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

Filing 1256

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh denying #847 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #925 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #927 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #930 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #991 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #997 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #1004 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #1007 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #1013 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #1020 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #1022 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #1023 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #1024 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #1052 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #1059 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #1060 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #1061 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #1063 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #1069 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #1089 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #1090 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #1122 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #1125 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #1139 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #1140 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #1179 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #1183 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #1184 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #1185 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #1186 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #1201 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #1206 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #1208 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #1233 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #1236 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (lhklc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/17/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
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 DENYING SEALING
MOTIONS

Before the Court are administrative motions to seal related to the motions for summary

20

judgment that were resolved by Court Orders at ECF Nos. 1156 & 1158, as well as administrative

21

motions to seal various documents that have been filed in anticipation of the trial currently set for

22

July 30, 2012. Specifically, the parties seek to seal documents and portions of documents related

23

to the motions for summary judgment, Daubert motions, pending claim construction statements,

24

motions in limine, and other documents that pertain to and presumably will be used in the

25

upcoming trial. See, e.g. ECF Nos. 1236, 1233, 1208, 1206, 1201, 1186, 1185, 1184, 1183, 1179,

26

1140, 1139, 1125, 1122, 1090, 1089, 1069, 1063, 1061, 1060, 1059, 1052, 1023, 1024, 1022, 1020,

27

1013, 1007, 1004, 997, 991, 930, 927, 925, and 847 (hereafter “Sealing Motions”).

28
1
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SEAL

1

Historically, courts have recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public records and

2

documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S.

3

589, 597 & n. 7 (1978). Unless a particular court record is one “traditionally kept secret,” a “strong

4

presumption in favor of access” is the starting point. Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Insurance

5

Company, 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). A party seeking to seal a judicial record then bears

6

the burden of overcoming this strong presumption by meeting the “compelling reasons” standard.

7

Id. at 1135. That is, the party must “articulate[ ] compelling reasons supported by specific factual

8

findings,” id. (citing San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1102-03 (9th

9

Cir.1999)), that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

such as the “ ‘public interest in understanding the judicial process.’ ” Hagestad, 49 F.3d at 1434

11

(quoting EEOC v. Erection Co., 900 F.2d 168, 170 (9th Cir. 1990)).

12

The Ninth Circuit has explained that the “strong presumption of access to judicial records

13

applies fully to dispositive pleadings, including motions for summary judgment and related

14

attachments” because “the resolution of a dispute on the merits, whether by trial or summary

15

judgment, is at the heart of the interest in ensuring the “public’s understanding of the judicial

16

process and of significant public events.” Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d

17

1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2006). The Ninth Circuit has also carved out an exception to the strong

18

presumption of openness for pre-trial, non-dispositive motions. The Ninth Circuit applies a “good

19

cause” showing to keep sealed records attached to non-dispositive motions. Id. at 1180. Thus the

20

Court applies a two tiered approach: “judicial records attached to dispositive motions [are treated]

21

differently from records attached to non-dispositive motions. Those who seek to maintain the

22

secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of showing that

23

‘compelling reasons’ support secrecy” while a showing of good cause will suffice at earlier stages

24

of litigation. Id.

25

As Judge Alsup explained in Oracle America v. Google, Inc., 10-CV-03561-WHA, at ECF

26

No. 540, “The United States district court is a public institution, and the workings of litigation must

27

be open to public view. Pretrial submissions are a part of trial.” Accordingly, Judge Alsup advised

28
2
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SEAL

1

counsel that “unless they identify a limited amount of exceptionally sensitive information that truly

2

deserves protection, the motions will be denied outright.” Id.

3

Similarly, this Court explained at the June 29, 2012 case management conference that “the
whole trial is going to be open.” Hr’g Tr. at 78. In light of the Ninth Circuit’s admonition in

5

Kamakana regarding the presumption of openness and the high burden placed on sealing

6

documents at this late, merits stage of the litigation, it appears that the parties have overdesignated

7

confidential documents and are seeking to seal information that is not truly sealable under the

8

“compelling reasons” standard. As one example, the parties have sought to redact descriptions of

9

trial exhibits that will presumably be used in open court. See, e.g. Exhibit A to Samsung’s

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

4

Objections to Apple’s Exhibit List. Accordingly, the Sealing Motions are DENIED without

11

prejudice.

12

The parties may file renewed motions to seal within one week of the date of this Order.

13

However, the parties are ORDERED to carefully scrutinize the documents it seeks to seal. At this

14

stage of the proceedings, the presumption of openness will apply to all documents and only

15

documents of exceptionally sensitive information that truly deserve protection will be allowed to

16

be redacted or kept from the public. Nearly all of the documents which met the lower, “good

17

cause” standard do not meet the higher, “compelling reasons” standard for trial.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

Dated: July 17, 2012

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SEAL