Emblaze Ltd. v. Apple Inc.

Filing 376

ORDER DENYING SEALING MOTIONS by Judge Paul S. Grewal denying 342 , 344 , 347 and 349 (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/6/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

EMBLAZE LTD.,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
APPLE INC.,

15

Defendant.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:11-cv-01079-PSG
ORDER DENYING SEALING
MOTIONS
(Re: Docket Nos. 342, 344, 347 and 349)

This afternoon the court sat down to consider the various motions on the docket that are

17
18

pending and in some cases submitted in this patent case. Coffee in hand, and eager to turn to the

19

substantive and intellectually stimulating disputes regarding infringement, willfulness, and the like,

20

the court was stopped dead in its tracks by the usual culprit in such crimes: various motions to file

21

materials under seal. 1

22

This court had made its views on the burdens of sealing motions known before in other

23
24
25
26

cases, and so it won’t belabor the point here. Suffice it to say that too many parties misunderstand
what the Ninth Circuit has made clear, whether dealing with records attached to either dispositive
or nondispositive motions: broad “allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or

27
28

1

See Docket Nos. 342, 344, 347 and 349.
1

Case No. 5:11-cv-01079-PSG
ORDER DENYING SEALING MOTIONS