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

Filing 1269

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh denying #953 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #1033 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #1035 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #1039 Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document; denying #1080 Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document; denying #1123 Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document; denying #1132 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #1147 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #1150 Motion ; denying #1160 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/20/2012)

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

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 MOTIONS TO
SEAL AND REMOVE INCORRECTLY
FILED DOCUMENTS

19

Before the Court are several administrative motions to seal documents and to remove

20

incorrectly filed documents. See ECF Nos. 1160, 1150, 1147, 1132, 1080, 1123, 1039, 1033, 1035,

21

1039, and 9531 (“Motions to Seal”).

22

Courts have historically recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public records and

23

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

24

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

25

generally apply “a ‘strong presumption in favor of access.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of

26

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,

27

1

28

In light of the Court’s Order Denying without prejudice the administrative motions to seal at
ECF No. 1256, Samsung’s request for an extension of time to file Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)
declarations to seal documents is DENIED as moot. See ECF No. 1150.
1
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SEAL

1

331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Where a party seeks to file under seal documents attached

2

only to a non-dispositive motion, however, a showing of “good cause” often outweighs the public’s

3

interest in access, because “the public has less of a need for access to court records attached only to

4

non-dispositive motions because those documents are often unrelated, or only tangentially related,

5

to the underlying cause of action.” Id. at 1179 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

6

By contrast, where a party seeks to file under seal documents attached to a dispositive
motion, the strong presumption of public access can be overcome only by an “‘articulat[ion of]

8

compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings,” and the Court must “‘conscientiously

9

balance[] the competing interests’ of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

7

records secret.” Id. at 1178-79 (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135). “A ‘good cause’ showing will

11

not, without more, satisfy a ‘compelling reasons’ test.” Id. at 1180. The Ninth Circuit has

12

explained that “compelling reasons” that justify sealing court records generally exist “when such

13

‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to

14

gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.”

15

Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). “The mere fact that the production of records may

16

lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without

17

more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136). “Unlike private

18

materials unearthed during discovery, judicial records are public documents almost by definition,

19

and the public is entitled to access by default. This fact sharply tips the balance in favor of

20

production when a document, formerly sealed for good cause under Rule 26(c), becomes part of a

21

judicial record.” Id. at 1180 (internal citation omitted).

22

The pending Motions to Seal relate to the preliminary injunction, Samsung’s motion to stay

23

the preliminary injunction, or the potential evidence at trial. Although the preliminary injunction

24

and Samsung’s motion to stay are non-dispositive, they cannot fairly be characterized as

25

“unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d. at

26

1179. To the contrary, these motions implicate the very core of Apple’s claims and Apple’s

27

desired relief in bringing suit against Samsung. As evidenced by the plethora of media and general

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

1

public scrutiny of the preliminary injunction proceedings, the public has a significant interest in

2

these court filings, and therefore the strong presumption of public access applies.

3

Regarding the motion to seal potential evidence at trial, the Court has made clear to the

4

parties that all evidence introduced at trial will be open to the public, with the narrow exception of

5

“exceptionally sensitive information that truly deserves protection.” Order at 2, ECF No. 1256

6

(citing Oracle Am. v. Google, Inc., No. 10-CV-03561-WHA, at ECF No. 540). With a July 30,

7

2012 trial date, this case has reached a stage of the proceedings where “the presumption of

8

openness will apply to all documents[,] and only documents of exceptionally sensitive information

9

that truly deserve protection will be allowed to be redacted or kept from the public.” ECF No.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

1256 at 3.
Therefore, the Court now determines that the strong public interest in the proceedings in

12

this case merits imposition of the heightened “compelling reasons” standard on the pending

13

Motions to Seal that governs the sealing of documents attached to dispositive motions or evidence

14

submitted in trial. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79.

15

The Court has reviewed the Motions to Seal. While some of the information may have

16

been sealable under the more pliant “good cause” standard, much of it failed to meet even that

17

lower burden. For example, some of the information sought to be sealed includes names of

18

document custodians, descriptions of features of devices, and photographs of items that are in the

19

public record. Moreover, none of the information sought to be sealed satisfies the more stringent

20

“compelling reasons” standard. In light of these findings, the Court DENIES the pending

21

administrative motions to seal and to remove incorrectly filed documents.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

Dated: July 20, 2012

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

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