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

Filing 1383

OPPOSITION to Various Third Party Motions to Seal (re 1334 Emergency MOTION for an Order Closing the Courtroom and Sealing the Transcript During Discussion of InterDigital's Confidential Information, 1378 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal , 1328 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Non-Party Nokia Corporation's Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, 1376 Third Party Administrative Motion to File Under Seal , 1340 Administrative Motion to Partially File Under Seal ) Third Party Reuters America LLC's Opposition to Various Third Party Motions to Seal filed by Reuters America LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Opposition, # 2 Proposed Order)(Olson, Karl) (Filed on 7/26/2012) Modified text on 7/27/2012 (dhm, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6

KARL OLSON (SBN 104760)
[e-mail]
XINYING VALERIAN (SBN 254890)
[e-mail]
RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP
555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Third-Party REUTERS AMERICA LLC

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE

10

APPLE INC., a California corporation,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14
15

v.
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,

CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING
VARIOUS THIRD PARTY MOTIONS TO
SEAL
Date:
Time:
Place:
Judge:

July 27, 2012
3:00 p.m.
Courtroom 1, 5th Floor
Hon. Lucy H. Koh

Defendants.

16
17

The Court has reviewed various third party motions to seal and Reuters America LLC’s

18
19

opposition thereto. Having read and considered the motions and opposition, the Court hereby

20

DENIES the third party motions to seal (Document Numbers 1328, 1340, 1334, 1376 and 1378)

21

for the reasons outlined in Reuters= opposition. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447

22

F.3d 1172, 1182-83 (9th Cir. 2006) [judge need not document compelling reasons to unseal;

23

rather the proponent of sealing bears the burden and a failure to meet that burden means the

24

default posture of public access prevails; non-party=s reliance upon protective order is

25

unreasonable and is not a compelling reason that rebuts the presumption of access].
IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27
28

Dated:
The Honorable Lucy H. Koh
Judge, United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK – [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING VARIOUS
THIRD PARTY MOTIONS TO SEAL

1

1
2
3

N:\docs\1273-02\OppThirdPartyMotsSeal3-PropOrd.doc

4
5
6
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 VARIOUS
THIRD PARTY MOTIONS TO SEAL

2