GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc.

Filing 208

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL by Judge Paul S. Grewal denying 118 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 122 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 140 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 147 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 159 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (psglc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/14/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

SAN JOSE DIVISION

12

GPNE CORP.,

17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

18

Before the court are five administrative motions to seal 44 documents, including such

13

Plaintiff,
v.

14
15

APPLE INC.,

16

Defendant.

Case No. 5:12-cv-2885-LHK (PSG)
ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL
(Re: Docket Nos. 118, 122, 140, 147, 159)

19

industry secrets as, “This deposition is taking place at 500 Arguello Street in Palo Alto, California

20

on October 29th, 2013 at 9:50,” “What is your current position at Apple?” and “Good morning.”

21
22

Other gems include the identity of a Rule 30(b)(6) witness and the fact that one or more of the
accused mobile devices uses a baseband processor. “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general

23
24
25

right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and
documents.’” 1 Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong presumption in favor

26
27
1

28

Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)
(quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)).
1
Case No.: 5:12-cv-2885-LHK (PSG)
ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL

1

of access’ is the starting point.” 2 Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to dispositive

2

motions bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh

3

the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure. 3

4
5
6
7
8
9

However, “while protecting the public's interest in access to the courts, we must remain
mindful of the parties' right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm
their competitive interest.” 4 Records attached to nondispositive motions therefore are not subject
to the strong presumption of access. 5 Because the documents attached to nondispositive motions
“are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,” parties moving

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

to seal must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c). 6 As with dispositive motions, the

11

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

12

prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. 8 “Broad allegations of harm,

13

unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. 9 A protective order

14
sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court’s previous determination that good
15
16

cause exists to keep the documents sealed, 10 but a blanket protective order that allows the parties to

17
18
19

2

Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)).

20

3

Id. at 1178-79.

21

4

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228-29 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

22

5

See id. at 1180.

23

6

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

24

7

Id.

25

8

26

Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002);
see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

9

27

Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).

10

28

See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80.
2

Case No.: 5:12-cv-2885-LHK (PSG)
ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL

1
2

designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine whether
each particular document should remain sealed. 11
In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal

3
4
5
6

documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to
Civ. L.R. 79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document
is “sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under

7
8
9

the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and
must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” 12 “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection

11

79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” 13

12
13
14

With these standards in mind, the courts rules on the instant motions as follows:
Motion
to Seal
118

15
16

118

17
18
19

118

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

28

GPNE’s Motion To
Compel Baseband Logs
And Rule 30(B)(6)
Testimony And Sanctions
Exhibit M To The Hartsell
Hartsell Declaration ISO
Plaintiff’s Motion To
Compel Baseband Logs
And Rule 30(B)(6)
Testimony And Sanctions
Exhibit N To The Hartsell
Hartsell Declaration ISO

Result

Reason/Explanation

UNSEALED

No declaration timely
filed

UNSEALED

No declaration timely
filed

UNSEALED

No declaration timely
filed

11

See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) (“Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to
designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or
portions thereof, are sealable.”).
12

Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the submitting party to attach a “proposed
order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” which “lists in table format each
document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an
“unreadacted version of the document” that indicates “by highlighting or other clear method, the
portions of the document that have been omitted from the redacted version.”
Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d).
13

27

Document to be Sealed

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). The Civil Local Rules have recently been amended shortening the time
available to the designating party to file a supporting declaration from seven days to four days. As
this rule change was only recently implemented the court applies the prior form of Civ. L.R. 79-5
for the purposes of this order.
3
Case No.: 5:12-cv-2885-LHK (PSG)
ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL

1
2
3

122

4
5

122

6
7
8

122

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

122

12
13
14

122

15
16
17

122

18
19
20

122

21
22
23

140

24
25
26
27
28

140

Plaintiff’s Motion To
Compel Baseband Logs
And Rule 30(B)(6)
Testimony And Sanctions
GPNE’s Motion To
Compel Supplemental
Responses To Its First
Request For Production Of
Documents
Exhibit C to the Muniz
Declaration ISO GPNE’s
Motion To Compel
Supplemental Responses
To Its First Request For
Production Of Documents
Exhibit D to the Muniz
Declaration ISO GPNE’s
Motion To Compel
Supplemental Responses
To Its First Request For
Production Of Documents
Exhibit E to the Muniz
Declaration ISO GPNE’s
Motion To Compel
Supplemental Responses
To Its First Request For
Production Of Documents
Exhibit F to the Muniz
Declaration ISO GPNE’s
Motion To Compel
Supplemental Responses
To Its First Request For
Production Of Documents
Exhibit G to the Muniz
Declaration ISO GPNE’s
Motion To Compel
Supplemental Responses
To Its First Request For
Production Of Documents
Exhibit H to the Muniz
Declaration ISO GPNE’s
Motion To Compel
Supplemental Responses
To Its First Request For
Production Of Documents
Apple’s Opposition to
GPNE’s Motion to Compel
Baseband Logs And Rule
30(B)(6) Testimony And
Sanctions
Green Declaration ISO
Apple’s Opposition to
GPNE’s Motion to Compel
Baseband Logs And Rule
30(B)(6) Testimony And

UNSEALED

Not narrowly tailored
to confidential
business information

UNSEALED

Not narrowly tailored
to confidential
business information

UNSEALED

Not narrowly tailored
to confidential
business information

UNSEALED

Not narrowly tailored
to confidential
business information

UNSEALED

Not narrowly tailored
to confidential
business information

UNSEALED

Not narrowly tailored
to confidential
business information

UNSEALED

Not narrowly tailored
to confidential
business information

UNSEALED

Not narrowly tailored
to confidential
business information

UNSEALED

Not narrowly tailored
to confidential
business information

4
Case No.: 5:12-cv-2885-LHK (PSG)
ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL

1

140

2
3
4
5

140

6
7
8

140

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

140

13
14
15

140

16
17
18
19

140

20
21
22

140

23
24
25
26
27
28

140

Sanctions
Exhibit A to Green
Declaration ISO Apple’s
Opposition to GPNE’s
Motion to Compel
Baseband Logs And Rule
30(B)(6) Testimony And
Sanctions
Exhibit E to Green
Declaration ISO Apple’s
Opposition to GPNE’s
Motion to Compel
Baseband Logs And Rule
30(B)(6) Testimony And
Sanctions
Exhibit F to Green
Declaration ISO Apple’s
Opposition to GPNE’s
Motion to Compel
Baseband Logs And Rule
30(B)(6) Testimony And
Sanctions
Exhibit G to Green
Declaration ISO Apple’s
Opposition to GPNE’s
Motion to Compel
Baseband Logs And Rule
30(B)(6) Testimony And
Sanctions
Exhibit H to Green
Declaration ISO Apple’s
Opposition to GPNE’s
Motion to Compel
Baseband Logs And Rule
30(B)(6) Testimony And
Sanctions
Exhibit I to Green
Declaration ISO Apple’s
Opposition to GPNE’s
Motion to Compel
Baseband Logs And Rule
30(B)(6) Testimony And
Sanctions
Exhibit J to Green
Declaration ISO Apple’s
Opposition to GPNE’s
Motion to Compel
Baseband Logs And Rule
30(B)(6) Testimony And
Sanctions
Exhibit O to Green
Declaration ISO Apple’s
Opposition to GPNE’s
Motion to Compel
Baseband Logs And Rule

UNSEALED

No declaration filed

UNSEALED

Not narrowly tailored
to confidential
business information

UNSEALED

Not narrowly tailored
to confidential
business information

UNSEALED

Not narrowly tailored
to confidential
business information

SEALED

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information

SEALED

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information

SEALED

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information

SEALED

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information

5
Case No.: 5:12-cv-2885-LHK (PSG)
ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL

1
2

140

3
4
5

140

6
7
8
9

140

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

140

13
14
15
16

147

17
18

147

19
20
21

147

22
23
24

147

25
26
27
28

147

30(B)(6) Testimony And
Sanctions
Exhibit S to Green
Declaration ISO Apple’s
Opposition to GPNE’s
Motion to Compel
Baseband Logs And Rule
30(B)(6) Testimony And
Sanctions
Exhibit T to Green
Declaration ISO Apple’s
Opposition to GPNE’s
Motion to Compel
Baseband Logs And Rule
30(B)(6) Testimony And
Sanctions
Exhibit V to Green
Declaration ISO Apple’s
Opposition to GPNE’s
Motion to Compel
Baseband Logs And Rule
30(B)(6) Testimony And
Sanctions
Exhibit Y to Green
Declaration ISO Apple’s
Opposition to GPNE’s
Motion to Compel
Baseband Logs And Rule
30(B)(6) Testimony And
Sanctions
GPNE’s Reply ISO its
Motion to Compel
Baseband Logs And Rule
30(B)(6) Testimony And
Sanctions
Birkett Declaration ISO
GPNE’s Reply ISO its
Motion to Compel
Baseband Logs And Rule
30(B)(6) Testimony And
Sanctions
Exhibit D to Birkett
Declaration ISO GPNE’s
Reply ISO its Motion to
Compel Baseband Logs
And Rule 30(B)(6)
Testimony And Sanctions
Exhibit E to Birkett
Declaration ISO GPNE’s
Reply ISO its Motion to
Compel Baseband Logs
And Rule 30(B)(6)
Testimony And Sanctions
Exhibit G to Birkett
Declaration ISO GPNE’s

UNSEALED

No declaration
submitted

UNSEALED

No declaration
submitted

SEALED

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information

SEALED

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information

UNSEALED

Not narrowly tailored
to confidential
business information

UNSEALED

Not narrowly tailored
to confidential
business information

UNSEALED

Not narrowly tailored
to confidential
business information

UNSEALED

Not narrowly tailored
to confidential
business information

UNSEALED

Not narrowly tailored
to confidential

6
Case No.: 5:12-cv-2885-LHK (PSG)
ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL

1
2
3

147

4
5
6

147

7
8
9

147

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

159

13
14
15
16

159

Reply ISO its Motion to
Compel Baseband Logs
And Rule 30(B)(6)
Testimony And Sanctions
Exhibit H to Birkett
Declaration ISO GPNE’s
Reply ISO its Motion to
Compel Baseband Logs
And Rule 30(B)(6)
Testimony And Sanctions
Exhibit I to Birkett
Declaration ISO GPNE’s
Reply ISO its Motion to
Compel Baseband Logs
And Rule 30(B)(6)
Testimony And Sanctions
Bumgardner Declaration
ISO GPNE’s Reply ISO its
Motion to Compel
Baseband Logs And Rule
30(B)(6) Testimony And
Sanctions
Exhibit 1 to Apple’s
Administrative Motion for
Leave to File a Sur-Reply
in Opposition to GPNE’s
Motion to Compel
Exhibit 4 to Apple’s
Administrative Motion for
Leave to File a Sur-Reply
in Opposition to GPNE’s
Motion to Compel

business information

SEALED

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information

SEALED

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information

UNSEALED

Not narrowly tailored
to confidential
business information

UNSEALED

Not narrowly tailored
to confidential
business information

SEALED

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

Dated: March 14, 2014

20

_________________________________

21

PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

7
Case No.: 5:12-cv-2885-LHK (PSG)
ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL