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

Filing 797

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting in part and denying in part #667 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting #674 Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document; granting #675 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2012)

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

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 GRANTING IN PART
SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL

19

Samsung has filed a motion to file under seal portions of its motion for leave to amend its

20

invalidity contentions, as well as supporting exhibits. ECF No. 667. Several of the exhibits were

21

documents that were designated confidential by Apple. Apple subsequently filed a declaration in

22

support of Apple’s motion to seal pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(d). ECF No. 709.

23

Additionally, several of the exhibits have been designated confidential by third parties, Cirque

24

Corporation and Synaptics, Incorporated.

25

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(a), orders to seal “may issue only upon a request that

26

establishes that the document, or portions thereof, is privileged or protectable as trade secret or

27

otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” Moreover, requests to seal must be narrowly

28

tailored to seal only that information in a document which is properly sealable. See id. For the
1
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO SEAL

1

reasons explained below, the Court GRANTS in part, and DENIES in part, Samsung’s motion to

2

seal.

3

A. Apple’s Documents

4

Samsung seeks to seal portions of Exhibit 4 of the Briggs Declaration. This document

5

contains source code and is properly sealable as trade secret. See Civ. L.R. 79-5. Accordingly, the

6

Court GRANTS Samsung’s motion to seal portions of Exhibit 4.1

7

Samsung also seeks to file under seal Exhibits O, P, and Q of the Baxter Declaration
because Apple has designated portions of these documents as confidential under the protective

9

order. Exhibit O is an inventor deposition which contains testimony regarding a patent conception

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

date and date of conception of the Mac OS X. Exhibit P is inventor deposition testimony regarding

11

when Apple began development of a product. Exhibit Q is the inventor deposition which contains

12

testimony regarding prior art. Apple’s designations of what content should be sealed are overly

13

broad. For example, publication of conception dates, or descriptions of prior art are not properly

14

sealable. On the other hand, it does appear that some information could be sealable; for example,

15

testimony regarding licensing terms. The motion to seal is not narrowly tailored in compliance

16

with Civil Local Rule 79-5(a). Accordingly, Samsung’s motion to seal Exhibits O, P, and Q is

17

DENIED, without prejudice. Within one week of the date of this Order, Apple is invited to file

18

a declaration and proposed redactions that narrowly tailor the request to seal to content that is truly

19

sealable.

20

Samsung also moved to file under seal Exhibit W of the Baxter Declaration. Exhibit W

21

contains Apple’s interrogatory responses, portions of which Apple has designated confidential.

22

Apple’s designation of sealable material is, again, overly broad. For example, responses that reveal

23

conception dates and dates of reduction to practice are not properly sealable. Responses that reveal

24

Apple’s efforts to enforce its IP rights through publicly filed court cases are also not sealable.

25

Responses that reveal information that is publicly available through Apple’s website, or through

26

television and other forms of media are not sealable. On the other hand, information regarding

27
1

28

Additionally, Samsung inadvertently filed Exhibit 4 publicly. Samsung filed a motion to have
this document permanently locked on ECF. ECF No. 674. Samsung’s motion is GRANTED.
2
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO SEAL

1

Apple’s internal policies regarding its attempts to police and enforce its IP rights, and information

2

regarding amounts spent on advertising may be sealable. Apple’s current designations are overly

3

broad. Accordingly, Samsung’s motion to file under seal Exhibit W is DENIED, without

4

prejudice. Within one week of the date of this Order, Apple may file a declaration and proposed

5

redactions that narrowly tailor the request to seal to content that is truly sealable.

6

B. Third Party Documents

7

Third Party Cirque Corp. has designated Exhibits R, T, U, and V of the Baxter Declaration

8

and Exhibit 7 of the Briggs Declaration as confidential. Cirque has not provided a declaration in

9

support of this motion, nor has it narrowly tailored its request to seal only sealable portions of the

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

documents. For example, Exhibit R is a deposition, and it does not appear that all of the deposition

11

is properly sealable. Accordingly, Samsung’s motion to seal these documents is DENIED, without

12

prejudice. Within one week of the date of this order, Samsung shall notify Cirque and obtain

13

and file a declaration from the third party supporting sealing the exhibits identified above.

14

Third Party Synaptics Incorporated has designated Exhibit S of the Baxter Declaration and

15

Exhibit 8 of the Briggs Declaration as confidential. Synaptics has not provided a declaration in

16

support of this motion, nor has it narrowly tailored its request. For example, Exhibit S is a

17

deposition, and it does not appear that all of the deposition is properly sealable. Accordingly,

18

Samsung’s motion to seal these documents is DENIED, without prejudice. Within one week of

19

the date of this order, Samsung shall notify Synaptics and obtain and file a declaration from the

20

third party supporting sealing the exhibits identified above.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

Dated: March 9, 2012

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
3

Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO SEAL