Shunock v. Apple, Inc.
Filing
103
ORDER granting 89 Letter Motion to Seal Request GRANTED. The Court finds that the proposed redactions are sufficiently narrowly tailored to balance the common law right of public access against Apple's countervailing interest in protecting it s confidential business information. The parties shall file on the docket (1) a publicly available redacted version of Dkt. 89-1 and (2) an unredacted version of Dkt. 89-1 under seal with the redactions highlighted. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Jennifer L. Rochon on 1/28/2025) (jca)
January 27, 2025
The Honorable Jennifer L. Rochon
United States District Judge
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007-1312
Re:
Mark D. Selwyn
+1 650 858 6031 (t)
+1 650 858 6100 (f)
mark.selwyn@wilmerhale.com
Shunock v. Apple Inc., C.A. No. 1:23-cv-08598-JLR (S.D.N.Y.)
Dear Judge Rochon:
I write on behalf of Apple Inc. in the above-referenced case and in response to Dkt. 95, which
requires the submission of a letter brief explaining why the sealing of Plaintiff’s Markman Hearing
Presentation slides at Dkt. 89-1 is justified.1 Apple agrees that the overwhelming majority of the
slides in Plaintiff’s Markman Presentation contain no confidential information and should be made
public. However, Apple respectfully requests that three slides—43-44 (pages 45-46 of 86 in Dkt.
91-1) and portions of 45 (page 47 of 86 in Dkt. 91-1)—remain under seal. These slides were not
germane to any reasoning in the Court’s Markman decision, and they contain early design
iterations for Apple Activity rings that Apple has kept confidential. Apple has attached its
proposed redacted version of the slides as Exhibit A to this letter.
A court has “considerable discretion in determining whether good cause exists to overcome the
presumption of open access to documents.” Geller v. Branic Int’l Realty Corp., 212 F.3d 734, 738
(2d Cir. 2000). “[T]he presumption of public access is lower” where, as here, a “non-dispositive”
motion is at issue, CBF Industria de Gusa S/A v. AMCI Holdings, Inc., No. 13CV2581PKCJLC, 2021
WL 4135007, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2021), and a “court must ‘balance competing considerations
against’” the presumption of access, Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir.
2006) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995)). “Established factors and
values that can outweigh the presumption of public access include legal privilege, business secrecy,
and privacy interests.” CBF Industria, 2021 WL 4135007, at *3. In this case, the three slides are
wholly irrelevant to claim construction, and the Court appropriately did not cite or discuss anything in
the slides as part of the Markman decision.
The slides that Apple seeks to seal contain highly confidential information that is not publicly
available and would reveal aspects of Apple’s confidential design process for Activity rings. As
Jay Blahnik, Apple’s Vice President of Fitness Technologies, recently explained at his January
1
Your Honor directed Plaintiff to submit this letter, but since the information at issue belongs to Apple, the parties
agree that it would be appropriate for Apple to respond rather than Plaintiff. Plaintiff has informed Apple that he
plans to take no position on whether slides 43-45 should remain sealed.
January 27, 2025
Page 2
14, 2024 deposition, the Watch design process related to the fitness experience was confidential
and kept to a small group of people.
Given the highly confidential nature of Apple’s design process, the “business secrecy” interest at
issue outweighs the presumption of public access, particularly given the very limited nature of the
redactions and the irrelevance of the slides to the Markman decision. See CBF Industria, 2021 WL
4135007, at *3; Skyline Steel, LLC v. PilePro, LLC, 101 F. Supp. 3d 394, 412-13 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)
(finding “sufficient basis to justify” sealing exhibits that contained “‘highly confidential sales
information, … ’ which is not available to the public, and emails revealing confidential negotiations”),
reconsidered in part on other grounds, No. 13-CV-8171 JMF, 2015 WL 3739276 (S.D.N.Y. June 15,
2015). Courts in this District have found it appropriate to seal information that is similarly “limited to
specific business information and strategies, which, if revealed, ‘may provide valuable insights into a
company’s current business practices that a competitor would seek to exploit.’” E.g., Louis Vuitton
Malletier S.A. v. Sunny Merch. Corp., 97 F. Supp. 3d 485, 511 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (holding redactions
“relate[d] to confidential business information” were justified).
Accordingly, Apple respectfully requests that the Court grant its motion to seal slides 43-44 (pages
45-46 of 86) and portions of slide 45 (page 47 of 86) of Dkt. 89-1, consistent with the redactions
in Exhibit A filed with this letter. Apple has no objection to the remainder of Plaintiff’s Markman
Slide Presentation being filed on the public docket.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Mark D. Selwyn
Mark D. Selwyn
Counsel for Apple Inc.
Request GRANTED. The Court finds that the proposed redactions are
sufficiently narrowly tailored to balance the common law right of public
access against Apple's countervailing interest in protecting its confidential
business information. The parties shall file on the docket (1) a publicly
available redacted version of Dkt. 89-1 and (2) an unredacted version of
Dkt. 89-1 under seal with the redactions highlighted.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 28, 2025
New York, New York
JENNIFER L. ROCHON
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?