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

Filing 66

Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh granting #60 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal.(lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/13/2011)

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
19

APPLE INC., a California corporation,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
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,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)

Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE
DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

On June 7, 2011, Plaintiff Apple, Inc. moved to file portions of the following documents

20

under seal: (1) Apple’s brief in opposition to Defendants’ motion to compel, and (2) the

21

Declaration of Richard J. Lutton in Support of Apple’s Opposition (“Lutton Decl.”). Apple

22

represents that the Samsung Defendants have stipulated to Apple’s request to file portions of these

23

documents under seal.

24

Where, as here, a party seeks to seal documents attached to a non-dispositive motion, the

25

Ninth Circuit requires a showing of good cause to justify the sealing of those documents.

26

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006). In addition, the

27

Local Rules of this Court require that all requests to file under seal be “narrowly tailored to seek

28

sealing only of sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(a). In this case, some of the information Apple
1
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

1

seeks to seal, particularly the information relating to its security procedures, appears to be sealable,

2

confidential information. See Lutton Decl. ¶¶ 10-11. On the other hand, some of the information

3

relating to Apple’s marketing strategies appears less sensitive and may already be public

4

knowledge. See, e.g., Lutton Decl. ¶¶ 6-7. Nonetheless, Apple seeks to seal only limited portions

5

of its opposition brief, and the Samsung Defendants have agreed that the redacted information

6

should be sealed. Given the lower standard applied to requests to seal material attached to non-

7

dispositive motions, the Court will grant Apple’s motion in this instance. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d

8

at 1180. However, as this is a case of public importance, future requests to file under seal should

9

include a more substantial explanation of the confidential nature of the redacted information and

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

the justification for sealing.
For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS Apple’s motion to file under seal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: June 13, 2011

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL