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

Filing 764

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting in part and denying in part #660 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting #712 Stipulation (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

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 IN PART,
DENYING IN PART MOTION TO SEAL

19

Apple filed an administrative motion to file under seal portions of its motion for partial

20

summary judgment, as well as supporting exhibits and portions of a declaration. ECF No. 660.

21

Several of the exhibits were documents that were designated confidential by Samsung. Samsung

22

subsequently filed a declaration1 in support of Apple’s motion to seal pursuant to Civil Local Rule

23

79-5(d). ECF No. 712-1. For the reasons explained below, Apple’s motion is GRANTED in part,

24

and DENIED in part.

25

A. Samsung’s documents

26
27
28

1

Samsung’s declaration was filed two days after the deadline imposed by the local rules. The
parties filed a stipulation extending the deadline for Samsung to file its declaration. ECF No. 712.
The parties’ stipulation to extend Samsung’s deadline is hereby GRANTED.
1
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART MOTION TO SEAL

1

Samsung has designated two types of documents confidential. The first, Exhibit 24, is the

2

deposition testimony of Dr. Hyeon-Woo Lee, the inventor of the ’604 patent. The second, Exhibits

3

46-48, are several licensing agreements between Samsung and Intel.

4

Samsung claims that the deposition testimony of Dr. Lee should be filed under seal because

5

“it would cause substantial competitive harm to Samsung if not filed under seal.” Martin Decl. ¶ 2.

6

However, it is not clear how disclosure of the deposition testimony, which relates mostly to

7

Samsung’s involvement in a standard setting organization, would harm Samsung’s competitive

8

interests. Moreover, Samsung does not appear to have narrowly tailored its sealing request in

9

compliance with Civil Local rule 79-5(a). Accordingly, Apple’s motion to file Exhibit 24 under

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

seal is DENIED, without prejudice.
Samsung also seeks to file under seal several licensing agreements with Intel that contain

12

non-disclosure provisions. After “balanc[ing] the competing interests’ of the public and the party

13

who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret,” the Court finds these documents properly

14

sealable. Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting

15

Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135) (alterations omitted). Samsung has offered a compelling reason why

16

Exhibits 46-48 are properly sealable – specifically, that disclosure of these licensing agreements

17

would cause them harm because the information contained in the agreements discloses the

18

valuation of intellectual property rights, as well as information regarding Samsung’s financial and

19

accounting policies. See Nixon v. Warner Comm’ns, 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978) (citing Schmedding

20

v. May, 85 Mich. 1, 5–6 (1891) and Flexmir, Inc. v. Herman, 40 A.2d 799, 800 (N.J. Ch. 1945))

21

(explaining that access to court documents has been denied where the documents contain business

22

information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing). Accordingly, Apple’s motion to

23

seal Exhibits 46-48 is GRANTED.

24

B. Apple’s documents

25

Apple seeks to seal portions of the declaration of Saku Hieta, as well as Exhibits 1-4 to the

26

Hieta declaration. The information contained in these documents relates to the source of certain

27

baseband processor chipsets used in Apple products. Apple has alleged that this information is

28

highly confidential and would harm them competitively. Tierney Decl. ¶ 2-3, ECF No. 660-1.
2
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART MOTION TO SEAL

1

Based on the declaration provided, however, it is unclear why this information is sealable. For

2

example, Apple has not explained how disclosure of the type of baseband processor chipsets, or the

3

source of these chipsets, would harm Apple. Accordingly, Apple’s motion to seal portions of the

4

Hieta declaration, as well as Exhibits 1-4 of the Hieta declaration, is DENIED, without prejudice.

5

Additionally, the Court also DENIES, without prejudice, Apple’s request to file under seal portions

6

of its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in light of the fact that the Court has denied the

7

request to file portions of the Hieta Declaration, Exhibits 1-4 of the Hieta Declaration, and Exhibit

8

24 under seal. Civil L.R. 79-5(a).

9

If either Samsung or Apple believes that it can adequately support a motion to seal any of

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

the above referenced documents, it shall file a new declaration to seal within one week of the date

11

of this order. Within one week of the date of this order, Apple shall also lodge with the court its

12

motion for partial summary judgment with proposed redactions highlighted.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated: March 1, 2012

15

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART MOTION TO SEAL