DSS Technology Management, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DSS TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT, Case No. 14-cv-05330-HSG INC., 8 ORDER ON MOTIONS TO SEAL Plaintiff, 9 Re: Dkt. No. 428 v. 10 APPLE, INC., 11 Defendant. 12 13 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff DSS Technology Management Inc. and Defendant 14 Apple, Inc.’s renewed motion to seal. See Dkt. No. 428. For the reasons detailed below, the Court 15 GRANTS the motion. 16 I. LEGAL STANDARD 17 Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 18 documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana 19 v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the 20 common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records 21 and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of 22 access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this 23 strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion 24 must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 25 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in 26 understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations 27 omitted). 1 Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 2 Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only 3 tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” Id. at 1179–80 (quotation omitted). This 4 requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information 5 is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th 6 Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific 7 examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 8 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted). 9 Because the parties move to file documents related to nondispositive motions, the Court 10 will apply the lower good cause standard. 11 II. ANALYSIS 12 The parties have provided good cause for sealing portions of the various documents listed 13 below because they contain confidential business and proprietary information relating to the 14 operations of Defendant. See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 15 2012 WL 6115623 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2012); see also Agency Solutions.Com, LLC v. TriZetto 16 Group, Inc., 819 F. Supp. 2d 1001, 1017 (E.D. Cal. 2011); Linex Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard 17 Co., No. C 13-159 CW, 2014 WL 6901744 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2014). The Court originally denied 18 the parties’ motions to seal the entirety of the exhibits as the request was not narrowly tailored. 19 The parties have now tailored the request to conceal only the information regarding the identity 20 and operations of third party supplied components in Apple’s products or containing confidential 21 information regarding the operations of source code for Apple’s products. The parties have 22 identified portions of the unredacted versions of motions and exhibits as containing confidential 23 and proprietary business information, and the Court finds good cause to grant the motion to seal. 24 III. CONCLUSION 25 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the parties’ renewed motion to seal. The following 26 portions of exhibits shall remain sealed: 27 1. Exhibits 11, 25, 26, 27 and 29 to DSS’ Administrative Motion to Seal DSS’ Motion 1 30/(213-15, 214-11, 214-12, 214-13, 214-15)), 2 2. Exhibit K to Apple’s Opposition to DSS’ Motion to Amend Infringement 3 Contentions and Cross-Motion to Strike Expert Report (Dkt. 220-12/(219-16)), 4 3. Exhibit 2 to DSS’ Opposition to Apple’s Cross-Motion to Strike Expert Report 5 (Dkt. 234-3/(233-8)) 6 4. Exhibits 4 and 36 to DSS’ Reply ISO Motion to Amend Infringement Contentions 7 (Dkt. 232-5, 232-37/(231-9, 231-41)). 8 Redacted versions of these documents, consistent with this order, are available at Dkt. No. 428. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 || Dated: 1/30/2020 a (12 7 Haspucerd Lh, b. HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 13 United States District Judge 15 16 it 4 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28