Apple Inc. v. Rivos, Inc. et al

Filing 292

SEALING ORDER granting in part and denying in part #254 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part #255 Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed; denying #275 Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed. Signed by Judge P. Casey Pitts on 10/18/2023. (nmc, COURT USER) (Filed on 10/18/2023)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

APPLE INC.,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 22-cv-02637-PCP
SEALING ORDER

v.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 254, 255, 275
RIVOS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

Before the Court are three administrative sealing motions. First, Apple seeks to seal

14

portions of its Third Amended Complaint containing its own confidential information. Dkt. No.

15

254. Second, Apple seeks to seal portions of the same document that Defendants have designated

16

as confidential. Dkt. No. 255. Defendants, however, do not seek to seal any portion of that

17

document. Dkt. No. 262. Third, Defendants seek to seal portions of their Answer to Apple’s Third

18

Amended Complaint as well as their Counterclaims and a corresponding exhibit. Dkt. No. 275.

19

Apple supports sealing some but not all of this information. Dkt. No. 278.

20

There is a “strong presumption in favor of access” of court records. Kamakana v. City &

21

Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). A party who wishes to seal a court record

22

“must articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings … that outweigh the

23

general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Id. at 1178–79 (cleaned up).

24

“Under this stringent standard,” the Court must “conscientiously balance the competing interests

25

of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” Ctr. for Auto Safety

26

v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096–97 (9th Cir. 2016). Under Civil Local Rule 79-

27

5(c)(1) and (f)(3), the party seeking to seal must provide “a specific statement” of the reasons for

28

doing so, explaining the interests that warrant sealing and the injury that will otherwise result.

1
2

sealed, the claimed bases for sealing, and the applicable legal standards and presumption in favor

3

of access, the administrative sealing motions are granted as to the following portions:

4

•

Complaint (Dkt. No. 254-3): yellow/blue highlights, except in paragraph 181

5

•

Exhibit G (Redline) (254-4): yellow/blue highlights, except in paragraph CLXXXI

6
7
8

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Upon review of the motions, the portions of the submitted documents proposed to be

These requests are narrowly tailored to sufficiently identified sealable material.
The motions to seal another party’s material are denied as to the following portions
because the party whose material is at issue does not in fact seek to have it sealed:

9

•

Complaint (254-3): green highlights

10

•

Exhibit G (Redline) (254-4): green highlights

11

•

Answer (275-2): all highlights

12

•

Counterclaims (275-3): highlights in paragraph 24

13

The motions to seal Apple’s material are denied as to the remaining portions listed below, because

14

Apple’s motion and declaration in support of sealing these portions does not establish a basis for

15

sealing them that outweighs the “strong presumption in favor of access” of court records:

16

•

Complaint (254-3): highlights in paragraph 181

17

•

Exhibit G (Redline) (254-4): highlights in paragraph CLXXXI

18

•

Counterclaims (275-3): highlights in paragraphs 38 and 42

19

•

Exhibit A (275-4): entire document

20

Within 14 days of the entry of this order, but no sooner than seven days after entry, the

21

parties shall file each of these documents, properly redacted in accordance with this order, on the

22

public docket. Apple may, if it chooses, submit a revised declaration in support of sealing

23

paragraph 181 of its Third Amended Complaint and the accompanying redline version, as well as

24

paragraphs 38 and 42 of Defendants’ Counterclaims (Dkt. No. 275-3) and the accompanying

25

Exhibit A (275-4), within five days of this order. Should Apple submit a revised declaration,

26

Defendants shall refrain from filing the material at issue on the public docket until the Court has

27

issued a further ruling on Apple’s request to seal that material.

28
2

1
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 18, 2023

3
P. Casey Pitts
United States District Judge

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3