Taction Technology, Inc. v. Apple Inc.

Filing 314

ORDER Granting Defendant Apple Inc.'s Unopposed Motions to File Documents Under Seal (ECF Nos. 308 , 309). Signed by Judge Todd W. Robinson on 06/13/2023. (cxl1)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TACTION TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

Case No.: 21-CV-812 TWR (JLB)

Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

APPLE INC.,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
APPLE INC.’S UNOPPOSED
MOTIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS
UNDER SEAL

Defendant.

15

(ECF Nos. 308, 309)

16
17

Presently before the Court is Defendant Apple Inc.’s Unopposed Motion to File

18

Under Seal Portions of Apple’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Daubert Motion to Exclude

19

Opinions of Defendant’s Experts (“Mot. to Seal,” ECF No. 308), in which Apple contends

20

that “[c]ompelling reasons exist to file portions of [its] Opposition and accompanying

21

Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, and 12 under seal.”1 (See id. at 1.) Specifically, “Exhibits

22

1, 10, and 12 contain portions of Apple’s and Taction’s expert reports,” (see ECF No. 308-

23

1 (“Tio Decl.”) ¶ 3), i.e., the Opening Expert Report of Michael Zinn, Ph.D., (see ECF No.

24

309-1 (“Ex. 1”)); the Expert Rebuttal Report of Julie H. Know, CPA, CFA, CFF, (see ECF

25

No. 309-8 (“Ex. 10”)); and the Rebuttal Expert Report of Michael Zinn, Ph.D. (See ECF

26
27
28

1

Specifically, Apple seeks to file under seal Exhibits 2 through 7 in their entirety and only portions of
Apple’s Opposition and Exhibits 1 and 10 through 12. (Compare ECF Nos. 310-1–14 (proposed public
redacted documents), with ECF Nos. 309 (lodged sealed documents).)
1
21-CV-812 TWR (JLB)

1

No. 309-10 (“Ex. 12”).) “Exhibit 11 contains excerpts of the deposition testimony of

2

Apple’s damages expert, Julie Knox,” (Tio Decl. ¶ 4); “Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 are internal

3

technical documents created by Apple,” (Tio Decl. ¶ 5); and “Exhibit 6 is a confidential

4

technical document produced by third party supplied AAC.” (Tio Decl. ¶ 6.) Portions of

5

Apple’s opposition discuss these documents. (See id. ¶¶ 2–6.) Apple maintains that

6

disclosure of these documents would “harm [its] ability to maintain [its and its supplier’s]

7

business and competitive position [in the market].” and/or allow “competitors to obtain and

8

improper business advantage.” (See id. (citing Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S.

9

589, 598 (1978); Orthopaedic Hosp. v. Encore Med., L.P., No. 19-CV-970 JLS (AHG),

10

2021 WL 1966121, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2021)); Mezzadri v. Med. Depot, Inc., No. 14-

11

cv-2330, 2015 WL 12564223, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2015)).)

12

Upon a close review of the proposed redactions, the Court concludes that Apple has

13

demonstrated compelling reasons to file under seal Exhibits 2 through 7 in their entirety

14

and those limited portions of Apple’s opposition and Exhibits 1 and 10 through 12 that

15

have been lodged under seal. See, e.g., Orthopaedic Hosp., 2021 WL 1966121, at *2. The

16

Court therefore GRANTS Apple’s Motion to Seal (ECF No. 308), and the Clerk of Court

17

SHALL FILE UNDER SEAL the documents previously lodged under seal at ECF No.

18

309.

19
20
21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 13, 2023
_____________________________
Honorable Todd W. Robinson
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
2
21-CV-812 TWR (JLB)