Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated

Filing 575

ORDER Granting ( 548 , 566 ) Motions to Seal. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 8/13/18. (dlg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

IN RE: QUALCOMM LITIGATION,

12

Case No. 3:17-cv-0108-GPC-MDD

13

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS
TO SEAL

14

[DKT. NOS. 548, 566]

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Before the Court are various motions to seal portions of Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) and
Dr. Paul Jacobs’s (“Dr. Jacobs”) briefing and exhibits related to Apple’s Objection to the
Nondispositive Pretrial Order of the Magistrate Judge Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.
Dkt. Nos. 548 and 566.
On July 6, 2018, Apple filed a motion seeking to seal the redacted portions of its
Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Order and Exhibit A to the Declaration of Edward
Takashima. Dkt. No. 548. Apple seeks to seal these portions because Qualcomm has
designated those portions as highly confidential. On July 13, 2018, Qualcomm submitted
the Declaration of James W. Carlson in Support of Apple’s Motion to File Under Seal.
1

3:17-cv-0108-GPC-MDD

1

Dkt. No. 559. This Declaration asserts that the redacted portions contain confidential

2

business information with respect to the company’s internal evaluations of its business

3

model and internal organization.

4

On July 24, 2018, Third-Party Dr. Paul Jacobs filed a motion to seal portions of his

5

Opposition to Apple’s Objection and Exhibit 4 to the Declaration of William H. Forman

6

in Support of the Opposition. Dkt. No. 566. Dr. Jacobs similarly seeks to seal these

7

portions of the deposition because Qualcomm asserts that the redacted portions are highly

8

confidential. On July 26, 2018, Qualcomm submitted the Declaration of James W.

9

Carlson in Support of Dr. Jacobs’ Motion to File Under Seal. Dkt. No. 570. The

10

Declaration asserts that these materials contain confidential business information related

11

to Qualcomm’s internal evaluations of its business model and internal organization and

12

include materials already sealed by the prior order of Magistrate Judge Dembin (Dkt. No.

13

537). Dkt. No. 570.

14

No oppositions have been filed. Upon review of the moving papers, the

15

information to be sealed, the applicable law, and for the following reasons, the Court

16

GRANTS each of the motions in their entirety.

17

LEGAL STANDARD

18

There is a presumptive right of public access to court records based upon the

19

common law and the first amendment. See Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S.

20

589, 597 (1978); Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206,

21

1212-13 (9th Cir. 2002). Nonetheless, access may be denied to protect sensitive

22

confidential information. “Unless a particular court record is one traditionally kept

23

secret, a strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City &

24

Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut.

25

Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “In order to overcome this strong

26

presumption, a party seeking to seal a judicial record must articulate justifications for

27

sealing that outweigh the historical right of access and the public policies favoring

28

disclosure.” Id. at 1178-79.
2

3:17-cv-0108-GPC-MDD

1

Parties seeking to seal documents in a dispositive motion must meet the high

2

threshold requiring “compelling reasons” with specific factual findings to support a

3

sealing. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-80. However, for non-dispositive motions, the

4

parties must show a lesser “particularized showing” under the “good cause” standard

5

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Id. at 1180.

6

Discovery motions are typically treated as non-dispositive motions such that the

7

“good cause” standard applies. See Federal Trade Commission v. DIRECTV, Inc., 2016

8

WL 7386133, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2016) (applying “good cause” standard to

9

sanctions motion “[w]here the motion at issue is tangentially related to the underlying

10

cause of action, the party seeking to seal information need only show there is ‘good

11

cause’ to seal the information to protect a party or person from annoyance,

12

embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.”); F.T.C. v. AMG Services, Inc.,

13

2012 WL 3562027, at *1 (D. Nev. Aug. 15, 2012) (stating that Kamakana good cause

14

standard is intended “to exclude documents attached to discovery motions” from the

15

higher compelling reasons standard). A party seeking to seal materials related to non-

16

dispositive motions must show good cause by making a “particularized showing” that

17

“specific prejudice or harm will result” should the information be disclosed. Digital Reg.

18

of Texas, LLC v. Adobe Systems, Inc., 2014 WL 6986068, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10,

19

2014).
Accordingly, the Court will apply the “good cause” standard to the parties’ instant

20
21

requests to seal.
Compelling reasons1 for sealing information exist “when such ‘court files might

22
23

have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify

24

private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade

25

secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). Trade secrets

26
27
In making the below ruling, the Court assumes that any document that meets the “compelling reasons”
standard also meets the lower “good cause” standard under Kamakana.
1

28

3

3:17-cv-0108-GPC-MDD

1

“may consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is used

2

in one’s business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain advantage over

3

competitions who do not know or use it.” Restatement (First) of Torts § 757 cmt. b.

4

Because trade secrets concern proprietary and sensitive business information not

5

available to the public, sealing may be warranted where disclosure would harm a

6

litigant’s competitive standing. Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. The Ninth Circuit has explicitly

7

recognized that compelling reasons exist for the sealing of “pricing terms, royalty rates,

8

and guaranteed minimum payment terms” of license agreements. See In re Elec. Arts,

9

Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008).

10

DISCUSSION

11

The information that the parties seek to seal involves confidential business

12

information, including trade secrets. The Court is satisfied that good cause exists to seal

13

the portions of the briefing and exhibits that discuss Qualcomm’s internal evaluation of

14

its business model and internal organization. See In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x at

15

569 (granting motion to seal pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum

16

payment terms); Federal Trade Commission v. DIRECTV, Inc., 2016 WL 5339797, at *2

17

(N.D. Cal. 2016) (granting motion to seal “sensitive business information regarding

18

Defendant’s development strategy and operations.”).

19

Furthermore, Apple and Dr. Jacobs have narrowly tailored their requests to only

20

redact the portions of the filings and the precise exhibits that implicate such confidential

21

business information. Qualcomm, through the Declarations submitted by Mr. Carlson,

22

has articulated that the information they seek to seal is not available to the public

23

and that the disclosure of such information would harm their competitive standing

24

through the disclosure of commercially sensitive information. See Carlson Declarations,

25

Dkt. Nos. 559, 570. Accordingly, the Court is satisfied that there is a sufficient factual

26

basis to justify concluding that good cause exists for sealing such information and

27

exhibits.

28
4

3:17-cv-0108-GPC-MDD

1

In the light of the aforementioned good cause justifying sealing, the Court

2

GRANTS each of the motions to seal identified by the following table in its entirety.

3
4

ECF No.

5

3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD

6

548

Apple

566

Dr. Jacobs

Movant

7
8
9
10
11
12

Document to be Sealed
Unredacted portions of Apple’s Memorandum of
Points and Authorities in Support of its
Objection to the Nondispositive Pretrial Order of
the Magistrate Judge and Exhibit A to the
Declaration of Edward H. Takashima
Unredacted portions of Dr. Jacobs’ Opposition to
Apple’s Objection to the Nondispositive Pretrial
Order of the Magistrate Judge and Exhibit 4 to
the Declaration of William H. Forman in Support
of the Opposition

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated: August 13, 2018

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5

3:17-cv-0108-GPC-MDD