Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al
Filing
403
Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh granting #239 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal.(lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/19/2013)
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
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.
)
)
20
Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER GRANTING NON-PARTY
GOOGLE INC.’S MOTION TO FILE
DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
Before the Court is Non-Party Google’s motion to seal Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Scott
21
Leslie (“Leslie Exhibit 1”). See ECF No. 239 (“Motion to Seal”) (seeking to seal ECF No. 175,
22
Attach. 6). Google asserts that compelling reasons justify granting its motion to seal. The Court
23
agrees.
24
On May 14, 2012, Apple Inc. (“Apple”) filed an administrative motion to file documents
25
under seal, which sought to protect information designated as confidential by Google, including
26
Leslie Exhibit 1. See ECF No. 175, Attach. 6. On May 21, 2012, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-
27
5(d), Google submitted a declaration explaining the confidentiality of the documents referenced in
28
1
Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER GRANTING NON-PARTY GOOGLE INC.’S MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
1
Apple’s motion. ECF No. 188. On July 18, 2012, the Court denied without prejudice all pending
2
administrative motions to file documents under seal, including Apple’s motion, ruling that “this
3
case merits imposition of the heightened ‘compelling reasons’ standard that governs the sealing of
4
documents attached to dispositive motions or submitted in trial.” ECF No. 238 at 4-5. The Court
5
invited the parties to file renewed motions to seal by July 25, 2012. Id. at 5. Google then filed this
6
motion renewing its request to seal Leslie Exhibit 1.
Historically, courts have recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public records and
8
documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S.
9
589, 597 & n.7 (1978). Unless a particular court record is one traditionally kept secret, a “strong
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
7
presumption in favor of access” is the starting point. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331
11
F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). A party seeking to seal a judicial record then bears the burden of
12
overcoming this strong presumption by meeting the “compelling reasons” standard. Id. That is,
13
the party must “articulate[ ] compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings,” id. (citing
14
San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1102-03 (9th Cir.1999)), that
15
outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the
16
“public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434
17
(9th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
18
The Ninth Circuit has explained that the “strong presumption of access to judicial records
19
applies fully to dispositive pleadings, including motions for summary judgment and related
20
attachments” because “the resolution of a dispute on the merits, whether by trial or summary
21
judgment, is at the heart of the interest in ensuring the “public’s understanding of the judicial
22
process and of significant public events.” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d
23
1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2006). The Ninth Circuit has also carved out an exception to the strong
24
presumption of openness for pre-trial, non-dispositive motions. The Ninth Circuit applies a “good
25
cause” showing to keep sealed records attached to non-dispositive motions. Id. at 1180. Thus the
26
Court applies a two tiered approach: “judicial records attached to dispositive motions [are treated]
27
differently from records attached to non-dispositive motions. Those who seek to maintain the
28
2
Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER GRANTING NON-PARTY GOOGLE INC.’S MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
1
secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of showing that
2
‘compelling reasons’ support secrecy” while a showing of good cause will suffice at earlier stages
3
of litigation. Id.
4
In this case, the Court found that the “compelling reasons” standard applied in light of the
5
late stage of the proceedings in the related case involving the same parties, Apple v. Samsung, Case
6
No. 11-CV-01846-LHK (“the 1846 case”), and “the presumption of openness” applied to all
7
documents rendering “only documents of exceptionally sensitive information that truly deserve
8
protection will be allowed to be redacted or kept from the public.” ECF No. 238 at 4. In addition,
9
the Court noted that, “[a]lthough the instant action has not yet progressed to the same stage of
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
litigation as the 1846 case, . . . the related nature of the two actions, the overlapping discovery in
11
both cases, and the exceptional degree of public interest in these two matters counsel in favor of
12
coordinating sealing practices across both cases.” Id. “Moreover, although Apple’s motion for
13
preliminary injunction and Samsung’s motion to stay are non-dispositive, they cannot fairly be
14
characterized as ‘unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.’” Id.
15
(citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179). To the contrary, the Court concluded that “these motions
16
implicate the very core of Apple’s claims and Apple’s desired relief in bringing suit against
17
Samsung.” Id. Apple’s motion for preliminary injunction is akin to a mini-trial, and its request
18
that the sale of Samsung’s products be enjoined is a matter of enormous public interest. Thus,
19
applying the “compelling reasons” standard is appropriate.
20
Google contends that compelling reasons justify sealing all of Leslie Exhibit 1. Leslie
21
Exhibit 1 is “a ten-page internal Google document that discusses proprietary functionality, reveals
22
internal business strategy and planning, and discloses discussions regarding potential future
23
products, all of which reveal information that is highly confidential and proprietary to Google.”
24
ECF No. 239 at 2. Specifically, Google states that this Exhibit “is a wide-ranging internal
25
discussion that discloses Google’s internal plans, discussion, debates and consideration of various
26
products and alternatives.” Id. Google also notes that, aside from a single line referenced by
27
28
3
Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER GRANTING NON-PARTY GOOGLE INC.’S MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
1
Apple in its Reply Memorandum, “neither Apple nor Samsung asked the Court to consider any
2
portion of Leslie Exhibit 1.” Id.
3
Based upon its review of Leslie Exhibit 1, the Court finds that Google has set forth
4
compelling reasons to justify sealing Leslie Exhibit 1. Thus, Google’s motion to seal is
5
GRANTED.
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8
9
Dated: March 19, 2013
_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge
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
4
Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER GRANTING NON-PARTY GOOGLE INC.’S MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?