Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
Filing
1978
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART APPLE'S AND SAMSUNG'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL by Judge Paul S. Grewal granting in part and denying in part 602 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 637 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 642 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 643 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 707 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 715 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 736 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 737 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 754 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 758 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 759 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2012)
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
APPLE INC., a California corporation
v.
Plaintiff,
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 (PSG)
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND
DENYING-IN-PART APPLE’S AND
SAMSUNG’S ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS
UNDER SEAL
(Re: Docket Nos. 602, 637, 642, 643, 707,
715, 736, 737, 754, 758, 759)
Defendants.
18
19
Requests for sealing continue to consume the resources of both the parties and the court.
20
Perhaps this is inevitable in a case of this scope and technical complexity, but the court cannot
21
again but wonder at whether there is a better way. In any event, before the court are still more
22
motions by Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics
23
24
25
26
America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively “Samsung”) to seal
various nondispositive motions and supporting exhibits. The parties have filed declarations with
each motion to support their claims that the documents should remain sealed. Because of the large
27
number of documents designated for sealing, the court first reiterates the legal standards for sealing
28
1
Case No: 11-CV-01846 LHK
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART APPLE’S AND SAMSUNG’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
1
2
and then summarizes, in table format, the motions, the parties’ requests, and the result of each
request.
3
I. LEGAL STANDARD
4
“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and
5
documents, including judicial records and documents.’”1 Accordingly, when considering a sealing
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
request, “a strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.”2 Parties seeking to seal
judicial records relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of overcoming the presumption
with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies
favoring disclosure.3
Records attached to nondispositive motions, however, are not subject to the strong
11
12
presumption of access.4 Because the documents attached to nondispositive motions “are often
13
unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,” parties moving to seal
14
15
16
must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c).5 As with dispositive motions, the
standard applicable to nondispositive motions requires a “particularized showing”6 that “specific
17
prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed.7 “[B]road allegations of harm,
18
unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning” will not suffice.8 A protective order
19
sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court’s previous determination that good
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006).
Id.
3
Id. at 1178-79.
4
See id. at 1180.
5
Id. at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
6
7
8
Id.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).
Id.
2
Case No: 11-CV-01846 LHK
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART APPLE’S AND SAMSUNG’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
1
cause exists to keep the documents sealed,9 but a blanket protective order that allows the parties to
2
designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine whether
3
each particular document should remain sealed.10
4
In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal
5
documents must comply with the procedures established by Civil Local Rule 79-5. The rule allows
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
sealing orders only where the parties have “establishe[d] that the document or portions thereof is
privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.”11 As
this court has previously pointedly noted, the rule requires parties to “narrowly tailor” their
requests only to sealable material.12
11
II. DISCUSSION
12
The court notes at the outset that much of the information the parties want sealed has
13
14
15
16
17
become publicly available, either through presentation at trial or through the parties’ commercial
activities. In consideration of the burden from sealing imposed on the court and, more importantly,
the public, the parties should keep in mind their obligation to inform the court if the information in
previously sealed materials becomes publicly available.
All of the motions to seal at issue here relate to discovery motions that were nondispositive.
18
19
Thus, the lower “good cause” standard applies. The court has considered each of the documents
20
the parties have designated for sealing and, as articulated in the table below, determined which
21
documents may remain under seal or redacted and which documents must be unsealed.
22
23
24
9
25
10
26
11
27
12
28
See id. at 1179-80.
See Civil L.R. 79-5(a).
Id.
Id.
3
Case No: 11-CV-01846 LHK
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART APPLE’S AND SAMSUNG’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
DN13 Material
602
Confidential portions of
Samsung’s Notice of Motion
and Motion to Compel Apple
to Produce Documents and
Things (“Samsung’s Motion to
Compel”); Memorandum of
Points and Authorities in
Support Thereof
Confidential portions of the
Declaration of Diane C.
Hutnyan ISO Samsung’s
Motion to Compel (“Hutnyan
Declaration”)
Exhibits A, B, D, J-Z, AA-CC
(“Hutnyan Declaration”)
9
DENIED. Apple’s request is not narrowly tailored. The
proposed redactions primarily consist of descriptions of
exhibits and names of deposed Apple employees.
The requests to seal Exhibits B, J, O, P, R, V, X, Y, AA,
BB, and CC are DENIED. Apple does not maintain
claims of confidentiality on these exhibits.
The requests to seal or redact portions Exhibits A, D, K,
L, M, N, P, Y, Q, U, W, and Z are DENIED because
they are not narrowly tailored. As noted below, the
redactions proposed by Apple include information for
which Apple has failed to provide a particularized
showing that specific harm will result if the information
is made publicly available.
The redactions to Exhibit A contain general
references to Apple’s use of mechanical outlines
(“MCO”), which are not confidential, and the fact of
Apple’s license with Nokia, which also is not
confidential.
The redactions to Exhibit D contain information
about whether Apple had its products tested for
3GPP compliance as adopted by the PTCRB, which
are both standard setting organizations. Apple has
not shown what specific harm it would suffer if this
information is revealed. The redactions also include
responses that Apple does not have enough
information to admit or deny.
The redactions to Exhibit K include information
about models Apple rejected when it was developing
its products, names of employees who worked on
Apple’s product development, and facts about the
departments involved in Apple’s product
development.14 Apple has not shown what specific
harm it would suffer if this information is revealed.
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
Result
DENIED. Apple’s request is not narrowly tailored.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
14
“DN” refers to the docket number attached to the motion.
