Opinion
3:22-cv-02900-JSC
03-12-2024
CARLOS GORDOA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. APPLE, INC., et al., Defendants.
ORDER RE: APPLE'S RENEWED MOTION TO SEAL RE: DKT. NO. 132
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY United States District Judge.
On February 26, 2024, the Court denied Apple's administrative motion to seal without prejudice “to renewal in a form that complies with Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(2) and contains highlighting for the portions for which sealing is sought.” (Dkt. No. 128.) Apple has refiled the motion, but it again does not comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(2). (Dkt. No. 132.) Of the 12 documents Apple seeks to file under seal, only one document was filed with highlighting and notably its attachments contain no highlighting. (Dkt. No. 132-24 at 2-8.) The purpose of the Local Rule and the Court's Order is to assist the Court's review of the parties' request for sealing particularly when, as here, Apple's request for sealing is 230 pages long. To further complicate matters, Apples uses a different exhibit labeling system for the chart containing the proposed redactions than it does for the actual exhibits attached-numbers for the chart (with two exceptions) and letters for the attached filings.
Apple's renewed administrative motion to seal is DENIED. Any renewed submission must be filed by March 15, 2024 and must comply Local Rule 79-5(d)(2) and this Order.
This Order disposes of Docket No. 132.
IT IS SO ORDERED.