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

Filing 391

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SEAL by Judge Paul S. Grewal denying #95 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #108 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #155 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #167 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #187 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/6/2013)

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

APPLE INC., a California corporation

12

Plaintiff,
v.

13
14
15
16

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD., a
Korean business entity; SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York
corporation; SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company,

17

ORDER DENYING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO
FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
(Re: Docket Nos. 95, 108, 155, 167, 187)

Defendants.

18
19

Case No.: 12-CV-0630-LHK (PSG)

In this second pending case between Plaintiff Apple Inc. (“Apple”) and Samsung
Electronics Co., Ltd., et al (collectively “Samsung”), the parties again have requested that several

20
documents remain wholly or partially under seal. The court has reviewed each of these documents
21
22

and the parties’ reasons for preventing public access to them and has determined that none of them

23

should remain under seal. As it has in other orders dealing with numerous sealing requests, 1 the

24

court articulates the legal standard for sealing motions and then provides in table format the various

25

requests and a brief summary of the reason for the denials.

26
27
28

1

See, e.g., Brocade Comm’ns Sys., Inc. v. A10 Networks, Inc., Case No. C 10-3428 PSG, 2013 WL
21115 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2013); Apple Inc. v. Samsung, Case No. 11-cv-1846 LHK (PSG), 2012
WL 4120541 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2012).
1
Case No: 12-0630 LHK (PSG)
ORDER DENYING SEALING MOTIONS

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and

1
2

documents, including judicial records and documents.’” 2 Accordingly, when considering a sealing

3

request, “a strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” 3 Parties seeking to seal

4

judicial records relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of overcoming the presumption

5

with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies

6

favoring disclosure. 4

7
Records attached to nondispositive motions, however, are not subject to the strong
8
9

presumption of access. 5 Because the documents attached to nondispositive motions “are often

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,” parties moving to seal

11

must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). 6 As with dispositive motions,

12

the standard applicable to nondispositive motions requires a “particularized showing” 7 that

13

“specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. 8 “[B]road allegations of

14

harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning” will not suffice. 9 A

15
16
17

protective order sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court’s previous
determination that good cause exists to keep the documents sealed, 10 but a blanket protective order

18
19
2

Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006).

3

Id.

4

Id. at 1178-79.

5

See id. at 1180.

6

Id. at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

7

Id.

8

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

9

Id.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

10

28

See id. at 1179-80.
2

Case No: 12-0630 LHK (PSG)
ORDER DENYING SEALING MOTIONS

1
2

that allows the parties to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial
scrutiny to determine whether each particular document should remain sealed. 11

3

In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal

4

documents must comply with the procedures established by Civil Local Rule 79-5. The rule allows

5

sealing orders only where the parties have “establishe[d] that the document or portions thereof is

6

privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” 12 The

7

rule requires parties to “narrowly tailor” their requests only to sealable material. 13

8
The motions at issue here were attached to nondispositive discovery motions and so the

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

court applies the lower “good cause” standard in its consideration of the parties’ requests.

11

DN 14
95

Request
Exhibit to Simmons Declaration ISO
Apple’s Motion to Compel Responses
to Interrogatories, Bates Number
SAMNDCA00249929

108

Portions of Apple’s Reply ISO its
Motion to Compel Production of
Documents and Things

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

11

See Civil L.R. 79-5(a).

26

12

Id.

27

13

Id.

28

14

Result
Apple’s request on Samsung’s behalf that the
exhibit be sealed is DENIED. Samsung
failed to file a supporting declaration
indicating what harm it would suffer if the
exhibit were disclosed. The exhibit consists
of an “Expert Analysis and User Research
Draft Report” with analysis of consumers’
opinions of the Galaxy S. The information
contained in the report discusses publicly
available features, and absent a declaration
from Samsung, the court cannot identify
proprietary or trade secret information in the
exhibit.
Because Samsung has not provided to the
court a supporting declaration describing
why the information Apple seeks to remain
sealed should remain confidential, the court
DENIES Apple’s request on Samsung’s
behalf to redact portions of Apple’s reply.
The court notes that although in its motion
Apple states that the proposed redactions
refer to the exhibits listed below, from the
court’s review, at least one of the redactions
involves statements that were part of a
declaration that is not part of Apple’s
request. The court has reviewed the exhibits

“DN” refers to the docket number for each request.
3
Case No: 12-0630 LHK (PSG)
ORDER DENYING SEALING MOTIONS