Many of the same facts presented in this deposition excerpt are the subject of a recently
published book about Apple’s product development. See Matthew Panzarino, This Is How Apple’s
Top Secret Product Development Process Works, The Next Web, January 24, 2012,
4
Case No: 11-CV-01846 LHK
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART APPLE’S AND SAMSUNG’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Exhibit L, which Apple requests to be sealed
entirely, is a letter describing Apple’s use of MCOs
and CAD drawings in its product development.
Apple has not shown what specific harm it would
suffer if this information is revealed.
Exhibit M, which Apple requests to be sealed
entirely, consists of an excerpt from an Apple
employee’s deposition during which he discusses
graphic icons that are the subject of publicly
available design patents.
The proposed redactions to Exhibit N include
references to Apple’s acquisition of Fingerworks,
Ltd., which is publicly available information, and
generalized descriptions of where Apple’s designers
save their designs.
The proposed redactions to Exhibits P and Y reveal
that Apple investigates competitors’ products.
Apple has not shown what specific harm it would
suffer if this information is revealed.
The proposed redactions to Exhibit Q contain
descriptions of documents that Samsung sought from
Apple during discovery regarding Apple’s
advertising for its products. Most of the descriptions
do not reveal Apple’s proprietary or trade secret
information, and Apple has not shown what specific
harm it would suffer if this information is revealed.
Exhibit S, which Apple requests to be sealed
entirely, is a deposition excerpt of an Apple
employee who broadly discusses another employee’s
design project. Apple has not shown what specific
harm it would suffer if this information is revealed.
Exhibit T, which Apple requests to be sealed
entirely, is a deposition excerpt of an Apple
employee who describes an exercise from a decade
ago by Apple employees to study and replicate a
competitor’s product. Apple has not shown what
specific harm it would suffer if this information is
revealed.
The proposed redactions to Exhibit W includes
generic search terms, such as “double tap,”
“enlarge*,” and “expand*.” Apple has not shown
what specific harm it would suffer if this type of
information is revealed.
26
The requests to seal portions of Exhibits U and Z are
27
http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/01/24/this-is-how-apples-top-secret-product-developmentprocess-works/.
5
Case No: 11-CV-01846 LHK
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART APPLE’S AND SAMSUNG’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
GRANTED because they are narrowly tailored to
Apple’s internal code names for its products.
Confidential portions of
DENIED. Apple does not maintain a claim of
Samsung’s Renewed Motion to confidentiality on Samsung’s Renewed Motion to
Compel Discovery Relating to Compel.
Mac OS 10.0 (“Samsung’s
Renewed Motion to Compel”);
Memorandum of Points and
Authorities in Support Thereof
Exhibits A-C of the
Samsung’s requests to seal Exhibit A and B are
Declaration of Diane C.
DENIED. Apple does not maintain claims of
Hutnyan ISO Samsung’s
confidentiality on these exhibits.
Renewed Motion to Compel
The request to redact portions of Exhibit C is DENIED
because it is not narrowly tailored. The redactions
include the fact that Apple investigates competitors’
products. Apple has not shown what specific harm it
would suffer if this information is revealed.
Confidential Portions of
DENIED. Apple’s request is not narrowly tailored.
Samsung’s Motion to Enforce Most of the proposed redactions describe MCOs and
Various Court Orders
discovery between Apple and Samsung.
Requiring the Production of
Materials Relevant to Apple’s
Asserted Design Patents
(“Samsung’s Motion to
Enforce”); Memorandum and
Points of Authorities in
Support thereof
Exhibits C, D, F, and I of the
Samsung’s requests to seal Exhibits F and I are
Declaration of Diane C.
DENIED. Apple does not maintain claims of
Hutnyan ISO Samsung’s
confidentiality on these exhibits.
Motion to Enforce
The request to seal Exhibit C is DENIED because it is
not narrowly tailored. The exhibit includes information
about models Apple rejected when it was developing its
products, names of employees who worked on Apple’s
product development, and facts about the departments
involved in Apple’s product development. Apple has
not shown what specific harm it would suffer if this
information is revealed.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Confidential portions of
Samsung’s Motion for
Clarification Regarding the
Court’s December 22, 2011
Order (“Samsung’s Motion for
The request to seal portions of Exhibit D is DENIED
because it is not narrowly tailored. The proposed
redactions contain general references to Apple’s use of
mechanical outlines (“MCO”), which are not
confidential, and the fact of Apple’s license with Nokia,
which also is not confidential.
DENIED. Apple’s request is not narrowly tailored. The
proposed redactions primarily consist of descriptions,
but not the contents, of accompanying exhibits. Apple
has not shown what specific harm it would suffer if this
6
Case No: 11-CV-01846 LHK
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART APPLE’S AND SAMSUNG’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
1
2
3
4
5
Clarification”)
Confidential portions of the
Declaration of Brett Arnold
ISO Samsung’s Motion for
Clarification (“Arnold
Declaration”)
Exhibits A-J of the Arnold
Declaration
6
The requests to seal Exhibits C and G are DENIED
because they are not narrowly tailored. As noted below,
the exhibits include information for which Apple has
failed to provide a particularized showing that specific
harm will result if the information is made publicly
available.
Exhibit C describes aspirational design goals of the
iPad, which has been available for retail purchase
since 2010.
Exhibit G, which consists of a declaration by a
Senior Director of Industrial Design at Apple,
contains information about Apple’s design
aspirations and design process that is publicly
available.
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Samsung’s Notice of Motion
and Motion for a Protective
Order
23
24
25
26
27
28
information is revealed.
