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

Filing 1248

OPPOSITION to (re #1183 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Samsung's Claim Construction Brief, #1186 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Apples Opening Supplemental Claim Construction Brief, #1201 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Samsung's Opposition to Apple's Claim Construction Brief, #1208 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Samsung's Oppositions to Apple's Motions in Limine, #1206 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal , #1179 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Samsung's Reply In Support of Opening Memorandum re Claim Construction, #1233 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Declaration of Thomas Watson in Support of Samsung's Proposed Jury Instructions, #1184 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Re Apples Motions In Limine, #1185 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal , #1236 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Samsung's Objections to Apple's Exhibit List, Proposed Joint Exhibit List and Deposition Designations ) Third-Party Reuters America LLC's Opposition to Various Administrative Motions to Seal filed byReuters America LLC. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order [Proposed] Order)(Olson, Karl) (Filed on 7/17/2012) Modified text on 7/18/2012 (dhm, COURT STAFF).

1

4

KARL OLSON (SBN 104760)
[e-mail]
RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP
555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

5

Attorneys for Third-Party REUTERS AMERICA LLC

2
3

6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE

10
11

APPLE INC., a California corporation,

12

Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL

13
14
15
16
17

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

Date:
Time:
Place:
Judge:

July 18, 2012
2:00 p.m.
Courtroom 8, 4th Floor
Hon. Lucy H. Koh

Defendants.

18
19

On July 18, 2012, the court considered various administrative motions to seal records

20

filed by the parties in connection with the Pretrial Conference in this matter and the filing of

21

Motions in Limine by the parties. Karl Olson appeared for intervenor Reuters America LLC

22

(AReuters@); Morrison & Foerster and Michael Jacobs appeared for plaintiff Apple; Quinn

23

Emanuel and Charles Verhoeven appeared for defendant Samsung. Having read and considered

24

the administrative motions to seal and Reuters= opposition thereto, and other papers filed in this

25

matter, and heard argument by counsel, the Court HEREBY ORDERS:

26

The parties= administrative motions to seal are DENIED. There is a “strong presumption

27

of access to judicial records” which exists because Athe resolution of a dispute on the merits,

28

whether by trial or summary judgment, is at the heart of the interest in ensuring the public’s

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK – [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL

1

1

understanding of the judicial process and of significant public events.” Kamakana v. City and

2

County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). The right of access applies to

3

suppression hearings in criminal cases. Waller v. Georgia, 467 U. S. 39 (1984). Proceedings

4

addressing the admissibility of evidence in civil cases are also “historically important, open and

5

public parts of civil trials.” NBC Subsidiary v. Superior Court, 20 Cal. 4th 1178, 1219. Because

6

of this, compelling reasons must be shown to seal documents. Oracle America v. Google, Inc.,

7

2011 U. S. Dist. LEXIS 119066 at *4, citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.

8

The parties have not shown compelling reasons to seal. The mere fact that documents

9

were previously designated confidential is not enough to seal; there must be specific factual

10

findings in order to seal, and the Court cannot rely on “hypothesis or conjecture.” See, e.g.,

11

Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F. 3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995); see Allegro Corp. v. Only New Age

12

Music, 2004 U. S. Dist. LEXIS 9061 at *3-4 (D. Ore. 2004) [rejecting affidavit as Ainsufficiently

13

specific to overcome the presumption of public access to exhibits@]; In re Providian Credit Card

14

Cases, 96 Cal. App. 4th 292, 305 (2002) [rejecting declarations as “conclusory and lacking in

15

helpful specifics”; scripts which have been disclosed are not trade secrets trial court not obliged

16

to credit statements claiming trade secrets just because there were no counter-declarations].

17

For the foregoing reasons, the motions to seal are DENIED and the court rejects the

18

redactions in various pleadings including but not limited to the motions in limine, documents

19

1184 and 1185; Apple=s Opposition to Samsung=s Motions in Limine (Document 1206); and the

20

court denies the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents Regarding Apple=s

21

Opening Supplemental Claim Construction Brief (Document 1186); and Document Nos. 1179,

22

1183, 1201, 1208, 1233 and 1236. Unless the Court specifically grants a Motion to Seal, all

23

administrative motions to seal shall be deemed denied. See, e.g., Hagestad, supra, 49 F. 3d at

24

1434 [court must make specific factual findings in order to seal]; Kamakana, supra, 447 F.3d at

25

1182 [“judge need not document compelling reasons to unseal; rather the proponent of sealing

26

bears the burden with respect to sealing. A failure to meet that burden means that the default

27

posture of public access prevails”]; Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc., 2011 U. S. Dist. LEXIS

28

119066 at *4 (N. D. Cal. 2011) [unless counsel identifies a limited amount of “exceptionally

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK – [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL

2

1

sensitive information that truly deserves protection,” motions to seal pretrial submissions will be

2

denied outright].

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

5
6

The Honorable Lucy H. Koh
Judge, United States District Court
Northern District of California

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK – [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL

3