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
22
23
24
25
26
27

155

below and the references to those exhibits in
Apple’s reply and has not identified anything
obviously proprietary. Absent a declaration
from Samsung describing why the references
should remain confidential, the court finds
sealing inappropriate.
Exhibits to Fedman’s Declaration ISO Apple’s request on Samsung’s behalf that the
of Apple’s Motion to Compel
three exhibits be sealed is DENIED.
Responses to Interrogatories, Bates
Samsung failed to file a supporting
Numbers SAMNDCA00258674-827,
declaration indicating what harm it would
SAMNDCA00380801-896, S-ITCsuffer if the exhibits were disclosed. The
003353288-507
exhibits consist of reports with data
regarding marketing of Samsung products.
From the court’s review of the exhibits,
nothing in them is obviously proprietary and
so absent a declaration from Samsung
describing why they should remain
confidential, the court finds sealing
inappropriate.
Portions of Apple’s May 3, 2012
Apple’s request is DENIED because it is not
Administrative Motion For Leave to
narrowly tailored. The proposed redactions
File Supplemental Declaration
include references to a dispute between
attorneys during a deposition about whether
attorney-client privilege applied and to
Google’s manner for allowing Apple’s expert
to inspect its Android source code. Neither
Apple nor Google has provided a sufficient
showing of particularized harm if this
information were disclosed.
Exhibit A to the Supplemental
Apple’s request on Google’s behalf to seal
Declaration of Emily L. Fedman ISO
the entire exhibit is DENIED because it is
Apple’s Motion to Compel Discovery not a narrowly tailored request. The exhibit
of Documents, Information, or Objects consists of excerpts from a deposition of
from Non-Party Google, Inc.
James Miller (“Miller”), a software engineer
at Google. A majority of the excerpt
contains conversation among counsel
regarding the extent of attorney-client
privilege. The court also finds that neither
Google nor Apple have shown how Miller’s
references to his duties and position would
be harmful if disclosed.
Exhibit B to the Supplemental
Apple’s request on Google’s behalf to seal
Declaration of Emily L. Fedman ISO
the entire exhibit is DENIED because it is
Apple’s Motion to Compel Discovery not narrowly tailored and because Google
of Documents, Information, or Objects does not appear to maintain a claim of
from Non-Party Google, Inc.
confidentiality over the exhibit. The exhibit
consists of an email between Apple’s and
Samsung’s counsel regarding whether
Google provided sufficient means for
Apple’s expert to review the Android source
code. The email contains references to
making the expert wait more than two hours
and whether one or two computers are
necessary. In its declaration supporting

28
4
Case No: 12-0630 LHK (PSG)
ORDER DENYING SEALING MOTIONS

1
2
3
4

167

5

Portions of Samsung’s Motion to
Compel

6
7
8

Exhibits B, C, D, E, F, G, H to the
Fazio Declaration ISO Samsung’s
Motion to Compel

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
15

27
16

28

Apple’s request to seal, Google failed to
address this exhibit.15 Although it is unclear
whether Google intended to withdraw its
claim of confidentiality over this exhibit, it
did not provide a sufficiently particularized
showing of what harm would result if the
exhibit were disclosed.
Because the court finds that none of the
redactions Apple seeks in the exhibits are
supported by a particularized showing of
harm if the information were revealed and
the proposed redactions to the motions are
based on quotes from those exhibits,
Samsung’s request on Apple’s behalf to
redact the motion to compel is DENIED.
Samsung’s requests on Apple’s behalf to
redact Exhibits B through H are DENIED
because Apple has not provided a sufficiently
particularized showing of harm if the
information were revealed.
• Apple seeks redaction of a single line in
Exhibit B that indicates that licensing
agreements exist. The line provides no
details about the agreements or the parties
to the agreements or even what
technology the licenses cover. Apple has
not made a particularized showing of how
an admission that licensing agreements
exist would be detrimental if disclosed.
• Apple likewise seeks redaction of
references to the existence of license
agreements in Exhibit C. Again, these
references provide no details of the
licenses, and again Apple has not made a
particularized showing of how an
admission that licensing agreements exist
would be detrimental if disclosed.
• Apple seeks redaction of references to
licensing agreements with several third
parties in Exhibit D. In this case, the
parties are identified, but again, Apple
has not made a particularized showing of
how the fact that it has licensing
agreements with other companies would
be detrimental if revealed. The
information is also already publicly
available. 16

See Docket No. 172.

See, e.g., Sam Oliver, “Apple licensed scrolling patent to IBM & Nokia, offered to Samsung,”
Apple Insider, Dec. 5, 2011 (available at
5
Case No: 12-0630 LHK (PSG)
ORDER DENYING SEALING MOTIONS

•

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

187

Portions of Samsung’s Reply re
Motion to Compel Further Responses
to Samsung’s Preliminary Injunction
Interrogatory No. 4

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

The information Apple seeks to redact in
Exhibits E, F, G, and H is the same as in
the requests the court already has
described: the existence of licensing
agreements and the identities of the third
parties. The court again finds Apple has
not made a particularized showing of
harm if this information is revealed.
Samsung’s request on Apple’s behalf to
redact portions of its reply brief is DENIED.
Apple seeks redaction of references to
licensing agreements, portions of Judge
Koh’s order noting Apple’s tendency or lack
thereof to license its patents, and references
to offers or negotiations to license the
patents. None of the proposed redactions
provide details about licensing agreements
nor do they reveal critical information about
the terms of the agreements. Apple has not
made a particularized showing of harm that
would result from disclosure of Samsung’s
references to potential licensing agreements.

The parties shall file documents in compliance with this order within fourteen days.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 6, 2013

_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

http://appleinsider.com/articles/11/12/05/apple_licensed_scrolling_patent_to_ibmnokia_offered_to
_samsung).
6
Case No: 12-0630 LHK (PSG)
ORDER DENYING SEALING MOTIONS