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

Filing 2046

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting 1979 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 1980 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/16/2012)

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.
)
)
)

19

Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION TO SEAL

On September 14, 2012, this Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the

20

parties’ motions to file documents under seal. ECF No. 1966. Several of those motions were made

21

pursuant to Civil Local rule 79-5(d), and were denied without prejudice because no supporting

22

declarations were filed. The parties have now filed renewed motions to seal some of those

23

documents, with supporting declarations. ECF Nos. 1979 (Apple) and 1980 (Samsung).

24

I.

Legal Standard

25

As this Court has explained in its previous sealing orders in this case, courts have

26

recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial

27

records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978).

28

“Unless a particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of
1
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO SEAL

1

access’ is the starting point. Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th

2

Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)).

3

In order to overcome this strong presumption, a party seeking to seal a judicial record must

4

articulate justifications for sealing that outweigh the public policies favoring disclosure. See id. at

5

1178-79. Because the public’s interest in non-dispositive motions is relatively low, a party seeking

6

to seal a document attached to a non-dispositive motion need only demonstrate “good cause.”

7

Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (applying “good cause” standard

8

to all non-dispositive motions, because such motions “‘are often unrelated, or only tangentially

9

related, to the underlying cause of action’” (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179)).

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Conversely, “the resolution of a dispute on the merits, whether by trial or summary

11

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

12

process and of significant public events.’” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Valley

13

Broadcasting Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Nev., 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986)). Thus,

14

a party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion or presented at trial must

15

articulate “compelling reasons” in favor of sealing. See id. at 1178. “In general, ‘compelling

16

reasons’ . . . exist when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such

17

as the use of records to . . . release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). The

18

Ninth Circuit has adopted the Restatement’s definition of “trade secret” for purposes of sealing,

19

holding that “[a] ‘trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of

20

information which is used in one’s business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an

21

advantage over competitors who do not know or use it.” In re Electronic Arts, 298 Fed. App’x

22

568, 569-70 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Restatement of Torts § 757, cmt. b). Additionally,

23

“compelling reasons” may exist if sealing is required to prevent judicial documents from being

24

used “‘as sources of business information that might harm a litigant's competitive standing.’” Id. at

25

569 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). The documents at issue here are all from the

26

trial stage of the litigation, and are thus subject to the “compelling reasons” standard.

27

II.

ANALYSIS

28

Apple’s Motion
2
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO SEAL

1

Apple seeks to seal two documents: PX 63, and Exhibit 14 to the Declaration of Diane Hutnyan

2

in Support of Samsung’s Proffer. See ECF No. 1979. PX 63 is a trial exhibit containing

3

confidential source code; Apple now seeks to seal it in the context of its notice of excluded

4

exhibits. This Court previously ordered the same document sealed when it was introduced the first

5

time, as a trial exhibit. See ECF No. 1649 at 8. As Apple now seeks to seal the same document

6

refiled in a new context, the “compelling reasons” analysis is exactly the same. Accordingly,

7

consistent with this Court’s previous order, Apple’s motion to seal PX 63 in connection with its

8

notice of excluded exhibits is GRANTED.
Apple also seeks to redact certain information from Exhibit 14 to the Hutnyan Declaration.

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

The portions Apple seeks to redact contain specific information about the royalty rates in Apple’s

11

license agreements with various third parties. As this Court has previously explained, royalty rates

12

are sealable under the “compelling reasons” standard because disclosure could create an

13

asymmetry of information in the negotiation of future licensing deals. See ECF No. 1649 at 10-11

14

(citing In re Electronic Arts, 298 F. App’x at 569). Accordingly, Apple’s motion to seal Exhibit

15

14 to the Hutnyan Declaration is GRANTED.

16

Samsung’s Motion

17

Samsung seeks to seal two documents designated as confidential by Intel, two documents

18

designated as confidential by Ericsson, and one document designated as confidential by Microsoft.

19

The Court will address each in turn.

20

First, Intel has filed the Declaration of Christopher Kelley in support of Samsung’s motion to

21

seal excerpts from Exhibit 87 to Samsung’s Notice of Filing of Excluded Exhibits. Specifically,

22

the second and third pages of this exhibit contain diagrams from Intel’s X-GOLD 61x Product

23

Specification. ECF No. 1980-5. This Court has previously found that the X-GOLD 61x Product

24

Specification, as Intel’s proprietary technical information, meets the “compelling reasons” standard

25

and ordered it sealed. See ECF No. 1649 at 27; ECF No. 1959 at 2-3. Accordingly, Samsung’s

26

motion to seal excerpts from Exhibit 87 is GRANTED.

27

Second, Ericsson has filed the Declarations of Courtland L. Reichman and Anna Johns in

28

support of Samsung’s motion to seal PX 87 and PX 2065. ECF No. 2006. Ericsson proposes
3
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO SEAL

1

redactions to these two documents to remove the royalty amount and rate terms of a cross-license

2

offer from Ericsson to Samsung. Ericsson does not seek to seal the entire documents. As

3

discussed above, this Court has previously found that the royalty terms of license agreements meet

4

the “compelling reasons” standard, and has allowed such information to be sealed. See ECF No.

5

1649 at 10-11. The same reasoning applies here. Accordingly, Samsung’s motion to seal PX 87

6

and PX 2065 is GRANTED with regards to Ericsson’s proposed redactions and DENIED as to the

7

complete documents.

8

Third, Microsoft has not filed a declaration as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(d).
Accordingly, Samsung’s motion is DENIED without prejudice as to Exhibit 10 to the Declaration

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

of Curran M. Walker in Support of Samsung’s Objections and Responses Regarding Exhibits and

11

Deposition Designations.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Dated: October 16, 2012

14

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO SEAL