Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_11-cv-01846/USCOURTS-cand-5_11-cv-01846-448/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

1

Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART SEALING MOTIONS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

APPLE INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD., 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 

AND DENYING IN PART

SEALING MOTIONS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 3353, 3395, 3400, 3415

Before the Court are administrative motions to seal brought by Plaintiff Apple Inc. 

(“Apple”), ECF Nos. 3400, 3415, and Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung 

Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, 

“Samsung”), ECF Nos. 3353, 3395. The parties seek to seal (1) Apple’s exhibits to the parties’ 

Joint Submission on Proposed Verdict Form, ECF No. 3402; (2) the revised per product/per patent 

damages exhibits of Apple’s damages expert, ECF No. 3400-5; (3) two exhibits filed in 

connection with Samsung’s Motion to Introduce at the Damages Retrial Evidence Created After 

the July 2012 Trial (“Samsung’s Motion to Introduce Evidence”), ECF No. 3352; (4) two exhibits 

and a portion of the brief submitted in connection with Samsung’s Motions in Limine, ECF No. 

Case 5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document 3448 Filed 03/08/16 Page 1 of 6
2

Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART SEALING MOTIONS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

3395-3; and (5) a portion of the brief submitted in connection with Apple’s Opposition to 

Samsung’s Motion in Limine No. 2, ECF No. 3415-3. 

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of 

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 

U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Thus, when considering a sealing request, “a strong presumption in 

favor of access is the starting point.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially 

related to the underlying cause of action,” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 

1099 (9th Cir. 2016), bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons

supported by specific factual findings” that outweigh the general history of access and the public 

policies favoring disclosure. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006). Compelling 

reasons justifying the sealing of court records generally exist “when such ‘court files might have 

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

promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 

(quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). However, “[t]he mere fact that the production of records may 

lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without 

more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id.

Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits 

of a case,” are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 

1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to court 

records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often unrelated, or 

only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 

Parties moving to seal records attached to motions unrelated or only tangentially related to the 

merits of a case must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1098-99; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80. The 

Case 5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document 3448 Filed 03/08/16 Page 2 of 6
3

Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART SEALING MOTIONS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

“good cause” standard requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will 

result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 

(9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific 

examples or articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 

470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).

Pursuant to Rule 26(c), a trial court has broad discretion to permit sealing of court 

documents for, inter alia, the protection of “a trade secret or other confidential research, 

development, or commercial information.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G). The Ninth Circuit has 

adopted the definition of “trade secrets” set forth in the Restatement of Torts, holding that “[a] 

trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is 

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

competitors who do not know or use it.” Clark v. Bunker, 453 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1972) 

(quoting Restatement (First) of Torts § 757 cmt. b). “Generally [a trade secret] relates to the 

production of goods. . . . It may, however, relate to the sale of goods or to other operations in the 

business. . . .” Id. (ellipses in original). Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that 

sealing may be justified to prevent judicial documents from being used “as sources of business 

information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598.

In addition, parties moving to seal documents must comply with the procedures established 

by Civil Local Rule 79-5. Pursuant to that rule, a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request 

that establishes the document is “sealable,” or “privileged, protectable as a trade secret or 

otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” Civ. L. R. 79-5(b). “The request must be 

narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-

5(d).” Id. Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), moreover, requires the submitting party to attach a “proposed 

order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” and that “lists in table format 

each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,” as well as an “unredacted version of 

the document” that “indicate[s], by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the 

Case 5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document 3448 Filed 03/08/16 Page 3 of 6
4

Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART SEALING MOTIONS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

document that have been omitted from the redacted version.” Id. at 79-5(d)(1).

With the exception of Apple’s motion to file under seal two exhibits supporting Apple’s 

proposed verdict form, ECF No. 3400, the parties seek to seal briefing and exhibits filed largely in 

connection with motions in limine or otherwise relating to the admissibility of evidence at trial. In 

a previous appeal in the instant case, the Federal Circuit applied the rule in Kamakana and 

concluded that the “good cause” standard applies to requests to file under seal documents related 

to motions regarding the admissibility of evidence at trial. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 727 

F.3d 1214, 1222–23 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Accordingly, the Court applies the “good cause” standard to 

the instant motions to file under seal, except for Apple’s motion to file under seal two exhibits 

supporting Apple’s proposed verdict form, ECF No. 3400. As to the motion to file under seal two 

exhibits supporting Apple’s proposed verdict form, the Court applies the “compelling reasons” 

standard because Apple’s proposed verdict form is “more than tangentially related to the 

underlying cause of action.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099. 

Furthermore, the Court rules on the instant motions in accordance with the Federal 

Circuit’s prior holding that certain of the financial, licensing, and manufacturing capacity 

information at issue in the instant motions is sealable under both the “good cause” and 

“compelling reasons” standards. Id. at 1226–29.

With the appropriate standards and the Federal Circuit’s guidance in mind, the Court rules 

on the instant motions as follows:

Motion 

to Seal

Standard Document Ruling

3353 Good 

Cause

Exhibit C to the Anderson 

Declaration ISO 

Samsung’s Motion to 

Introduce Evidence, ECF 

Nos. 3353-3 to 3353-5

GRANTED as to the redactions proposed in 

ECF No. 3374-1 to 3374-3.

Case 5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document 3448 Filed 03/08/16 Page 4 of 6
5

Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART SEALING MOTIONS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Motion 

to Seal

Standard Document Ruling

3353 Good 

Cause

Exhibit D to the Anderson 

Declaration ISO 

Samsung’s Motion to 

Introduce Evidence, ECF 

Nos. 3353-6 to 3353-9

GRANTED as to the redactions proposed in 

ECF No. 3374-4 to 3374-7.

3395 Good 

Cause

Samsung’s Motions in 

Limine, ECF No. 3395-3

Exhibit 1 to the Kidman 

Declaration ISO 

Samsung’s Motions in 

Limine, ECF No. 3395-6

Exhibit 2 to the Kidman 

Declaration ISO 

Samsung’s Motions in 

Limine, ECF No. 3395-7

DENIED with prejudice. The Court will not 

seal publicly available information, including 

information the parties have themselves filed 

publicly in the instant case. See ECF No. 3428 

(Samsung’s public version of its Motions in 

Limine, Exhibit 1 to the Kidman Declaration, 

and Exhibit 2 to the Kidman Declaration); see 

also ECF No. 3412 (Declaration of Mark 

Selwyn, which states that “Apple does not 

maintain a claim of confidentiality” with 

respect to these documents).

3400 Good 

Cause

Revised per product/per 

patent exhibits of Apple’s 

damages expert, ECF No. 

3340-5

GRANTED as to the redactions proposed in 

ECF No. 3435.

3400 Compelling 

Reasons

Exhibit 1 to the Olson 

Declaration ISO Joint 

Statement on Proposed 

Verdict Forms, ECF No. 

3340-3

DENIED with prejudice. The parties have not 

submitted declarations providing compelling 

reasons to seal the information contained in 

this exhibit. See ECF No. 3400-1 (Declaration 

of Mary Prendergast, which states that sealing 

is sought for this exhibit only because it “may 

contain information that Samsung considers 

confidential”); ECF No. 3413 (Declaration of 

Scott Kidman, which states that “Samsung 

does not maintain a claim of confidentiality 

over Exhibit 1 or Exhibit 2 to the Declaration 

of Erik Olson in support of Joint Statement on 

Proposed Verdict Form”).

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f), the 

parties shall file this document publicly within 

7 days.

Case 5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document 3448 Filed 03/08/16 Page 5 of 6
6

Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART SEALING MOTIONS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Motion 

to Seal

Standard Document Ruling

3400 Compelling 

Reasons

Exhibit 2 to the Olson 

Declaration ISO Joint 

Statement on Proposed 

Verdict Forms, ECF No. 

3340-4

DENIED with prejudice. The parties have not 

submitted declarations providing compelling 

reasons to seal the information contained in 

this exhibit. See ECF No. 3400-1 (Declaration 

of Mary Prendergast, which states that sealing 

is sought for this exhibit only because it “may 

contain information that Samsung considers 

confidential”); ECF No. 3413 (Declaration of 

Scott Kidman, which states that “Samsung 

does not maintain a claim of confidentiality 

over Exhibit 1 or Exhibit 2 to the Declaration 

of Erik Olson in support of Joint Statement on 

Proposed Verdict Form”).

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f), the 

parties shall file this document publicly within 

7 days.

3415 Good 

Cause

Apple’s Opposition to 

Samsung’s Motion in 

Limine No. 2, ECF No. 

3415-3 

GRANTED as to the redactions proposed in 

ECF No. 3415-3.

The Court notes that Apple has not filed a 

public, redacted version of this document 

consistent with the redactions proposed in ECF 

No. 3415-3. Apple shall file a public, redacted 

version of this document within 7 days.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 8, 2016

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document 3448 Filed 03/08/16 Page 6 of 6