Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01375/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01375-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338pt Patent Infringement

---

1

17cv1375 DMS(MDD)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff,

v.

APPLE INCORPORATED,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17cv1375 DMS(MDD)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO 

FILE UNDER SEAL

[Docket Nos. 463, 467, 501, 505, 515, 

519]

APPLE INCORPORATED,

Counter Claimant,

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,

Counter Defendant.

This case comes before the Court on the parties’ motions to file under seal certain 

documents associated with their Daubert motions. Specifically, the parties request that all 

of their briefs be filed under seal, and that certain exhibits in support of the briefs also be 

filed under seal. 

“Courts have long recognized ‘a general right to inspect and copy public records and 

documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Rieckborn v. Velti PLC, No. 13-

Case 3:17-cv-01375-DMS-MDD Document 539 Filed 01/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

17cv1375 DMS(MDD)

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

cv-03889-WHO, 2014 WL 4964313, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2014) (quoting Nixon v. 

Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). However, “[t]his right is not 

absolute. To balance the competing interests of the public’s right of access against 

litigants’ need for confidentiality, a party seeking to file under seal materials related to 

dispositive motions must provide ‘compelling reasons’ to do so.” Id. (quoting Kamakana 

v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). Under this standard, 

“a party seeking to seal materials must ‘articulate compelling reasons supported by specific 

factual findings,’ providing the court with ‘articulable facts’ identifying the particular 

interests favoring secrecy and showing how those interests outweigh the ‘strong 

presumption’ favoring disclosure.” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-81). “In 

general, compelling reasons sufficient to justify sealing exist when the materials ‘might 

have become a vehicle for improper purposes, such as ... to gratify private spite, promote 

public scandal, ... or release trade secrets.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179). 

“‘The 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. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179). 

Here, the parties have provided compelling reasons for filing under seal the exhibits 

submitted in support of their briefs. Accordingly, the Court grants the parties’ motion to 

file the exhibits under seal. 

However, the parties have not provided compelling reasons for filing the briefs 

themselves under seal. Although there may be portions of the briefs that deserve to be filed 

under seal, the briefs, in their entirety, do not warrant that treatment. Accordingly, the 

parties’ motions to file the briefs under seal is denied. Because there is information in the 

briefs that may be entitled to sealing, the Court will temporarily file these documents in 

redacted form to allow the parties a further opportunity to demonstrate there are 

“compelling reasons” for portions of these documents to remain under seal. If the parties

wish to make that showing, they shall file supplemental briefs to that effect on or before 

Case 3:17-cv-01375-DMS-MDD Document 539 Filed 01/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

17cv1375 DMS(MDD)

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

January 25, 2019. If the parties fail to file supplemental briefs by that date, the unredacted 

versions of these documents will be filed and made available to the public.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 18, 2019

Case 3:17-cv-01375-DMS-MDD Document 539 Filed 01/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3