Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
Filing
763
ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting #519 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting #530 Motion for Reconsideration ; granting #547 Motion for Reconsideration (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/1/2012)
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
19
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 GRANTING SAMSUNG’S
MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER,
GRANTING APPLE’S MOTION TO
SEAL
Samsung filed a motion to reconsider this Court’s order denying its motion to file under
20
seal Exhibit E of the Chung Declaration filed in support of Apple’s Motion to Augment the Record
21
on its Motion for Preliminary Injunction (“Motion to Augment the Record”). ECF Nos. 530
22
(motion to reconsider) and 510 (Order). Exhibit E of the Chung Declaration contains a survey
23
conducted by Samsung that contains information regarding consumer design preferences.
24
Samsung also filed a motion to reconsider this Court’s order denying its motion to file under seal
25
Exhibit V of the Tung Declaration. ECF Nos. 547 (motion to reconsider) and 515 (Order). On
26
reconsideration, Samsung seeks to seal portions of the deposition testimony of Justin Denison
27
regarding an agreement (which includes a non-disclosure provision) between Best Buy and
28
Samsung.
1
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER RE: SAMSUNG’S MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION; APPLE’S SEALING MOTION
1
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(a), orders to seal “may issue only upon a request that
2
establishes that the document, or portions thereof, is privileged or protectable as trade secret or
3
otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” After review of the document and the supporting
4
declaration, the Court is satisfied that Samsung’s consumer survey is properly sealable. The
5
consumer survey contains information that, if disclosed, would allow Samsung’s competitors
6
access to and insight into Samsung’s design decisions. See Nixon v. Warner Comm’ns, 435 U.S.
7
589, 598 (1978) (citing Schmedding v. May, 85 Mich. 1, 5–6 (1891) and Flexmir, Inc. v. Herman,
8
40 A.2d 799, 800 (N.J. Ch. 1945)) (explaining that access to court documents has been denied
9
where the documents contain business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
standing).
11
Similarly, the portion of the deposition transcript that Samsung seeks to seal contains
12
information that is subject to a nondisclosure agreement between Samsung and a third party.
13
Further, Samsung’s General Counsel has submitted a declaration explaining that the business
14
relationship between Samsung and Best Buy would be compromised if the confidentiality of the
15
communications were not retained. Robinson Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 547-1. The Court finds that the
16
portion of the Denison declaration is properly sealable.
17
Relatedly, the Court initially granted Apple’s motion to file Exhibits A-D of the Chung
18
Declaration under seal. ECF No. 510. Because the Court’s order granted the sealing request with
19
respect to Exhibits A-D, but denied the sealing request with respect to Exhibit E, Apple’s request to
20
seal its Motion to Augment Record on Its Motion for Preliminary Injunction, which referenced and
21
discussed all five exhibits, was overly broad. Apple was allowed to refile its administrative motion
22
to seal its Motion to Augment the Record in light of the fact that the Court had denied the request
23
to file Exhibit E under seal. ECF No. 510. Apple re-filed its administrative motion to file under
24
seal its Motion to Augment the Record, but lodged with the Court the unredacted copy of the
25
Motion to Augment the Record, and the Chung declaration in support thereof, until such time as
26
the Court ruled on Samsung’s motion to reconsider the sealing order with respect to Exhibit E.
27
ECF No. 519. Apple’s administrative motion to file under seal portions of its Motion to Augment
28
the Record, as well as portions of the Chung declaration is GRANTED as this motion complies
2
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER RE: SAMSUNG’S MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION; APPLE’S SEALING MOTION
1
with the Court’s Order at ECF No. 510, allowing Exhibits A-D to be filed under seal. Moreover, in
2
light of this Court’s order regarding Samsung’s motion to reconsider, the portions of Apple’s
3
Motion to Augment the Record and the Chung declaration, which quote and discuss Exhibit E, are
4
likewise sealable. Accordingly, Section B.2. of Apple’s Motion to Augment the Record, as well
5
as the second sentence of paragraph 7 of the Chung declaration, which quote and discuss Exhibit E,
6
may be sealed.
7
For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS Samsung’s motions to reconsider.
8
The Court also GRANTS Apple’s motion to file under seal portions of its Motion to Augment the
9
Record, and portions of the Chung declaration. Samsung shall file Exhibit E of the Chung
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Declaration and Exhibit V of the Tung Declaration under seal. The redacted version of Exhibit V
11
of the Tung Declaration at ECF No. 547-2 shall be deemed filed. Finally, Apple shall file its
12
Motion to Augment the Record and the Chung Declaration under seal. Apple shall also file a
13
redacted version of these documents, in accordance with the directions described above.
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
Dated: March 1, 2012
16
_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER RE: SAMSUNG’S MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION; APPLE’S SEALING MOTION
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?