Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
Filing
1394
*** FILED IN ERROR WITH CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. DOCUMENT LOCKED. *** Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Qualcomm Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Eric Reifschneider, # 2 Exhibit 1 to the declaration of Eric Reifschneider, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Kays, David) (Filed on 7/26/2012) Modified on 7/30/2012 (fff, COURT STAFF).
EXHIBIT 1
quinn emanuel
trial lawyers | los angeles
865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 | TEL: (213) 443-3000 FAX: (213) 443-3100
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NO.
(213) 443-3110
WRITER'S INTERNET ADDRESS
melissadalziel@quinnemanuel.com
July 21, 2012
VIA E-MAIL & U.S. MAIL
John A. Scott
Senior Director, Legal Counsel
Qualcomm Incorporated
5775 Morehouse Drive
Email: JAscott@qualcomm.com
President
Qualcomm, Inc.
10555 Sorrento Valley Road
San Diego, CA 92121
Fax: (619) 452-9096
General Counsel
Qualcomm, Inc.
10555 Sorrento Valley Road
San Diego, CA 92121
Fax: (619) 452-9096
Re:
Notice of Disclosure of Confidential Documents
Dear Mr. Scott:
My firm represents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and
Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, in several litigations with Apple Inc., involving
claims of patent infringement. One action is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California denominated Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et.al,
Case No. 5:11-cv-01846-LHK. Trial will start on July 29, 2012, and we are in the process of
designating trial exhibits.
quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp
NEW YORK |
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New York 10010-1601 | TEL (212) 849-7000 FAX (212) 849-7100
50 California Street, 22nd Floor, San Francisco, California 94111-4788 | TEL (415) 875-6600 FAX (415) 875-6700
SILICON VALLEY | 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor, Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139 | TEL (650) 801-5000 FAX (650) 801-5100
CHICAGO | 500 W. Madison Street, Suite 2450, Chicago, Illinois 60661-2510 | TEL (312) 705-7400 FAX (312) 705-7401
WASHINGTON, DC | 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 825, Washington, District of Columbia 20004-2400 | TEL (202) 538-8000 FAX (202) 538-8100
LONDON | 16 Old Bailey, London EC4M 7EG, United Kingdom | TEL +44 20 7653 2000 FAX +44 20 7653 2100
TOKYO | NBF Hibiya Building, 25F, 1-1-7, Uchisaiwai-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0011, Japan | TEL +81 3 5510 1711 FAX +81 3 5510 1712
MANNHEIM | Mollstraße 42, 68165 Mannheim, Germany | TEL +49 621 43298 6000 FAX +49 621 43298 6100
MOSCOW | Voentorg Building, 3rd Floor, 10 Vozdvizhenka Street, Moscow 125009, Russia | TEL +7 495 797 3666 FAX +7 495 797 3667
HAMBURG | An der Alster 3, 20099 Hamburg, Germany | TEL +49 40 89728 7000 FAX +49 40 89728 7100
SAN FRANCISCO |
We are writing to inform you that Samsung has designated as potential trial exhibits documents
that contain your company’s confidential business information. A list of the documents is
attached as Appendix A. Pursuant to a recently issued court order, the Court will not allow
Samsung to seal any such documents unless “compelling reasons” are shown, to warrant secrecy.
(See the attached July 17, 2012 and July 20, 2012 Orders.) The Court made clear that a showing
of “good cause” would not be sufficient for sealing and provided the following guidance
regarding what specific factual findings might constitute “compelling reasons”:
[W]here 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] compelling reasons
supported by specific factual findings,” and the Court must
“‘conscientiously balance[] the competing interests’ of the public
and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” “A
‘good cause’ showing will not, without more, satisfy a ‘compelling
reasons’ test.” The Ninth Circuit has explained that “compelling
reasons” that justify sealing court records generally exist “when
such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper
purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite,
promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release
trade secrets.”
July 20, 2012 Order Denying Motions to Seal and Remove Incorrectly Filed Documents, at 2
(internal citations omitted).
Samsung has not identified any compelling reasons, under that standard, to warrant a request for
sealing of these documents. To the extent that your company believes it can make such a
showing, and if you want to try to obtain a court order to seal the information in these
documents, we recommend that you consider filing a motion to intervene as a third party and
then a motion to seal. Otherwise, the documents and information identified in Appendix A will
be available to the public as a result of the upcoming trial. Please let us know if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Melissa Dalziel
Enclosures
02198.51855/4869256.1
2
APPENDIX A
QUALCOMM
Trial Exhibit 630: Exhibits 3A and 3B to the Expert Report of David Teece, an expert retained by Apple, dated March 22, 2012.
Exhibit 3A is a table summarizing the key terms of various contracts between Samsung and third parties to the litigation. Exhibit 3B
contains a table summarizing the key terms of various contracts between Apple and third parties to the litigation.
Trial Exhibit 630 contains the following information about Qualcomm:
Exhibit 3A
Summary of Samsung License Agreements
Licensee
Samsun g
Electronics
Co Ltd
Samsun g
Electronics
Co Ltd
Licensor
Qualcomm
Inc
Qualcomm
Inc
Title
Amendment
to
Infrastructur
e and
Subscriber
Unit License
and
Technical
Assistance
Agreement
Amendment
to
Infrastructur
e and
Subscriber
Unit License
and
Technical
Assistance
Agreement
Effective
Date
12/26/2005
1/1/2009
Date Last
Signed
12/26/2005
11/4/2009
Term
N/A
12/31/2023
Licensed Products/Technology
N/A
Royalty-Bearing Subscriber
Units means (i) all Subscriber
Units that are Telephones; (ii)
all Subscriber Units that are
Laptop Computer Subscriber
Units not covered by clause (i)
above, and (iii) any type of
Subscriber Unit the has been or
is introduced (e g , marketed,
offered for sale or Sold) by
Samsung no later than 6 months
following the execution of this
Agreement and not covered
under clauses (i) and (ii) above
Docs not include GSM-only
Subscriber Units
Royalty Bearing Modem cards
Geographic
Scope
N/A
Payments
Source
Samsung to pay Qualcomm
$4,501,731 for partial
consideration of the modification
to the License Agreement as set
forth in the Amendment
SAMNDCA00052166
to
SAMNDCA00052169
Samsung to pay Qualcomm
$1,300 MM lump sum payment
(in installments) for RoyaltyBearing Subscriber Units
Worldwide
Royalty rate for Royalty Bearing
Subscriber Units and Modem
Cards dependent on various
terms and conditions and range
from 2 35% to 6 5% of the net
selling price
Royalty rate for CDMA
Femtocells range between 0 75%
to 5% of the net selling price
depending on units sold
Most Favored Royalty Rate for
SAMNDCA00052029
to
SAMNDCA00052115
Licensee
Licensor
Title
Effective
Date
Date Last
Signed
Term
Licensed Products/Technology
Geographic
Scope
means all Modem Cards other
than GSM-only Modem Cards
Payments
Source
Royalty-Bearing Subscriber
Units
CDMA Femtocell meanS.A.
