Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 120

ORDER on Motions to File Under Seal. Motions DE 97 , 99 are denied. The Clerk is instructed to return DE#'s 97-100 under seal back to the filing parties. Signed by Judge Ursula Ungaro on 9/27/2011. (asl) Modified docket text per Chambers on 9/29/2011 (nc).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No.10-23580-Civ-UU
MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
APPLE INC.,
Defendant.
________________________________________/
ORDER ON MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff Apple
Inc.’s (“Apple”) Motion to File Under Seal (D.E. 97) and Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant
Motorola Mobility, Inc.’s (“Motorola”) Motion to File Under Seal (D.E. 99).
THE COURT has considered the pertinent portions of the record and is otherwise fully
advised in the premises. In the instant motions, Apple and Motorola seek to file under seal on
the grounds that the briefs and supporting exhibits in question contain confidential business
information.
As the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has held: “The operation of the courts and the
judicial conduct of judges are matters of utmost public concern and the common-law right of
access to judicial proceedings, an essential component of our system of justice, is instrumental in
securing the integrity of the process.” Romero v. Drummond Co., 480 F.3d 1234, 1245 (11th
Cir.2007) (internal citations omitted). Moreover, the Eleventh Circuit has explained that “[o]nce
a matter is brought before a court for resolution, it is no longer solely the parties’ case, but is also

the public’s case .” Brown v. Advantage Eng’g Inc., 960 F.2d 1013, 1016 (11th Cir. 1992). The
public’s right of access is not absolute, but may only be overcome by a showing of good cause.
Id.
Here, Apple asserts that its claim construction brief contains two paragraphs that disclose
“highly confidential, proprietary information regarding Apple’s business practices.” (D.E. 97).
Similarly, Motorola states that its responsive brief on claim construction “discloses confidential,
proprietary information regarding Apple’s business practices.” Motorola’s instant motion
explains that the allegedly confidential information indeed concerns Apple, not Motorola, and
has been designated confidential by Apple. (D.E. 99).
The parties’ conclusory claims as to the nature of the information that each seeks to keep
from the public record is insufficient. This Court strongly respects the presumption in favor of
open courts and will not shield claims construction briefs from disclosure without particularly
good cause. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motions (D.E. 97, 99) are DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 27th day of September,
2011.
______________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
copies provided: counsel of record