Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al

Filing 1034

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting in part and denying in part #977 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part #978 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting #993 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/4/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

APPLE, INC., a California corporation,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
)
Korean corporation; SAMSUNG
)
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York )
corporation; SAMSUNG
)
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, )
a Delaware limited liability company,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)

Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART,
DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO
SEAL

Before the Court are three motions to seal: Samsung’s motion to seal its opposition to

20

Apple’s motion for a Rule 62(c) preliminary injunction, Samsung’s motion to seal its request for

21

leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s May 21, 2012 Order, and Apple’s motion

22

to file under seal its reply in support of its motion for a Rule 62(c) preliminary injunction. See ECF

23

Nos. 977, 978, and 993.

24

1. Samsung’s Motion to Seal its Opposition to Apple’s Motion for a Rule 62(c) Injunction.

25

Exhibits 1, 2, and 4 to the Anderson Declaration, as well as the Chapple Declaration and the

26

Merrill Declaration contain detailed information regarding sales and market share of Samsung

27

tablets and confidential information regarding Samsung’s business relationships. After

28

“balanc[ing] the competing interests’ of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial
1
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO SEAL

1

records secret,” the Court finds these documents properly sealable. Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of

2

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135) (alterations

3

omitted). Samsung has offered a compelling reason why these exhibits and declarations are

4

properly sealable. See Nixon v. Warner Comm’ns, 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978) (citing Schmedding v.

5

May, 85 Mich. 1, 5–6 (1891) and Flexmir, Inc. v. Herman, 40 A.2d 799, 800 (N.J. Ch. 1945))

6

(explaining that access to court documents has been denied where the documents contain business

7

information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing).

8
9

Additionally, Samsung seeks to file under seal a narrowly tailored version of its opposition
to Apple’s motion for a Rule 62(c) preliminary injunction. Those portions of the opposition that

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

disclose information derived from properly sealable exhibits and declarations are also properly

11

sealable. Therefore, the Court also grants Samsung’s motion to seal portions of its opposition.

12

However, page 8 contains several redactions that contain information that was disclosed in Apple’s

13

opening brief. Therefore, the information on page 8 is not properly sealable. Accordingly,

14

Samsung shall file its properly redacted opposition, which conforms to this Order, within one

15

week of the date of this order.

16

2. Samsung’s Motion to Seal Request for Leave to File Motion to Reconsider.

17

Exhibits 1 and 2 of the Anderson Declaration contain detailed market share information.

18

After “balanc[ing] the competing interests’ of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain

19

judicial records secret,” and for the reasons stated above, the Court finds these exhibits are properly

20

sealable. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.

21

Exhibits 3 and 10 of the Anderson Declaration are portions of deposition testimony.

22

Portions of Exhibits 3 and 10 contain discussions of confidential prototype design and

23

development. After “balanc[ing] the competing interests’ of the public and the party who seeks to

24

keep certain judicial records secret,” the Court finds the portions of documents properly sealable.

25

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.

26

Exhibits 6-9 of the Anderson Declaration are photographs of the iPad 2 in comparison to

27

another Apple prototype. Unlike Exhibits 3 and 10, which contain detailed information about

28

Apple’s prototype design and development, Exhibits 6-9 do not contain anything that would harm
2
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO SEAL

1

Apple by their disclosure. However, it is difficult to see why Apple seeks to seal these

2

photographs, and how Apple will be harmed by disclosure of these photographs. For this reason,

3

Samsung’s motion to seal Exhibits 6-9 is DENIED.

4

Exhibits 12-14 of the Anderson Declaration are unpublished patent applications. These

5

documents contain confidential information, the disclosure of which could harm Apple’s

6

competitive standing. Accordingly, Samsung’s motion to seal Exhibits 12-14 is GRANTED.

7

Exhibit 16 is an expert report disclosing survey results of consumer confusion. Apple does

8

not appear to have narrowly tailored its sealing request in compliance with Civil Local rule 79-5(a).

9

Accordingly, the motion to file Exhibit 16 under seal is DENIED, without prejudice. If Apple

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

wishes to narrowly tailor its request, it must file a proposed redacted report within one week of the

11

date of this Order.

12
13
14

The confidentiality designations of Exhibits 4, 5, 11, and 15 were withdrawn by Apple.
Accordingly, Samsung’s motion to seal these exhibits is DENIED.
Finally, Samsung also moves to file under seal portions of its request for leave to file a

15

motion for reconsideration. Those portions of the motion that disclose information derived from

16

properly sealable exhibits are also properly sealable. Accordingly, Samsung shall file its properly

17

redacted motion, which conforms to this Order, within one week of the date of this order.

18

3. Apple’s Motion to Seal its Reply to its Motion for a Rule 62(c) Preliminary Injunction.

19

Apple’s motion seeking leave to file under seal portions of its reply in support of its motion

20

for a Rule 62(c) preliminary injunction as well as portions of [Proposed] Findings of Fact and

21

Conclusions of Law is narrowly tailored to seal only information that is properly sealable in

22

compliance with Civil Local rule 79-5(a). The information that Apple seeks to seal has either been

23

found to be properly sealable pursuant to this sealing order, or pursuant to a previous court order

24

granting a party’s motion to seal. Accordingly, Apple’s motion is GRANTED.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

Dated: June 4, 2012

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

27
28
3

Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO SEAL