DENIED. Apple’s request is not narrowly tailored. The
proposed redactions consist of descriptions, but not the
contents, of accompanying exhibits. Apple has not
shown what specific harm it would suffer if this
information is revealed.
Samsung’s request to seal Exhibits J and I are DENIED.
Apple does not maintain claims of confidentiality on
these exhibits.
Exhibits B-K of the
Declaration of Diane C.
Hutnyan ISO Samsung’s
Motion for a Protective Order
The requests to seal or redact portions of Exhibits A, B,
D, E and F are GRANTED because the requests are
narrowly tailored to Apple’s proprietary and trade secret
information.
Exhibit A consists of emails and diagrams
discussing specific product development.
Exhibit B consists of an email discussing details
about product development.
Exhibit D consists of survey responses regarding the
iPad’s features.
Exhibit E and F consist of close up photographs of
an unreleased Apple product.
The proposed redaction in Exhibit H consists of an
Apple employee’s written commentary about a
patent.
DENIED. Apple’s request is not narrowly tailored. The
proposed redactions primarily consist of descriptions,
but not the contents, of accompanying exhibits. Apple
has not shown what specific harm it would suffer if this
information is revealed.
The requests to seal or redact portions of Exhibits B, C,
D, and E are GRANTED because the requests are
narrowly tailored to Apple’s proprietary or trade secret
information or to information for which Apple has
provided a particularized showing that specific harm
would result if revealed.
The redactions to Exhibit B, C, and D contain Apple
7
Case No: 11-CV-01846 LHK
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART APPLE’S AND SAMSUNG’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
637
Exhibits B, C, F, G, H to
Declaration of Jason Bartlett
ISO Apple’s Opposition to
Samsung’s Motion to Enforce
Various Court Orders
(“Bartlett Declaration”)
executives’ internal email addresses, which
implicate privacy concerns.
Exhibit G consists of survey responses regarding the
iPad’s features.
Exhibit H consists of an internal presentation
discussing Apple’s proprietary product designs and
development.
Exhibit J consists of an email discussing details
about product development.
The requests to seal or redact portions of Exhibits E, F, I
and K are DENIED because they are not narrowly
tailored. As noted below, the exhibits include
information for which Apple has failed to provide a
particularized showing that specific harm will result if
the information is made publicly available.
Exhibit E consists of slides showing features of the
iPad 2. The iPad 2 has since been released.
Exhibit F consists of talking points about the
features of the iPad 2. The iPad 2 has since been
released.
Exhibit I describes aspirational design goals of the
iPad, which has been available for retail purchase
since 2010.
The proposed redactions to Exhibit K include
selected quotes from an article Apple executives
shared via email. The quotes appear in the
unredacted portions of the email.
The request to seal portions of Exhibit B is DENIED
because it is not narrowly tailored. The proposed
redactions contain general references to Apple’s use of
mechanical outlines (“MCO”), which are not
confidential, and the fact of Apple’s license with Nokia,
which also is not confidential.
The requests to seal or redact portions of Exhibits C, F,
G, and H are GRANTED because the requests are
narrowly tailored to Apple’s proprietary or trade secret
information or to information for which Apple has
provided a particularized showing that specific harm
would result if revealed.
Exhibit C contains a CAD design of an Apple
product.
The proposed redactions of Exhibit F refer to the
number of models Apple produced.
The proposed redactions of Exhibit G refer to the
number of models Apple produced.
Exhibit H consists of an MCO image of an Apple
8
Case No: 11-CV-01846 LHK
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART APPLE’S AND SAMSUNG’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
product.
DENIED. Apple’s request is not narrowly tailored. The
proposed redactions consist of general references to
Apple’s use of MCOs, and Apple has failed to provide a
particularized showing that specific harm will result if
the information is made publicly available.
Portions of Apple’s Opposition DENIED. Apple’s request is not narrowly tailored. The
to Samsung’s Motion to
proposed redactions contain general references to
Enforce Various Court Orders Apple’s use of MCOs, and Apple has failed to provide a
particularized showing that specific harm will result if
the information is made publicly available.
Portions of Declaration of
DENIED. Apple’s request is not narrowly tailored. The
Samuel J. Maselli ISO Apple’s proposed redactions include references to Intel chips in
Opposition to Samsung’s
Apple products, which is publicly available information.
Motion to Compel
Portions of Apple’s Opposition DENIED. Apple’s request is not narrowly tailored. The
to Samsung’s Motion to
proposed redactions include references to Intel chips in
Compel
Apple products, which is publicly available information.
The redactions also include general references to
Apple’s use of MCOs, and Apple has failed to provide a
particularized showing that specific harm will result if
the information is made publicly available.
Exhibits B and C to the
The requests to seal or redact portions of Exhibits B and
Declaration of Mia Mazza ISO C are GRANTED because the requests are narrowly
Apple’s Opposition to Motion tailored to Apple’s proprietary or trade secret
for Clarification
information or to information for which Apple has
provided a particularized showing that specific harm
would result if revealed. Exhibits B and C contain
internal Apple-only technical presentations and touch
screen schematics.
Samsung’s request to seal or redact portions of the
642
Confidential, unredacted
Samsung Opposition is DENIED. The request to seal
version of Samsung’s
Opposition to Apple’s Motion the entire motion is not narrowly tailored. Samsung’s
proposed redactions include references to its “blueglow”
to Compel Documents and
technology, which is publicly available information.
Things (“Samsung’s
Opposition”)
Confidential, unredacted
Samsung’s request to seal or redact portions of entire
version of the Declaration of
declaration is DENIED. The request to seal is not
Melissa Chan ISO Samsung’s
narrowly tailored. Samsung’s proposed redactions
Opposition
include references to its “blueglow” technology and to
its touchscreen technology. Samsung has failed to
provide a particularized showing that specific harm will
result if the information is made publicly available.
Exhibits 1 and 4 to the Chan
The requests to seal Exhibits 1 and 4 are DENIED.
Declaration
Samsung’s requests are not narrowly tailored. As noted
below, the exhibits include information for which
Samsung has failed to provide a particularized showing
that specific harm will result if the information is made
publicly available.
Exhibit 1 consists of discovery plans between Apple
and Samsung.
Exhibit 4 consists of deposition dates for Samsung
executives.
9
Case No: 11-CV-01846 LHK
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART APPLE’S AND SAMSUNG’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
Bartlett Declaration Sections
Referring to Exhibits B, C, F,
G, H
Declaration of Hankil Kang
ISO Samsung’s Opposition
1
2
3
4
643
5
6
7
Confidential, unredacted
version of Samsung’s
Opposition to Apple’s Motion
to Compel Relating to
Affirmative
Defenses/Counterclaims
8
9
Confidential, unredacted
version of Declaration of
Melissa Chan dated January
17, 2012 (“Chan Declaration
1/17”)
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
Exhibits 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
1215 to Chan Declaration 1/17
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DENIED. Samsung’s request is not narrowly tailored.
The declaration includes, for example, non-confidential
facts about Samsung’s released models and its attempts
to comply with Apple’s discovery requests, and
Samsung has failed to provide a particularized showing
that specific harm will result if the information is made
publicly available.
The request to seal or redact portions of the motion is
DENIED. Samsung’s request is not narrowly tailored.
The motion includes legal analysis that has no
connection to Samsung’s confidential business practices.
The proposed redactions include discovery practices,
such as statements about searching an employee’s
computer or that certain inventors were no longer
employed by Samsung, and Samsung has failed to
provide a particularized showing that specific harm will
result if the information is made publicly available.
DENIED. Because the Court finds none of the
documents described in the declaration meet the
standard for sealing, the proffer for sealing the
declaration – that it references confidential exhibits –
fails. Even if one or all of the exhibits did meet the
standard, the declaration includes only descriptions of
the materials without reference to their specific content,
and Samsung has failed to provide a particularized
showing that specific harm will result if the descriptions
are made publicly available.
DENIED. Samsung’s requests to seal Exhibits 1, 2, 7,
8, 9, 10, and 11 are not narrowly tailored. As noted
below, each of the exhibits include information for
which Samsung has failed to provide a particularized
showing that specific harm will result if the information
is made publicly available.
Exhibit 1 includes references to generic search terms
used during discovery and discovery procedures.
Exhibit 2 includes a letter discussing discovery
search terms, including generic search terms, such as
“double tap,” “enlarge*,” and “expand*.” Apple has
not shown what specific harm it would suffer if this
type of information is revealed.
Exhibit 7, which consists of excerpts from Dr.
Joonyoung Cho’s deposition, contains information
about Dr. Cho’s education and his position with
Samsung.
In Exhibit 8, which consists of excerpts from the
deposition of Jae-Seung Yoon, Yoon discusses
preservation notices and searches he performed for
15
Samsung’s motion does not include Exhibit 12 (see Docket No. 643), but because the exhibit
was included in the declaration in support of sealing the documents and is currently under seal, the
court addresses the merits of whether it should remain sealed.
10
Case No: 11-CV-01846 LHK
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART APPLE’S AND SAMSUNG’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Confidential, unredacted
version of Declaration of Rosa
Kim dated January 17, 2012
17
18
19
20
21
22
707
23
24
25
26
27
28
16
Samsung’s Unopposed Motion
for Issuance of a Request for
Judicial Assistance
Exhibits 1-6 to the Declaration
of Sam Stake ISO Samsung’s
Unopposed Motion for
Issuance of a Request for
Judicial Assistance
this litigation, which do not include trade secret or
confidential business information.
In Exhibit 9, which consists of excerpts from Juho
Lee’s deposition, Lee discusses Samsung’s various
research and development centers, and that
information is publicly available on Samsung’s
website.16
Exhibit 10, which consists of excerpts from Gert-Jan
Van Lieshout’s deposition, includes Lieshout’s
speculation about business motivations and instances
where he could not answer the questions. Samsung
has failed to provide a particularized showing that
specific harm will result if the information is made
publicly available.
Exhibit 11, which contains excerpts from JeongSeok Oh’s deposition, primarily consists of a dispute
between the parties’ attorneys about the breadth of
the attorney-client privilege. Samsung has failed to
provide a particularized showing that specific harm
will result if the dispute is made publicly available.
Exhibit 12, which consists of a letter between
Apple’s and Samsung’s counsel, includes
descriptions of discoverable documents without
disclosing the contents of those documents. Neither
party has provided a particularized showing that
specific harm will result if the descriptions are made
publicly available.
The request to seal or redact portions of the declaration
is DENIED. Samsung’s request is not narrowly tailored.
The declaration includes widely accessible information
about the standard setting organizations of which
Samsung is a part. The proposed redactions include
information about discovery procedures, such as
Samsung’s practice of searching inventors’ hard drives.
Samsung has failed to provide a particularized showing
that specific harm will result if the discovery procedures
are made publicly available.
The request to redact portions of the motion is DENIED.
