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

Filing 2267

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY by Judge Paul S. Grewal granting 2233 Motion to Stay (psglc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/20/2013)

Download PDF
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 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 SAN JOSE DIVISION 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, Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG) ORDER GRANTING APPLE’S MOTION TO STAY (Re: Docket No. 2233) Defendants. 18 On February 19, 2013, Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) moved to stay the court’s February 1, 2013 19 20 order requiring Apple and Samsung Electronics Co., et al (“Samsung”) to file unsealed and 21 unredacted versions of various documents that the parties sought to remain under seal.1 In that 22 order, the court found Apple had not made a sufficiently particularized showing of harm if 23 documents containing financial information were disclosed.2 24 25 26 27 1 See Docket No. 2233. 28 2 See Docket No. 2222. 1 Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG) ORDER GRANTING APPLE’S MOTION TO STAY On February 14, 2013, the court granted the parties’ request for an extension until February 1 2 20, 2013 to file the thousands of documents that the court found should not be sealed,3 and on 3 February 15, 2013, Apple filed a renewed motion to seal certain financial documents, presumably 4 with more details about how its request meets the good cause standard for the nondispositive 5 motions to which the documents were attached.4 6 7 8 9 The stipulation the court granted on February 14, 2013 included an agreement between the parties that they would have to file only documents that were not the subject of either the renewed motions to seal or motions to stay the February 1 order.5 Apple thus assumed that the stipulation United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 the court granted on February 14, 2013 exempted documents that were the subject of the renewed 11 motions to seal from the new February 20 deadline to comply with the court’s February 1 order.6 12 Samsung, on the other hand, moved to stay the court’s order regarding those documents pending 13 the court’s resolution of its renewed motion to seal,7 and the court granted that request on February 14 15 16 19, 2013.8 Apple, concerned that it had misunderstood its obligations, likewise moved to stay the February 1 order on much the same grounds as Samsung’s earlier request.9 17 Regardless of whether Apple’s or Samsung’s motions to stay really were necessary given 18 the court’s February 14 order, the court repeats here that it finds a stay pending resolution of the 19 renewed motions appropriate. As the court noted in its order granting Samsung’s request for a 20 stay, part of its reasoning for denying the previous motions to seal stemmed from the parties’ 21 22 3 See Docket No. 2227. 23 4 See Docket No. 2228. 24 5 See Docket No. 2227. 25 6 See Docket No. 2233. 26 7 See Docket No. 2230. 27 8 See Docket No. 2232. 28 9 See Docket No. 2233. 2 Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG) ORDER GRANTING APPLE’S MOTION TO STAY 1 failure to provide sufficient showings of particularized harm if the documents were disclosed.10 2 Apple, like Samsung, represents that its renewed motion cures that deficiency, and so the court 3 finds that a stay pending the court’s consideration of the renewed motion is warranted. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: February 20, 2013 ______________________________ 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 10 See Docket No. 2232. 3 Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG) ORDER GRANTING APPLE’S MOTION TO STAY

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?