Femtocell that is used to connect
to a wireless network that
operates utilizing one or more
CDMA Standards
Cross-License
Samsung to pay Qualcomm an
up-front license fee of $8 5MM
(in installments) Samsung als
agrees to pay Qualcomm $1 322
MM for certain deliverables that
ETRI elected to receive under
the terms of the Joint
Development Agreement
Subscriber Unit, Cordless Base
Station, Components, and
Infrastructure Equipment solely
for use in Wireless Applications
Samsung
Electronics
Co Ltd
Qualcomm
Inc
Infrastructur
e and
Subscriber
Unit License
and
Technical
Assistance
Agreement
8/31/1993
9/3/1993
Continuous
Wireless Applications are
CDMA-based Digital Cellular
Systems, Personal
Communications Systems,
Wireless PABX Systems,
commercial telemetry for
information gathering,
commercial security system for
alarming applications, RF LAN
applications, Cordless
Telephone applications and any
other CDMA wireless
applications currently licensee
by Qualcomm to its existing
CDMA Subscriber Unit and
Infrastructure licensees as of the
Effective Date of the Agreement
Worldwide
Samsung to pay Qualcomm a
royalty rate for Subscriber Units
of 5 75% of net selling price for
outside Korea and 5 25% of net
selling price within Korea If for
the two year period commencing
immediately after the first date of
commercial shipment of
Samsung's Subscriber Units or
until January 1, 1997, whichever
is earlier, if the royalty payable
by Samsung to Qualcomm is
greater than $35 for each digital
cellular Subscriber Unit, then
Samsung shall pay only $35
Samsung to pay Qualcomm a
royalty rate for Cordless Base
Stations of 5.75% of net selling
price for outside Korea and 5
25% of net selling price within
Korea
Samsung to pay Qualcomm a
royalty rate for Infrastructure
SAMNDCA00052124
to
SAMNDCA00052161
Licensee
Licensor
Title
Effective
Date
Date Last
Signed
Term
Licensed Products/Technology
Geographic
Scope
Payments
Source
Equipment of 5% of net selling
price for units purchased by
Samsung from Qualcomm, 6 5%
of net selling price for outside
Korea and 6% of net selling
price within Korea
Following the 15th anniversary'
the license will be considered
fully paid up, and no further
royalties will be due from
Samsung
Most Favored Up-Front License
Fee and Most Favored Royalty
Rate
Samsung to pay Qualcomm a
royalty rate for Eligible
Subscriber Unit beginning April
I, 200, of 5% of net selling price
Samsung
Electronics
Co Ltd
Samsung
Electronics
Co Ltd.
Qualcomm
Inc
Qualcomm
Inc
Amendment
to
Infrastructur
e and
Subscriber
Unit License
and
Technical
Assistance
Agreement
Amendment
to
Infrastructur
e and
Subscriber
Unit License
and
3/29/2004
11/17/1997
3/29/2004
11/17/1997
2 years from
Effective
Date with
an option to
renew
N/A
Eligible Subscriber Unit iS.A.
Qualifying Subscriber Unit
(defined aS.A. Subscriber Unit
(including but not limited to a
Subscriber Unit implementing
CDMA technology in
compliance with the ISstandards) that 95, cdma2000,
WCDMA and/or UMTS
incorporateS.A. CDMA ASIC)
that is for use in in the Rest of
the World (i c , not in Korea)
Subscriber Unit, Cordless Base
Station, Components, and
Infrastructure Equipment
For Non-Eligible Subscriber
Units the royalties arc the same
as set forth in the License
Agreement
Worldwide
Maximum royalty to be paid for
each Qualifying Subscriber Unit
beginning April 1, 2004 shall be
$20
SAMNDCA00052116
to
SAMNDCA00052123
Qualcomm asserts (with the
exception of certain third party
licenses noted in the agreement)
that no other third party has mom
favorable terms than those
outlined in the Amendment
N/A
Samsung to pay Qualcomm
$750,000 as partial consideration
for the modifications to the
License Agreement
Following the 13th anniversary
of the Effective Date of this
SAMNDCA00052164
to
SAMNDCA00052165
Licensee
Licensor
Title
Technical
Assistance.
Agreement
Effective
Date
Date Last
Signed
Term
Licensed Products/Technology
Geographic
Scope
Payments
Amendment for Subscriber
Units, Cordless Base Stations
and Reportable Infrastructure
Products Sold by Samsung for
use solely in Korea and
following the 15th anniversary of
the Effective Date of this
Amendment for all other
Subscriber Units, Cordless Base
Stations and Reportable
Infrastructure Products sold by
Samsung, the license to Samsung
under Qualcomm's New IP shall
be fully paid up
Source
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1256 Filed07/17/12 Page1 of 3
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
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1256 Filed07/17/12 Page2 of 3
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
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1256 Filed07/17/12 Page3 of 3
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
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1269 Filed07/20/12 Page1 of 3
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
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1269 Filed07/20/12 Page2 of 3
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
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1269 Filed07/20/12 Page3 of 3
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?