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

Filing 2111

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting #2105 Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration; granting in part #1726 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying as moot #2106 Motion to Stay (lhklc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

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; and SAMSUNG
)
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, )
a Delaware limited liability company,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER GRANTING APPLE’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION,
GRANTING SAMSUNG’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
SEAL, AND DENYING AS MOOT
APPLE’S MOTION FOR STAY

On November 20, 2014, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying part

20

administrative motions to seal in connection with the parties’ high-priority objections (“HPOs”)

21

during the March through May 2014 trial (ECF Nos. 1593, 1637, 1638, 1666, 1672, 1673, 1688,

22

1709, 1710, 1711, 1726, 1727, 1728, 1740, 1741, 1742). See ECF No. 2064. In that order, the

23

Court denied with prejudice Samsung’s administrative motion to seal ECF No. 1726-9, Excerpts of

24

Expert Report of Schonfeld, because “Apple informed the Court that Samsung would file a version

25

of this document with specific proposed redactions, but such a version was not filed.” Id. at 5.

26
27
28

On December 18, 2014, Apple filed a Motion for Leave to File a Motion for
Reconsideration, alerting the Court that although Apple had served Samsung with a highlighted
1
Case No.: 5:12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER GRANTING APPLE’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION,
GRANTING SAMSUNG’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL, AND DENYING AS MOOT APPLE’S
MOTION FOR STAY

1

version of ECF No. 1726-9 soon after the initial filing, Samsung failed to file the conformed copy

2

with its sealing motion. ECF No. 2105 at 2. Apple had also filed a declaration supporting sealing

3

the highlighted portions of ECF No. 1726-9. ECF No. 1768 ¶¶ 5-6. Apple has attached the

4

highlighted version of ECF No. 1726-9 to the instant motion for leave. ECF No. 2105-4. In

5

reviewing this document, the Court agrees with Apple that the document contains confidential

6

source code.

7

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(2), the Court finds that Apple has sufficiently shown
the “emergence of new material facts” warranting reconsideration of the Court’s prior order. As a

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

result, the Court GRANTS Apple’s Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration.

10

Rather than having the parties file a renewed sealing motion, the Court proceeds to

11

reconsider Samsung’s original motion to seal ECF No. 1726-9. According to the standards set

12

forth in Kamakana v City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006), In re

13

Electronic Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008), and Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,

14

727 F.3d 1214, 1228-29 (Fed. Cir. 2013), the Court reviews the request to seal ECF No. 1726-9

15

under the “compelling reasons” standard.

16
17
18

With this standard in mind, the Court rules as follows:
Motion ECF No.
1726
1726-9

19

Document
Highlighted Proposed Redactions
to Expert Report of Schonfeld,
filed with highlighting as ECF No.
2105-4

Ruling
GRANTED.

20
In light of this ruling, the Court DENIES as moot Apple’s Motion for Stay. ECF No. 2106.
21
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
23
Dated: December 19, 2014

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28

2
Case No.: 5:12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER GRANTING APPLE’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION,
GRANTING SAMSUNG’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL, AND DENYING AS MOOT APPLE’S
MOTION FOR STAY