Kannan v. Apple Inc.

Filing 216

Order by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi granting in part and denying in part 180 185 188 194 199 205 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

RAJA KANNAN,
Plaintiff,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Case No. 17-cv-07305-EJD (VKD)
OMNIBUS ORDER GRANTING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO
SEAL

v.
APPLE INC.,
Defendant.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 180, 185, 188, 194, 199, 205

13
14

In connection with the parties’ various discovery disputes (Dkt. Nos. 179, 184, 187, 193,

15

198, 204), the parties filed administrative motions to file certain documents under seal. Dkt. Nos.

16

180, 185, 188, 194, 199, 205. Having considered those motions, the Court grants in part and

17

denies in part the administrative motions, as set forth below.

18

There is a strong presumption in favor of access by the public to judicial records and

19

documents accompanying dispositive motions that can be overcome only by a showing of

20

“compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of

21

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

22

However, the presumption does not apply equally to a motion addressing matters that are only

23

“tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d

24

1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied sub nom. FCA U.S. LLC v. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 137 S. Ct.

25

38 (2016). A litigant seeking to seal documents or information in connection with such a motion

26

must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

27

Id. at 1098–99; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80.

28

The parties’ respective motions to seal concern matters that are before the Court in

1

connection with the parties’ production of documents and deposition testimony. The underlying

2

motion papers do not address the merits of the parties’ claims or defenses, but rather whether the

3

parties have produced discovery as required under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this

4

Court’s discovery orders. The Court therefore applies the “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c).

5

Most of the material proposed to be filed under seal constitutes defendant Apple Inc.’s

6

(“Apple”) employee-specific compensation and performance information, as well as plaintiff Raja

7

Kannan’s personal information. Apple represents that this material is confidential or highly

8

confidential proprietary business information that, if disclosed to the public, would cause

9

competitive harm to Apple, and that much of the information also includes private personal

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

information of its employees. Dkt. Nos. 185, 194, 205, 212, 213, 214.
Mr. Kannan did not provide support for some of the material proposed to be sealed as

12

required under Local Rule 79-5(e)(1). In particular, Mr. Kannan designated as confidential

13

Exhibits B-F of the parties’ joint discovery letter concerning production of documents reflecting

14

Mr. Kannan’s software application development (Dkt. No. 184), but he did not provide a

15

declaration supporting their sealing. Dkt. No. 185 at 3–4. Nevertheless, the Court finds that

16

Exhibits B, D, and E contain private, personal information of Mr. Kannan, such as his and his

17

family’s personal contact information, and good cause therefore exists to seal that information.

18

However, Exhibits C and F do not appear to contain any confidential information, and Mr. Kannan

19

has made no showing that they do. The Court concludes that Mr. Kannan has not shown good

20

cause to seal Exhibit C and F to the joint discovery letter at Dkt. No. 184.

21

Accordingly, the Court resolves the administrative motions to seal as follows:

22
23

Document

24

Joint Discovery Letter Brief re Compensation
Information (Dkt. No. 179)

Exhibits B-K in their entirety

Joint Discovery Letter Brief re Plaintiff’s
Production of Documents Related to His App
Development and His Family’s Time in India
(Dkt. No. 184)

Exhibits B, D, E, J in their entirety

25
26
27
28

Portions to be Sealed

2

1
2

Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion for
Reconsideration (Dkt. No. 187)

Exhibits A-E in their entirety

Apple’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s
Administrative Motion for Reconsideration
(Dkt. No. 193)

Exhibits B-F in their entirety

Joint Discovery Letter Brief re AEO
Designations (Dkt. No. 198)

Exhibits B-K in their entirety

Apple’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s
Administrative Motion for Discovery Ruling
(Dkt. No. 204)

Exhibit K, pgs. 8-23
Exhibit P in its entirety

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(2), Apple shall file Exhibits C and F to the parties’

13

joint discovery letter at Dkt. No. 184 no earlier than November 26, 2019 and no later than

14

December 2, 2019.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 22, 2019

17
18
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3