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

Filing 2048

ORDER GRANTING SPRINT SPECTRUM, L.P.'S MOTION TO SEAL DOCUMENT IN PART by Judge Paul S. Grewal granting 2045 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/18/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

APPLE, INC.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD, a
)
Korean corporation; SAMSUNG
)
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York )
corporation; and SAMSUNG
)
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, )
a Delaware limited liability company,
)
)
)
Defendants.

Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER GRANTING NONPARTY
SPRINT SPECTRUM, L.P.’S MOTION
TO SEAL DOCUMENT IN PART
(Re: Docket No. 736)

On October 17, 2012, Sprint Spectrum, L.P. (“Sprint”) moved to seal in part a document

19
20

this court ordered to be unsealed in its order on September 18, 2012 (“September 18 order”).1 The

21

document at issue is a memorandum describing problems Sprint had with products from Samsung

22

Telecommunications America, LLC (“Samsung”), a defendant in this case. The document was

23

submitted as an exhibit to a motion filed by Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) to show that one of Samsung’s

24

executives had sufficient decision-making authority to be deposed.2 The court ordered the

25
26
1

See Docket No. 1978.

2

See Docket No. 736.

27
28

1

Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER GRANTING SPRINT SPECTRUM, L.P.’S MOTION TO SEAL IN PART

1
2

document unsealed because Samsung failed to provide with particularity good cause for sealing the
exhibit and failed to narrowly tailor its request.
Sealing requests for records attached to nondispositive motions, like the motion to compel

3
4

underlying this request, are subject to the “good cause” standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).3 The

5

standard requires a “particularized showing”4 that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the

6
7
8

information is disclosed.5 “[B]road allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or
articulated reasoning” will not suffice.6
Sprint does not argue for the entire document to be sealed. Sprint instead requests only that

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

the document be filed with limited redactions of financial and economic information regarding the

11

number of phones returned and the amount in reimbursement Sprint sought from Samsung for the

12

quality problems. Backed by a supporting declaration, Sprint asserts that it maintains data

13

regarding the prices it pays for handsets in strict confidentiality to avoid competitive harm from

14
other manufacturers and competitors who could use the data to its detriment. The court notes that
15
16

the information, which was produced less than a year before the underlying litigation began, is

17

relatively recent and therefore would have a greater impact if disclosed than information from

18

several years ago.

19
20
21

Sprint has narrowly tailored its request to specific economic and financial information for
which it has shown good cause that it could be harmed if the information is disclosed.
Accordingly, Sprint’s motion to redact Exhibit 42 to Docket Number 736 is GRANTED.

22
23
24
3

See Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006).

4

Id. at 1178-79.

5

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

6

Id.

25
26
27
28

2

Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER GRANTING SPRINT SPECTRUM, L.P.’S MOTION TO SEAL IN PART

1

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within seven days Apple shall file the document with

2

Sprint’s redactions.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated: October 17, 2011

5
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

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

3

Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER GRANTING SPRINT SPECTRUM, L.P.’S MOTION TO SEAL IN PART