Samsung’s request is not narrowly tailored.
The requests to seal or redaction portions of Exhibits 1,
4, and 6 is GRANTED because the requests are
narrowly tailored to Apple’s proprietary or trade secret
information or to information for which Apple has
See Samsung,
http://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsamsung/ourbusinesses/researchdevelopment.html (last visited
Sept. 14, 2012).
11
Case No: 11-CV-01846 LHK
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART APPLE’S AND SAMSUNG’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
provided a particularized showing that specific harm
would result if revealed.
The proposed redactions in Exhibit 1, which
contains excerpts from Dr. Joshua Strickon’s
deposition, consist of Apple’s confidential product
development.
Exhibit 4 consists of an email among Apple
employees describing Apple’s proprietary
schematics for the iPad.
The proposed redactions to Exhibit 6 consist of
Apple’s confidential internal product codes.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
The requests to seal or redact portions of Exhibits 2, 3,
and 5 because they are not narrowly tailored. As noted
below, the redactions proposed by Apple include
information for which Apple has failed to provide a
particularized showing that specific harm will result if
the information is made publicly available.
The proposed redactions to Exhibit 2, which
contains excerpts from Brian Huppi’s deposition,
include the names of Apple employees and facts
about the relationship between FingerWorks, Inc.
and Apple, which is publicly available.
Exhibit 3 contains primarily information about the
user experience of Apple’s iPad, which has been
widely available for two years.
The proposed redactions to Exhibit 5 primarily
discuss an Apple employee and his role at the
company, and Apple has failed to provide a
particularized showing that specific harm will result
if the information is made publicly available.
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
715
Confidential, unredacted
version of Apple Inc.’s Motion
for Rule 37(B)(2) Sanctions
for Samsung’s Violation of
Two Discovery Orders
(“Motion for Sanctions”)
Confidential, unredacted
version of Declaration of Minn
Chung ISO the Motion for
Sanctions
Exhibits A-S, U, W, X, and
BB to Chung Declaration
The request to seal or redact portions of the motion is
DENIED. Samsung’s request is not narrowly tailored.
The request to seal or redact portions of the declaration
is DENIED. Samsung’s request is not narrowly tailored.
The requests to seal Exhibits A, B, C, F, H, L, M, N, R,
S, U, W, X and BB are DENIED. Samsung’s requests
were not narrowly tailored. As noted below, each of the
exhibits include information for which Samsung has
failed to provide a particularized showing that specific
harm will result if the information is made publicly
available.
12
Case No: 11-CV-01846 LHK
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART APPLE’S AND SAMSUNG’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Exhibits A and B consist of Samsung’s objections to
Apple’s interrogatories and Samsung has not
highlighted confidential information contained
therein.
Exhibit C consists of a chart detailing Samsung’s
production of documents for this litigation and the
names of custodians for those documents.
Exhibit F consists of a presentation comparing
Samsung’s products to various competitors’
products. Most of the information is publicly
available.
Exhibit H is an email with general aspirations about
future Samsung designs. Samsung has failed to
provide a particularized showing that specific harm
will result if these aspirations are made publicly
available.
Exhibit L consists of Samsung’s comparisons
between its products and Apple’s products. The
comparisons are of publicly available features on the
products.
Exhibit M consists of a letter from Apple’s counsel
to Samsung’s counsel discussing discovery
procedures.
Exhibit N consists of a chart detailing how many
documents had been produced during discovery.
Exhibit R and S consist of a chart with a list of
custodians and short descriptions of emails retrieved
during discovery searches.
Exhibit U consists of litigation hold notice dates and
descriptions of Samsung’s discovery procedures.
Exhibits W and X consist of letters from Apple’s
counsel discussing Samsung’s discovery procedures.
Exhibit BB consists of excerpts from a deposition
discussing whether Samsung designers used the
iPhone in their design decisions. The excerpt
includes questions and answers about the witness’s
ability to testify to the design decisions, and
therefore, is not narrowly tailored.
The requests to seal Exhibits D, E, G, I, J, K, O, P, and
Q are GRANTED because the requests are narrowly
tailored to Samsung’s proprietary or trade secret
information or to information for which Samsung has
provided a particularized showing that specific harm
would result if revealed.
Exhibits D and E consist of Samsung presentations
of customer and designer evaluations of its
smartphone in comparison to competitors’ products.
13
Case No: 11-CV-01846 LHK
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART APPLE’S AND SAMSUNG’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
2
3
4
5
6
Proposed Order Granting the
Motion for Sanctions
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
736
Confidential, unredacted
version of Apple’s Motion to
Compel Depositions of 14 of
Samsung’s Purported “Apex”
Witnesses (“Apple’s Motion to
Compel”)
12
13
14
15
16
Confidential, unredacted
version of Declaration of Mia
Mazza ISO Apple’s Motion to
Compel
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Exhibits G and I consist of emails among Samsung
employees about specific product development and
user feedback on products.
Exhibits J and K consist of market analysis and
product comparison reports.
Exhibit O consists of Samsung’s consumer research.
Exhibit P consists of a Samsung report detailing
response to a competitor’s product.
Exhibit Q consists of a Samsung report of consumer
research.
GRANTED. The proposed redactions are narrowly
tailored to information the Court has determined should
remain under seal.
The request to seal or redact portions of the motion is
DENIED. Samsung’s request is not narrowly tailored.
The redactions include the names of Samsung
executives that Apple sought to depose and the
executives’ roles at Samsung, and Samsung has failed to
provide a particularized showing that specific harm will
result if the information is made publicly available.
The redactions also include examples of Samsung
executives seeking to replicate in Samsung designs the
advantages of Apple’s product designs, and that
information goes to the heart of this litigation.
The request to seal or redact portions of the declaration
is DENIED. Samsung’s request is not narrowly tailored.
The declaration contains descriptions of exhibits neither
Samsung nor Apple have requested sealed. The
proposed redactions primarily consist of descriptions of
exhibits the Court has determined should be unsealed.
Apple’s requests, at Samsung’s behest, to seal or redact
portions of Exhibits 1, 4, 5-7, 9, 23-28, 39, 42, 44, and
45-55 are DENIED because they are not narrowly
tailored. As noted below, the exhibits and the proposed
redactions include information for which Samsung has
failed to provide a particularized showing that specific
harm will result if the information is made publicly
available.
Exhibits 1 to 4 consist of deposition notices to its
executives and Samsung’s objections to those
notices.
Exhibits 5 to 7 include names and titles of Samsung
executives that are not confidential.
Exhibits 9 and 39 primarily contain Samsung
executives’ generalized aspirations about products
and marketing. Samsung has failed to provide a
particularized showing that specific harm will result
if the generalized aspirations are made publicly
14
1
Exhibits 1-14 and 17-55 to the
Declaration of Mia Mazza ISO
Apple’s Motion to Compel
Case No: 11-CV-01846 LHK
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART APPLE’S AND SAMSUNG’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
737
(A)
available.
Exhibits 23-28, and 42 contain comparisons of nonconfidential features of Samsung, Apple, and HTC
devices. Samsung has failed to provide a
particularized showing that specific harm will result
if its comparisons of the phones are made publicly
available.
Exhibit 44 consists of Samsung’s Advanced
Purchase Agreement with the IRS, and Samsung has
failed to provide a particularized showing that
specific harm will result if the information is made
publicly available. .
Exhibits 45-55 contain large excerpts from
deposition transcripts, and in those excerpts are nonconfidential information, such as Samsung
employees’ names and position titles, information
about its management, competitive research, and
structure. Samsung has failed to provide a
particularized showing that specific harm will result
if this information is made publicly available.
The requests to seal or redact portions of Exhibits 8, 10,
11-12, 13, 14, 17-18, 19, 20-22, 29-38, and 40-41 are
GRANTED because the requests are narrowly tailored
to Samsung’s proprietary or trade secret information or
to information for which Samsung has provided a
particularized showing that specific harm would result if
revealed.
Exhibits 8, 11-12, 14, 17-18, 20-22, 29-38, and 4041 contain confidential information about
Samsung’s product and marketing development.
Exhibits 10, 19, and 13 primarily contain specific
product development information.
Confidential, unredacted
The request to seal or redact portions of the declaration
version of the Declaration of S. is DENIED. Apple’s request is not narrowly tailored.
Calvin Walden ISO Apple’s
The proposed redactions are summaries of exhibits
Motion to Compel Depositions
accompanying the declaration, and those summaries
of Samsung’s Purported
provide only the name of the person being deposed and
“Apex” Witnesses (“Walden
the date of the deposition. Apple has failed to provide a
Declaration”)
particularized showing that specific harm will result if
the information is made publicly available.
Exhibits 2-6 and 21-25 to the
Apple’s requests, at Samsung’s behest, to seal or redact
Walden Declaration
portions Exhibits 2-6 and 21-25 are DENIED because
(Samsung’s designation)
they are not narrowly tailored. As noted below, the
exhibits and proposed redactions include information for
which Apple has failed to provide a particularized
showing that specific harm will result if the information
15
Case No: 11-CV-01846 LHK
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART APPLE’S AND SAMSUNG’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Exhibits 7-10 to the Walden
Declaration
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17
is made publicly available.
The proposed redactions to Exhibits 2 through 6 and
21 contains names and positions of two of its
employees and the structure of its research and
development department, and Samsung has failed to
provide a particularized showing that specific harm
will result if the information is made publicly
available.
Exhibit 22 contains descriptions of a standard setting
negotiation from 2006 that has already been
publicized.17 The proposed redactions include
information for which Samsung has failed to provide
a particularized showing that specific harm will
result if the information is made publicly available.
Exhibit 23 consists of a ten-year old licensing
negotiation between it and a third party. The
proposed redactions consist of the date and location
of the negotiation and the name of one of its
executives involved in the negotiation, and Samsung
has failed to provide a particularized showing that
specific harm will result if the information is made
publicly available.
Exhibit 24 contains a list of patents, which are public
information. The proposed redactions include the
name of a third party with which Samsung
negotiated. In addition, Samsung has failed to be
consistent in its redaction: although the name of the
third party is redacted on the first page of the letter,
it was not redacted on the second page.
The proposed redactions to Exhibit 25 include
references to Samsung’s internal structure, and
Samsung has failed to provide a particularized
showing that specific harm will result if the
information is made publicly available.
The requests to seal Exhibits 7-10 are DENIED because
they are not narrowly tailored. As noted below, the
exhibits include information for which Apple has failed
to provide a particularized showing that specific harm
will result if the information is made publicly available.
Exhibit 7 includes meeting plans between Apple and
Samsung executives.
Exhibit 8 includes information about a Samsung
employee’s position. The proposed redactions
include an executive’s name and position, and Apple
See Tatum Anderson, Mobile Phone Manufacturers Seek to Control Rising IP Costs, Intellectual
Property Watch, Apr. 21, 2008, http://www.ip-watch.org/2008/04/21/mobile-phone-manufacturersseek-to-control-rising-ip-costs/.
16
Case No: 11-CV-01846 LHK
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART APPLE’S AND SAMSUNG’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
752/
754
Confidential, unredacted
version of Samsung’s Motion
for a Protective Order
Precluding the Depositions of
Ten High-Ranking Samsung
Executives (“Motion for a
Protective Order”)
Exhibits A, B, and E to M to
the Declaration of Rachel
Kassabian ISO the Motion for
a Protective Order
has failed to provide a particularized showing that
specific harm will result if that information is made
publicly available.
Exhibit 9 and 10 contain facts about a Samsung
employee’s offer and request to meet with an Apple
employee. Apple has failed to provide a
particularized showing that specific harm will result
if this information is made publicly available.
DENIED. Because the Court has found that none of the
exhibits or declarations that were cited in the motion
should remain sealed (see below), Samsung’s proffered
good cause for sealing or redacting the motion no longer
supports sealing or redacting the motion.
The requests to seal or redact Exhibits A, B, and E-M
are DENIED because they are not narrowly tailored. As
noted below, the exhibits include information for which
Samsung has failed to provide a particularized showing
that specific harm will result if the information is made
publicly available.
Exhibit A contains a list of Samsung executives that
Apple sought to depose.
Exhibit B contains names, titles, and primary job
responsibilities of Samsung executives Apple
sought to depose.
Exhibit E contains the names, titles, and
responsibilities of three Samsung executives.
Exhibit F contains comparisons of Apple’s and
Samsung’s retail packaging, which are publicly
available.
Exhibit G contains questions about practices that
are not part of Samsung’s internal procedures. The
proposed redactions contain the name of an art
direction executive and the name of a human
resources executive at Samsung. Samsung has
failed to provide a particularized showing that
specific harm will result if the names are made
publicly available.
Exhibit H contains descriptions of Samsung’s and
Apple’s products, which are widely available. The
proposed redactions are questions by Apple
attorneys regarding whether Samsung executives
intended to copy Apple’s products, and those
questions go to the heart of the litigation.
Exhibit I and the proposed redactions contain
27
28
17
Case No: 11-CV-01846 LHK
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART APPLE’S AND SAMSUNG’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
Declarations of Gee Sung
Choi, Jong Hyun Shin, Dale
Sohn, Joseph Cheong,
Seunghwan Cho, WonPyo
Hong, Heonbae Kim, Jaewan
Chi ISO the Motion for a
Protective Order
16
17
18
19
20
Declaration of Samuel Lee
ISO the Motion for a
Protective Order
21
22
23
24
25
758
26
18
27
28
Confidential, unredacted
references to full-touch technology, which is
widespread in the United States,18 and comparisons
between Samsung products before and after the
release of Apple’s products.
Exhibit J contains information about Samsung’s
general design considerations, such as usability and
aesthetics, and the proposed redaction contains the
name of a Samsung employee who had input on a
product. Samsung has failed to provide a
particularized showing that specific harm will result
if this information is made publicly available.
Exhibit K describes meetings attended by Samsung
executives, but the contents of those meetings are
not disclosed in the excerpt. The proposed
redaction contains the name of a Samsung
executive who attended the meeting and the
frequency of his attendance.
Exhibit L is a declaration of a Samsung executive
before the ITC describing his position in the
company.
Exhibit M is a declaration of a Samsung executive
before the ITC describing his position in the
company. Samsung has failed to provide a
particularized showing that specific harm will result
if the information is made publicly available.
The requests to seal or redact portions of the
declarations are DENIED. Samsung’s requests are not
narrowly tailored because all of them contain nonconfidential information, such as the declarant’s name
and position in Samsung. The proposed redactions
include information about which departments the
declarants oversee or whether they are involved in dayto-day decisions, and Samsung has failed to provide a
particularized showing that specific harm will result if
this information is made publicly available.
The request to redact portions of the declaration is
DENIED. The proposed redactions primarily consist of
information about the identity of Samsung executives
and the chain of command in the organization. Samsung
has failed to provide a particularized showing that
specific harm will result if the information is made
publicly available.
DENIED. Because the Court has found that none of the
See, e.g., Ian Paul, Disney Technology Turns Everything into a Touch Device, PC World, May 7,
2012,
http://www.pcworld.com/article/255124/disney_technology_turns_everything_into_a_touch_devic
e.html.
18
Case No: 11-CV-01846 LHK
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART APPLE’S AND SAMSUNG’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
version of Samsung’s
Opposition to Apple’s Motion
for Rule 37(B)(2) Sanctions
for Samsung’s Violation of
Two Discovery Orders
(“Samsung’s Opposition to
Apple’s Sanction Motion”)
Confidential, unredacted
version of the Declaration of
Sara Jenkins ISO Samsung’s
Opposition to Apple’s
Sanctions Motion (“Jenkins
Declaration”)
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Exhibits A, C-F, H-N to the
Jenkins Declaration
exhibits (except Exhibit H) or declarations that were
cited in the motion should remain sealed (see below),
the parties’ proffered good cause for sealing or redacting
the motion no longer applies.
The request to seal or redact portions of the declaration
is DENIED. Samsung’s request is not narrowly tailored.
The proposed redactions describe Samsung’s discovery
proceduresm and Samsung has failed to provide a
particularized showing that specific harm will result if
the information is made publicly available. Because the
Court has found that all of the exhibits, save Exhibit H,
should not be redacted or sealed (see below), the parties’
proffered good cause redacting parts of the declaration
referring to those exhibits no longer applies.
The requests to seal or redact portions of Exhibits A, CF, and I-N are DENIED because they are not narrowly
tailored. As noted below, the exhibits and the proposed
redactions include information for which Apple has
failed to provide a particularized showing that specific
harm will result if the information is made publicly
available.
The proposed redactions in Exhibit A state that
Apple has licensing relationships with Nokia, Corp.,
International Business Machines, Corp., Ericsson,
Inc., and Interdigital, Inc., and the facts of those
relationships are not confidential. The redactions
also state that Apple has settlement agreements with
Hootoo.com, Inc., and Sunvalleytek International,
Inc. The facts of those lawsuits and settlements are
not confidential.
Exhibit C contains generic search terms and the
names of Samsung employees whose computers
were searched pursuant to Apple’s discovery
requests.
Apple does not maintain a claim of confidentiality as
to Exhibit D.
Exhibits E and F describe Samsung’s discovery
procedures and types of documents that might be
discovered, and Samsung has failed to provide a
particularized showing that specific harm will result
if the information is made publicly available.
Exhibit I describes how Apple analyzes its
competition’s products by taking the products apart.
Apple has failed to provide a particularized showing
that specific harm will result if the information is
made publicly available.
Exhibits J, K, L, and M are Apple presentations of
19
Case No: 11-CV-01846 LHK
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART APPLE’S AND SAMSUNG’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
759
information gleaned from a tear down of a
competitor’s product. Apple has failed to provide a
particularized showing that specific harm will result
if the information is made publicly available.
Exhibit N is an email referencing a tear down of a
competitor’s product. Apple has failed to provide a
particularized showing that specific harm will result
if the information is made publicly available.
The proposed redactions to Exhibit H are GRANTED
because Apple narrowly tailored its request to
confidential contact information for high level
executives.
Declaration of Hankil Kang
The request to seal the declaration is DENIED. The
ISO Samsung’s Opposition to
declaration primarily describes Samsung’s discovery
Apple’s Sanction Motion
procedures and Samsung has failed to provide a
particularized showing that specific harm will result if
the information is made publicly available.
Confidential, unredacted
The request to seal or redact portions of the motion is
version of Apples Rule
DENIED. Samsung’s request is not narrowly tailored.
37(b)(2) Motion for Samsung’s The proposed redactions serve mainly to insulate
Violation of January 27, 2012
Samsung from Apple’s criticism regarding its discovery
Damages Discovery Order
production. Sealing orders are not intended to allow a
(“Damages Motion”)
party to avoid public scrutiny of its actions during
litigation.
Confidential, unredacted
DENIED. The request to seal the declaration is not
version of Declaration of Erik narrowly tailored. The proposed redactions include
Olson ISO the Damages
discovery procedures, names of executives that are
Motion (“Olson Declaration”) publicly available, and descriptions of documents that
do not disclose confidential contents.
DENIED. The request to seal the declaration is not
Confidential, unredacted
narrowly tailored. The proposed redactions include
version of Declaration of Eric
discovery procedures and descriptions of documents that
Roberts ISO the Damages
do not disclose confidential contents.
Motion (“Roberts
Declaration”)
Exhibits 1-19 to the Olson
Apple’s motion to seal Exhibits 1-5, 7-8, 11-14 is
Declaration
DENIED. Samsung has not designated those exhibits as
confidential.
The requests to seal or redact portions of Exhibits 6, 10,
15, 16, 1810, 15, 16, 18, and 19 are DENIED because
they are not narrowly tailored. As noted below, the
exhibits and proposed redactions include information for
which Samsung has failed to provide a particularized
showing that specific harm will result if the information
is made publicly available.
Exhibit 6 contains a letter from Samsung’s counsel
to Apple’s counsel describing Samsung’s discovery
procedures.
Exhibits 10, 15, 16, and 18 contain letters from
20
Case No: 11-CV-01846 LHK
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART APPLE’S AND SAMSUNG’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
1
2
3
4
5
6
The requests to seal Exhibits 9 and 17 are GRANTED
because the requests are narrowly tailored to Samsung’s
proprietary or trade secret information or to information
for which Samsung has provided a particularized
showing that specific harm would result if revealed.
Exhibit 9 contains excerpts from a deposition in
which a Samsung employee provides a detailed
explanation of Samsung’s accounting practices.
Exhibit 17 contains a letter from Apple’s counsel to
Samsung’s counsel that discloses the contents of
financial documents Samsung had previously
produced.
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
Exhibits A-F to the Roberts
Declaration
16
17
19
20
22
23
24
25
26
The request to seal Exhibit A, B, D, E, and F are
GRANTED because they are narrowly tailored to
sensitive financial information, and Samsung has
shown good cause why revealing the information
would be detrimental.
The request to seal Exhibit C is GRANTED because it
contains one of the Samsung subsidiaries financial
statements, which are not publically available.
Samsung has shown good cause why this information
would be detrimental if released.
18
21
Apple’s counsel to Samsung’s counsel describing
financial documents Apple wanted Samsung to
produce. The contents of the requested documents
are not disclosed. Samsung has failed to provide a
particularized showing that specific harm will result
if the information is made publicly available.
Exhibit 19 is DENIED. The exhibit contains an
International Trade Commission order that is part of
the public record.
The court orders the parties to file within fourteen days documents that comply with the
court’s determinations above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 18, 2012
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge
27
28
21
Case No: 11-CV-01846 LHK
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART APPLE’S AND SAMSUNG’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER 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?