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

Filing 1347

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting #418 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting #432 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting #439 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting #440 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting #442 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting #460 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting #535 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting #579 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting #601 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #680 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (lhklc5S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/26/2014)

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
20
21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
APPLE, INC., a California corporation,

)
)
Plaintiff and Counterdefendant,
)
)
v.
)
)
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
)
Korean corporation; SAMSUNG
)
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York )
corporation; and SAMSUNG
)
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, )
a Delaware limited liability company,
)
)
Defendants and Counterclaimants. )
)

Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER RE: MISCELLANEOUS
SEALING MOTIONS

This Order addresses various sealing motions relating to miscellaneous discovery and other

22

matters that the Court has already substantively resolved. Because these sealing requests relate to

23

nondispositive motions, the Court evaluates the parties’ sealing requests under the “good cause”

24

exception to the presumption of access. See In re Midland Nat’l Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales

25

Practices Litigation, 686 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2012). “Under the exception, the usual

26

presumption of the public’s right of access [to judicial records] is rebutted. Thus, a particularized

27

showing of ‘good cause’ under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) is sufficient to preserve the

28

secrecy of sealed discovery documents attached to non-dispositive motions.” Id. (internal
1
Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER RE: MISCELLANEOUS SEALING MOTIONS

1

quotation marks and citation omitted). In addition, the Court recognizes that the public’s interest in

2

disclosure is diminished where documents subject to a motion to seal are not used by a court or a

3

jury. See Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs., Co., 727 F.3d 1214, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“Apple I”).

4

With these principles in mind, the Court issues the following rulings:

5

•

Docket Numbers 418 & 460: Apple’s motions to file under seal documents related to its
motion to compel discovery of document production information and diff printouts
from Google, Inc. are GRANTED. The information sought to be sealed is proprietary
functionality and internal business processes of non-party Google, Inc. Magistrate
Judge Grewal granted Apple’s motion to compel without relying on the information
sought to be sealed. See Dkt. 501.

•

Docket Number 432: Apple’s administrative motion to file under seal exhibits related
to Samsung’s motion to compel production of documents relating to pricing of Apple
products is GRANTED. The information sought to be sealed is Samsung’s financial
information, including product-specific revenue, sales, and profit data that is not
publicly available. Magistrate Judge Grewal granted Samsung’s motion to compel
without relying on the information sought to be sealed. See Dkt. 450.

•

Docket Number 439: Non-party International Business Machines Corp.’s (“IBM”)
motion to file under seal information relating to licensing terms and consideration
exchanged between Apple and IBM for patent licenses is GRANTED. IBM’s proposed
redactions are consistent with the redactions that this Court approved in a related case
involving the same parties. See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs., Co., Case No. 11-CV1846, Dkt. Nos. 1660 & 2168.

•

Docket Numbers 440 & 442: The parties’ renewed motions to file documents under
seal related to Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction are GRANTED. The Court
previously denied several motions filed by both Apple and Samsung related to the same
documents, but allowed the parties to narrow their sealing requests and file renewed
motions to seal. See Dkt. 397. The parties have narrowly tailored their renewed requests
such that they seek to seal only sensitive market, business, and competitive strategy
information of the type this Court has previously sealed or the Federal Circuit found
sealable in Apple I.

•

Docket Numbers 535, 579, & 601: The parties’ motions to file documents under seal
related to Samsung’s motion to amend the case management order and for leave to
amend its answer to Apple’s counterclaims in reply are GRANTED. The information
sought to be sealed relates to unconsummated, confidential license negotiations
between Apple and Samsung. The Court denied Samsung’s motion to amend without
relying on the information sought to be sealed. See Dkt. Nos. 713; 750 (Hr’g Tr. at
57:19-62:10). The Court, however, will still require the parties to make the requisite
showing to the extent they seek to seal the same evidence as part of Apple’s pursuit of
its counterclaims in reply at trial.

6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER RE: MISCELLANEOUS SEALING MOTIONS

1
2
3
4

•

Docket Number 680: Samsung’s motion to file its motion for relief from Magistrate
Judge Grewal’s nondispositive pretrial order is DENIED. Samsung redacted portions of
its motion over which Samsung believed Apple maintained a claim of confidentiality.
But Apple subsequently filed a notice disclaiming any such claim. See Dkt. 693. No
grounds to seal Samsung’s motion remain.
To the extent not already done, the parties shall file conforming copies of the documents

5

addressed in this Order within 7 days, with a reference in the docket text to the original docket

6

number to which the copies relate.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 26, 2014

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER RE: MISCELLANEOUS SEALING MOTIONS