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

Filing 1105

ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL by Judge Paul S. Grewal, denying #769 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #799 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #822 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #824 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #845 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/19/2012)

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

APPLE INC., a California corporation,

12

Plaintiff,
v.

13
14
15
16

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

17

ORDER DENYING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO
FILE UNDER SEAL
(Re: Docket Nos. 769, 799, 822, 824, 845)

Defendant.

18
19

Case No.: 11-cv-01846-LHK

Before the court are several administrative motions to file under seal documents that the
opposing party has designated “confidential” pursuant to the Protective Order in this case. Pursuant

20
to Civ. L.R. 79-5(d), a party that wishes to file or refer to information designated confidential by
21
22

another party must lodge the document with the court in accordance with Civ. L.R. 79-5. Within

23

seven (7) days, the designating party must file with the court and serve a declaration establishing

24

that the designated information is sealable1 and file a “narrowly tailored proposed sealing order,”

25
1

26
27
28

The Ninth Circuit has explained that “[h]istorically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to
inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents. This
right is justified by the interest of citizens in “keeping a watchful eye on the workings of public
agencies.” Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006)
(internal citations omitted). “A ‘good cause’ showing under Rule 26(c) will suffice to keep sealed
records attached to the nondispositive motions.” Id. at 1181.
1
Case No. 11-cv-01846 LHK
ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL

1
2

or withdraw the designation of confidentiality. Should the designating party fail to do so within
seven days, the document or proposed filing is made part of the public record.2
Here, Plaintiff Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) administratively moves to file under seal: (1) Apple’s

3
4

Reply in Support of Motion for Rule 37(b)(2) Sanctions for Samsung’s Violation of Two

5

Discovery orders, the Reply Declaration of Minn Chung and Exhibits A-S of the declaration, and

6

the Reply Declaration of Erik J. Olson and Exhibits 1-2 of the declaration;3 (2) Apple’s Combined

7
8
9

Reply in Support of Its Motion to Compel Depositions of Samsung’s Purported “Apex” Witnesses
and Opposition To Samsung’s Motion for a Protective Order, the Declaration of Mia Mazza in

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Support of Apple’s Opposition and Exhibits 5-32 and 34-40 to the declaration;4 (3) Apple’s Reply

11

Brief in Support of 37(b)(2) Motion Re: Samsung’s Violation of January 27, 2012 Damages

12

Discovery Order, the Declaration of Erik J. Olson in Support of Apple’s Reply and Exhibits A-B,

13

D, F & H to the declaration, the Declaration of Eric R. Roberts in Support of Apple’s Reply and

14
Exhibits A-C of the declaration, and the Declaration of Grant L. Kim in Support of Apple’s Reply
15
16

and Exhibits 9-10 & 13-18 to the declaration;5 (4) Exhibit I to the Declaration of Erik J. Olson in

17

support of Apple’s Reply Brief in Support of Rule 37(b)(2) Motion filed as Docket No. 822-7;6 and

18

(5) Exhibit D to the Reply Declaration of Marc J. Pernick in Support of Apple’s Rule 37(b)(2)

19

Motion Based on Samsung’s Violation of the Court’s December 22, 2011 Order Regarding Source

20

Code.7

21
22
23

2

Civ. L.R. 79-5(d).

24

3

See Docket No. 769.

25

4

See Docket No. 799.

26

5

See Docket No. 822.

27

6

See Docket No. 824.

28

7

See Docket No. 845.

2
Case No. 11-cv-01846 LHK
ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL

1

The court has reviewed the docket and finds that no supporting declarations have been filed

2

by the designating party with respect to any of the above-referenced administrative motions.

3

Accordingly, Apple’s administrative motions to file the above documents under seal are DENIED

4

and the proposed filings shall be made part of the public record.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED

6
7
8

Dated: June 19, 2012

_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Case No. 11-cv-01846 LHK
ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL