In Re: MacBook Keyboard Litigation

Filing 183

Order by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi terminating #170 Joint Discovery Letter Brief re 30(b)(6) Depositions; granting #169 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/17/2020)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
Case No. 18-cv-02813-EJD (VKD)

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IN RE: MACBOOK KEYBOARD
LITIGATION

ORDER TERMINATING DKT. NO. 170;
GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 170, 169

12
13
14

On December 16, 2019, the parties submitted a joint discovery dispute letter concerning

15

Rule 30(b)(6) depositions. Dkt. No. 170. After further conference of counsel at the hearing on the

16

dispute on January 14, 2020, the parties reached an agreement as to all matters raised in their

17

letter. Dkt. No. 179. Accordingly, the Court terminates Dkt. No. 170.

18

Additionally, in connection with the parties’ joint discovery dispute letter, plaintiffs filed

19

an administrative motion to file portions of the letter under seal. Dkt. No. 169. Defendant Apple

20

Inc. filed a declaration in support of the request to seal. Dkt. No. 175. Having considered the

21

parties’ submissions, the Court grants the administrative motion, as set forth below.

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

Plaintiffs’ motion to seal concerns information submitted in connection with a discovery

5

dispute. The underlying discovery dispute does not address the merits of the parties’ claims or

6

defenses, but rather whether Apple should produce Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses to testify on specific

7

topics. The material to be sealed is only tangentially related to the merits of the case. The Court

8

therefore applies the “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c).

9

The Court is skeptical that the portions sought to be sealed warrant sealing. “The mere fact
that production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Kamakana, 447

12

F.3d at 1179. However, because the presiding judge has previously granted motions to seal other

13

documents containing the same or substantially similar information (Dkt. Nos. 135, 157), and

14

because the Court applies only the “good cause” standard to this discovery dispute, the Court

15

grants the motion to seal the fifth line of the second full paragraph and the eighth line of the third

16

full paragraph on page 4 of the parties’ joint discovery letter.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 17, 2020

19
20
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI
United States Magistrate Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2