Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-02813/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-02813-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 15:2301 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

---

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

IN RE: MACBOOK KEYBOARD 

LITIGATION

Case No. 18-cv-02813-EJD (VKD)

ORDER TERMINATING DKT. NO. 170; 

GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION TO SEAL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 170, 169

On December 16, 2019, the parties submitted a joint discovery dispute letter concerning 

Rule 30(b)(6) depositions. Dkt. No. 170. After further conference of counsel at the hearing on the 

dispute on January 14, 2020, the parties reached an agreement as to all matters raised in their 

letter. Dkt. No. 179. Accordingly, the Court terminates Dkt. No. 170.

Additionally, in connection with the parties’ joint discovery dispute letter, plaintiffs filed 

an administrative motion to file portions of the letter under seal. Dkt. No. 169. Defendant Apple 

Inc. filed a declaration in support of the request to seal. Dkt. No. 175. Having considered the 

parties’ submissions, the Court grants the administrative motion, as set forth below. 

There is a strong presumption in favor of access by the public to judicial records and 

documents accompanying dispositive motions that can be overcome only by a showing of 

“compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

However, the presumption does not apply equally to a motion addressing matters that are only 

“tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 

1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied sub nom. FCA U.S. LLC v. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 137 S. Ct. 

Case 5:18-cv-02813-EJD Document 183 Filed 01/17/20 Page 1 of 2
2

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

38 (2016). A litigant seeking to seal documents or information in connection with such a motion 

must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Id. at 1098–99; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80.

Plaintiffs’ motion to seal concerns information submitted in connection with a discovery 

dispute. The underlying discovery dispute does not address the merits of the parties’ claims or 

defenses, but rather whether Apple should produce Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses to testify on specific

topics. The material to be sealed is only tangentially related to the merits of the case. The Court 

therefore applies the “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c). 

The Court is skeptical that the portions sought to be sealed warrant sealing. “The mere fact 

that 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.” Kamakana, 447 

F.3d at 1179. However, because the presiding judge has previously granted motions to seal other 

documents containing the same or substantially similar information (Dkt. Nos. 135, 157), and 

because the Court applies only the “good cause” standard to this discovery dispute, the Court 

grants the motion to seal the fifth line of the second full paragraph and the eighth line of the third 

full paragraph on page 4 of the parties’ joint discovery letter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 17, 2020

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:18-cv-02813-EJD Document 183 Filed 01/17/20 Page 2 of 2