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

Filing 2112

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting in part and denying in part #2108 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (lhklc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION

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

Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS TO SEAL

This Court previously ruled on certain administrative motions to seal briefing and exhibits

20

in connection with the parties’ high-priority objections (“HPOs”) during the March through May

21

2014 trial, see ECF No. 2064 (ruling on, inter alia, ECF Nos. 1673, 1727), and in connection with

22

Apple’s motion for ongoing royalties, see ECF No. 2070 (ruling on, inter alia, ECF No. 1985). In

23

those orders, the Court denied without prejudice Samsung’s administrative motions to seal five

24

documents (ECF Nos. 1673-7, 1727-9, 1985-4, 1985-6, and 1985-7) for failure to submit

25

highlighted proposed redactions.

26

Samsung filed a renewed motion to seal, attaching a declaration in support of sealing and

27

highlighted proposed redactions for the five documents. See ECF No. 2108. Google also filed a

28
1
Case No.: 5:12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL

1

declaration with respect to ECF No. 1673-7. See ECF No. 2109. The Court rules on the renewed

2

sealing requests as follows.

3

Motion ECF No.
1673
1673-7,
2108-2
1727
1727-9,
2108-3
1985
1985-4,
2108-4
1985
1985-6,
2108-5
1985
1985-7,
2108-5

4
5
6
7
8

Document
Highlighted Proposed Redactions
to Fazio Decl., Ex. C
Highlighted Proposed Redactions
to Olson Decl., Ex. 5
Highlighted Proposed Redactions
to Vellturo Decl.
Highlighted Proposed Redactions
to Vellturo Decl., Ex. 2
Highlighted Proposed Redactions
to Vellturo Decl., Ex. 3

Ruling
DENIED with prejudice because the
proposed redaction is not sealable.
GRANTED.
GRANTED.
GRANTED.
GRANTED.

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 19, 2014

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

Case No.: 5:12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL