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