Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-01235/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-01235-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Apple, Inc
Counter-claimant
Intertrust Technologies Corporation
Counter-claimant

Document Text:

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

INTERTRUST TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

APPLE INC., 

 Defendant. 

Case No.: 13-CV-1235 YGR

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO AMEND INFRINGEMENT 

CONTENTIONS; DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION TO SEAL

Now before the Court are two motions: (1) the Motion of Plaintiff Intertrust Technology 

Corporation for Leave to Amend Its Infringement Contentions (Dkt. No. 47-3 ("Motion for Leave 

to Amend")), noticed for hearing on January 7, 2014, and (2) an Administrative Motion to Seal 

exhibits filed in support of the Motion for Leave to Amend (Dkt. No. 47 ("Motion to Seal"). 

Intertrust filed its Motion for Leave to Amend on December 3, 2013, as an exhibit to the Motion to 

Seal.1

 On December 17, 2013, Defendant Apple, Inc., filed a statement of non-opposition to the 

Motion for Leave to Amend. (Dkt. No. 51.) Intertrust replied on December 24, 2013. (Dkt. No. 

57.) Neither Apple's statement of non-opposition nor Intertrust's reply mention the Motion to Seal, 

but the Motion to Seal itself represents that Apple does not oppose it. (Motion to Seal at 1-2.) 

 

1

 Both parties are ORDERED henceforth to file noticed motions as separate electronic docket entries 

rather than as exhibits to non-noticed motions (such as administrative motions, including motions 

to seal). The Court's electronic filing system does not automatically add noticed motions to the 

Court's calendar when the noticed motion is filed as an exhibit. Accordingly, to reduce the 

administrative burden on the Court, noticed motions must be filed as separate docket entries. 

Case 4:13-cv-01235-YGR Document 58 Filed 01/03/14 Page 1 of 3
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 

The Motion for Leave to Amend being unopposed, and for good cause appearing, the Court 

GRANTS it and VACATES the hearing set for January 7, 2014.2

The Motion to Seal is a different matter. Though that motion, too, is unopposed (Motion to 

Seal at 1-2), no good cause appears to seal the requested material. To establish that material is 

sealable, the party wishing to exclude it from the public record—here, Intertrust—must establish 

that it is "privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law 

. . . ." Civ. L.R. 79-5(a). Here, the material sought to be sealed is a single paragraph which 

appears, in identical form, in both Exhibit G and Exhibit H to the Declaration of James Stein (Dkt. 

Nos. 47-1 (Stein Decl.), 47-12 (Ex. G), 47-14 (Ex. H). The paragraph references nothing more than 

the existence of pre-litigation patent licensing discussions between Apple and Intertrust. It divulges 

nothing more than the dates of conversations, and the titles of documents and presentations given 

by Intertrust to Apple. Intertrust urges the Court to seal the material because its disclosure "is 

likely to cause Intertrust harm as potential licensees could use the information adversely against 

Intertrust in future licensing negotiations." (Motion to Seal at 1.) This generic invocation of 

possible harm by unidentified persons someday in the future is insufficient to sustain a request to 

cut off public access to materials in this case—especially when the documents reveal nothing more 

than that attempts to resolve this matter before litigation failed, a fact which is evidenced amply by 

the litigation itself. In short, nothing in the paragraph itself is manifestly sealable, nor has Intertrust 

supplied good cause to seal it. Accordingly, the Motion to Seal is DENIED. Intertrust shall file in 

the public record unredacted versions of Exhibits G and H to the Stein Declaration within five 

business days of the signature date of this Order. 

/// 

/// 

 

2

 The Court acknowledges certain disagreements contained in the statement of non-opposition and 

reply, but, as neither party requests judicial intercession, the Court refrains from commenting other 

than to remind the parties that moving papers should be directed to the substance of the motion at 

bar, rather than to ancillary matters such as "clarifying" one's opponent's position, a gesture that 

predictably leads to the opponent's "correction" of perceived misstatements. Being irrelevant to the 

motion at bar, both of these non-issues merely waste judicial resources and do not comport with the 

level of professionalism that the Court expects from practitioners in this District. 

Case 4:13-cv-01235-YGR Document 58 Filed 01/03/14 Page 2 of 3
3 

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 

This Order terminates Docket No. 47. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: January 3, 2014 _______________________________________ 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:13-cv-01235-YGR Document 58 Filed 01/03/14 Page 3 of 3