From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Nov 17, 2011
No. C 08-03251 WHA (N.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2011)

Opinion

No. C 08-03251 WHA

11-17-2011

APPLE INC., Plaintiff, v. PSYSTAR CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Defendant.


ORDER SETTING

BRIEFING SCHEDULE

In September 2011, our court of appeals entered an opinion that vacated and remanded seven of this Court's "orders granting Apple's motion to seal litigation documents" for further consideration (Dkt. No. 258 at 22). The materials in question related to the parties' motions for summary judgment. All of these materials were designated as confidential by plaintiff.

In Kamakana v. Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006), the Ninth Circuit held that more than good cause, indeed, "compelling reasons" are required to seal documents used in dispositive motions, just as compelling reasons would be needed to justify a closure of a courtroom during trial. Otherwise, the Ninth Circuit held, public access to the work of the courts will be unduly compromised.

No renewed request for an order sealing the summary judgment materials will be allowed unless plaintiff first shows a "compelling reason," a substantially higher standard than "good cause." This will be true regardless of any stipulation by the parties. Only social security numbers, names of juveniles, home addresses and phone numbers, and trade secrets of a compelling nature (like the recipe for Coca Cola, for example) will qualify. If the courtroom would not be closed for the information, nor should any summary judgment proceedings, which are, in effect, a substitute for trial.

By DECEMBER 1, 2011, plaintiff shall file a renewed motion to seal any items for which protection is sought. The motion must clearly identify which items plaintiff now concedes may be filed in the public record and which items plaintiff still seeks to file under seal. As to those items plaintiff seeks to seal, it must also file a competent declaration explaining the basis for the request. By DECEMBER 8, 2011, defendant may file a response. The matter will then be deemed submitted for decision. There will be no replies and no oral argument.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Nov 17, 2011
No. C 08-03251 WHA (N.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2011)
Case details for

Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp.

Case Details

Full title:APPLE INC., Plaintiff, v. PSYSTAR CORPORATION, a Florida corporation…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Nov 17, 2011

Citations

No. C 08-03251 WHA (N.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2011)