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

Filing 2277

Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh denying 1487 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Without Prejudice.(lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/17/2013)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
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 MOTION TO SEAL
DOCUMENTS RE: APPLE’S
RESPONSE TO SAMSUNG’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

Before the Court is Apple Inc.’s Administrative Motion to File Documents Under Seal: Re

20

Apple’s Response to Samsung’s Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Slides 11-19. See ECF

21

No. 1487. Apple Inc. filed this motion in accordance with Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5, and

22

General Order No. 62. Specifically, Apple Inc. seeks to seal the Declaration of Jason R. Bartlett in

23

Support of Apple’s Response to Samsung’s Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Slides 11-19

24

(“Bartlett. Decl.”) and Exhibits 1-3 to the Bartlett Decl. because they contain information that

25

Samsung has designated as highly confidential.

26
27
28

Civil Local Rule 79-5(d) governs motions to seal documents designated as confidential by
another party. It requires that “the designating party must file with the Court and serve a
1
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL DOCUMENTS RE: APPLE’S RESPONSE TO SAMSUNG’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

1

declaration establishing that the designated information is sealable” within seven days of the

2

motion. Samsung did not file a declaration establishing why the Bartlett Decl. and Exhibits 1-3 to

3

this declaration should be filed under seal. Accordingly, this motion to seal is DENIED without

4

prejudice.

5

Apple Inc. may file a renewed motion to seal within two weeks of the date of this Order.

6

Before doing so, the parties shall meet and confer to determine whether Samsung continues to

7

believe that it is actually necessary to maintain these documents under seal.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Dated: March 17, 2013

11

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL DOCUMENTS RE: APPLE’S RESPONSE TO SAMSUNG’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION