rule 79-5(a), which

3

states that all sealing requests “must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.”

4

Second, under Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), Apple was required to file and serve a declaration

5

establishing that any of its “Confidential-Attorneys’ Eyes Only” information included in the above-

6

mentioned exhibits is sealable. This was supposed to be filed within seven days of Elan’s motion. It

7

has now been seven days and no declarations have been filed by Apple.

8
9

In sum, neither party has provided good cause to seal the above-mentioned exhibits. Despite
this failure, the parties will be given until noon on June 9, 2011 to file appropriate declarations

10

setting forth good cause why any document relating to Elan’s motion to compel, and any portion

11

thereof, should be filed under seal. The parties are advised that their sealing requests must be

12

narrowly tailored in light of the “strong presumption in favor of access” to court documents.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 1, 2011
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER, page 3