Opinion
Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK
03-19-2013
APPLE, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a Korean corporation; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation; and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING NON-PARTY
GOOGLE INC.'S MOTION TO FILE
DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
Before the Court is Non-Party Google's motion to seal Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Scott Leslie ("Leslie Exhibit 1"). See ECF No. 239 ("Motion to Seal") (seeking to seal ECF No. 175, Attach. 6). Google asserts that compelling reasons justify granting its motion to seal. The Court agrees.
On May 14, 2012, Apple Inc. ("Apple") filed an administrative motion to file documents under seal, which sought to protect information designated as confidential by Google, including Leslie Exhibit 1. See ECF No. 175, Attach. 6. On May 21, 2012, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), Google submitted a declaration explaining the confidentiality of the documents referenced in Apple's motion. ECF No. 188. On July 18, 2012, the Court denied without prejudice all pending administrative motions to file documents under seal, including Apple's motion, ruling that "this case merits imposition of the heightened 'compelling reasons' standard that governs the sealing of documents attached to dispositive motions or submitted in trial." ECF No. 238 at 4-5. The Court invited the parties to file renewed motions to seal by July 25, 2012. Id. at 5. Google then filed this motion renewing its request to seal Leslie Exhibit 1.
Historically, courts have recognized a "general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents." Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978). Unless a particular court record is one traditionally kept secret, a "strong presumption in favor of access" is the starting point. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). A party seeking to seal a judicial record then bears the burden of overcoming this strong presumption by meeting the "compelling reasons" standard. Id. That is, the party must "articulate[ ] compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings," id. (citing San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1102-03 (9th Cir.1999)), that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the "public interest in understanding the judicial process." Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
The Ninth Circuit has explained that the "strong presumption of access to judicial records applies fully to dispositive pleadings, including motions for summary judgment and related attachments" because "the resolution of a dispute on the merits, whether by trial or summary judgment, is at the heart of the interest in ensuring the "public's understanding of the judicial process and of significant public events." Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2006). The Ninth Circuit has also carved out an exception to the strong presumption of openness for pre-trial, non-dispositive motions. The Ninth Circuit applies a "good cause" showing to keep sealed records attached to non-dispositive motions. Id. at 1180. Thus the Court applies a two tiered approach: "judicial records attached to dispositive motions [are treated] differently from records attached to non-dispositive motions. Those who seek to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of showing that 'compelling reasons' support secrecy" while a showing of good cause will suffice at earlier stages of litigation. Id.
In this case, the Court found that the "compelling reasons" standard applied in light of the late stage of the proceedings in the related case involving the same parties, Apple v. Samsung, Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK ("the 1846 case"), and "the presumption of openness" applied to all documents rendering "only documents of exceptionally sensitive information that truly deserve protection will be allowed to be redacted or kept from the public." ECF No. 238 at 4. In addition, the Court noted that, "[a]lthough the instant action has not yet progressed to the same stage of litigation as the 1846 case, . . . the related nature of the two actions, the overlapping discovery in both cases, and the exceptional degree of public interest in these two matters counsel in favor of coordinating sealing practices across both cases." Id. "Moreover, although Apple's motion for preliminary injunction and Samsung's motion to stay are non-dispositive, they cannot fairly be characterized as 'unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.'" Id. (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179). To the contrary, the Court concluded that "these motions implicate the very core of Apple's claims and Apple's desired relief in bringing suit against Samsung." Id. Apple's motion for preliminary injunction is akin to a mini-trial, and its request that the sale of Samsung's products be enjoined is a matter of enormous public interest. Thus, applying the "compelling reasons" standard is appropriate.
Google contends that compelling reasons justify sealing all of Leslie Exhibit 1. Leslie Exhibit 1 is "a ten-page internal Google document that discusses proprietary functionality, reveals internal business strategy and planning, and discloses discussions regarding potential future products, all of which reveal information that is highly confidential and proprietary to Google." ECF No. 239 at 2. Specifically, Google states that this Exhibit "is a wide-ranging internal discussion that discloses Google's internal plans, discussion, debates and consideration of various products and alternatives." Id. Google also notes that, aside from a single line referenced by Apple in its Reply Memorandum, "neither Apple nor Samsung asked the Court to consider any portion of Leslie Exhibit 1." Id.
Based upon its review of Leslie Exhibit 1, the Court finds that Google has set forth compelling reasons to justify sealing Leslie Exhibit 1. Thus, Google's motion to seal is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge