Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 872 Filed 01/16/24 Page 1 of 8
`
`
`
`MARK A. PERRY, SBN 212532
` mark.perry@weil.com
`JOSHUA M. WESNESKI (D.C. Bar No.
`1500231; pro hac vice pending)
`joshua.wesneski@weil.com
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`2001 M Street NW, Suite 600
`Washington, DC 20036
`Telephone: 202.682.7000
`Facsimile: 202.857.0940
`
`MORGAN D. MACBRIDE, SBN 301248
` morgan.macbride@weil.com
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`Redwood Shores Pkwy, 4th Floor
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`Telephone: 650.802.3044
`Facsimile: 650.802.3100
`
`MARK I. PINKERT (Fla. Bar No. 1003102; pro
`hac vice pending)
` mark.pinkert@weil.com
`KATHERINE G. BLACK (Fla. Bar No.
`1031465; pro hac vice pending)
` katie.black@weil.com
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1200
`Miami, FL 33131
`Telephone: 305.577.3100
`Facsimile: 305.374.7159
`
`THEODORE J. BOUTROUS JR.,
`SBN 132099
`tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
`RICHARD J. DOREN, SBN 124666
`rdoren@gibsondunn.com
`DANIEL G. SWANSON, SBN 116556
`dswanson@gibsondunn.com
`JAY P. SRINIVASAN, SBN 181471
`jsrinivasan@gibsondunn.com
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`333 South Grand Avenue
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: 213.229.7000
`Facsimile: 213.229.7520
`
`CYNTHIA E. RICHMAN (D.C. Bar No.
`492089; pro hac vice)
` crichman@gibsondunn.com
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20036
`Telephone: 202.955.8500
`Facsimile: 202.467.0539
`
`RACHEL S. BRASS, SBN 219301
` rbrass@gibsondunn.com
`JULIAN W. KLEINBRODT, SBN 302085
` jkleinbrodt@gibsondunn.com
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: 415.393.8200
`Facsimile: 415.393.8306
`
`Attorneys for Defendant APPLE INC.
`
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`Defendant, Counterclaimant
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO SEAL
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 4:20-CV-05640-YGR
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`Case No. 4:20-cv-05640-YGR
`
`COUNTERCLAIMANT APPLE INC.’S
`ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL
`
`The Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
`
`EPIC GAMES, INC.
`
`
`Plaintiff, Counter-defendant
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 872 Filed 01/16/24 Page 2 of 8
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`The Court Should Grant Apple’s Request To Seal Information That Reflects Its
`Competitively Sensitive Internal Billing Policies, Processes, And Systems .............................2
`
`Page
`
`
`The Court Should Grant Apple’s Request To Seal Information That Reflects Its
`Negotiations With Its Vendors...................................................................................................3
`
`The Court Should Grant Apple’s Request To Seal Information That Reflects Apple’s
`Financial Information Relating To Costs Expended By Apple In The Epic Litigation .............4
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO SEAL
`
`
`i
`
`CASE NO. 4:20-CV-05640-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 872 Filed 01/16/24 Page 3 of 8
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases Page(s)
`
`Algarin v. Maybelline, LLC,
`2014 WL 690410 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2014) ....................................................................................... 2
`
`In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig.,
`2018 WL 3067783 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2018) ............................................................................ 2, 3, 5
`
`Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC,
`809 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2016) .................................................................................................... 1, 2, 4
`
`Ervine v. Warden,
`214 F. Supp. 3d 917 (E.D. Cal. 2016)............................................................................................. 2, 3
`
`In re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litig.,
`2013 WL 163779 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2013) ....................................................................................... 4
`
`Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu,
`447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) ........................................................................................................ 1, 2
`
`Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc.,
`435 U.S. 589 (1978) ............................................................................................................................ 4
`
`Philips v. Ford Motor Co.,
`2016 WL 7374214 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2016) .................................................................................... 4
`
`Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp.,
`307 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2002) ............................................................................................................ 1
`
`PQ Labs, Inc. v. Qi,
`2014 WL 4617216 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2014) ................................................................................... 2
`
`Vigdor v. Super Lucky Casino, Inc.,
`2018 WL 4510734 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2018) ................................................................................... 4
`
`Vineyard House, LLC v. Constellation Brands U.S. Ops., Inc.,
`619 F. Supp. 3d 970 (N.D. Cal. 2021) (Gonzalez Rogers, J.) ........................................................ 2, 4
`
`Williams v. Apple Inc.,
`2021 WL 2476916 (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2021) ................................................................................ 2, 3
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 ...................................................................................................................................... 1
`
`Local Rule 79-5......................................................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO SEAL
`
`
`ii
`
`CASE NO. 4:20-CV-05640-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 872 Filed 01/16/24 Page 4 of 8
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) and Local Rule 79-5, Counterclaimant Apple
`Inc. (“Apple”) moves the Court to redact portions of its Motion for Entry of Judgment on its
`Indemnification Counterclaim (the “Motion”); the declaration of Mark Rollins (the “Rollins
`Declaration”); the declaration of Carlyn Irwin (the “Irwin Declaration”); and the declaration of Richard
`M. Pearl (the “Pearl Declaration”). Apple’s proposed redactions of that information are highlighted in
`GRAY in the attached un-redacted versions of each document and itemized in the concurrently filed
`Declaration of Mark A. Perry (the “Perry Declaration”). Apple respectfully requests that this Court fully
`seal Exhibit E to the Irwin Declaration.
`Apple requests that the Court seal these documents, as they contain information Apple contends
`is sealable under controlling law and the Civil Local Rules 79-5. Specifically, the Motion and its
`accompanying declarations and exhibits contain competitively sensitive, non-public information
`regarding Apple’s: (1) internal billing policies, processes, and systems for conducting litigation and
`managing vendor billing; (2) negotiations with each of Apple’s vendors during the Epic matter; and/or
`(3) financial information relating to costs expended by Apple in the Epic litigation.
`Accordingly, Apple moves to seal portions of the Motion, and its accompanying declarations and
`exhibits, and respectfully requests that this Court grant Apple’s request to seal the sealable information
`contained within these documents. Apple’s request is narrowly tailored, and the bulk of the submissions
`will be filed publicly.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`The Court has “broad latitude” “to prevent disclosure of materials for many types of information,
`including, but not limited to, trade secrets or other confidential research, development, or confidential
`information.” Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2002). When moving to
`seal documents attached to a dispositive motion, there must be compelling circumstances that outweigh
`the public policy in favor of disclosure. See Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,
`1178 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir.
`2016). Compelling circumstances may exist when documents contain confidential trade secrets or
`proprietary information. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G) (courts have the power to “require[e] that a
`trade secret, or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be revealed”);
`
`APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO SEAL
`
`
`1
`
`CASE NO. 4:20-CV-05640-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 872 Filed 01/16/24 Page 5 of 8
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`I.
`
`see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (compelling circumstances include potential release of trade
`secrets) (citing Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)); PQ Labs, Inc. v. Qi, 2014
`WL 4617216, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2014) (granting multiple motions to seal where publication
`would lead to the disclosure of trade secrets). To seal information appended to non-dispositive motions,
`such as motions for attorneys’ fees, the movant must establish “good cause.” In re Anthem, Inc. Data
`Breach Litig., 2018 WL 3067783 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2018). Overall, requests to seal information should
`be narrowly tailored “to remove from public view only the material that is protected.” Ervine v. Warden,
`214 F. Supp. 3d 917, 919 (E.D. Cal. 2016); Vineyard House, LLC v. Constellation Brands U.S. Ops.,
`Inc., 619 F. Supp. 3d 970, 972 n.2 (N.D. Cal. 2021) (Gonzalez Rogers, J.) (granting a motion to seal
`“because the request is narrowly tailored and only includes confidential information”).
`DISCUSSION
`THE COURT SHOULD GRANT APPLE’S REQUEST TO SEAL INFORMATION
`THAT REFLECTS ITS COMPETITIVELY SENSITIVE INTERNAL BILLING
`POLICIES, PROCESSES, AND SYSTEMS
`Apple seeks to seal competitively sensitive business information regarding its internal billing
`policies, which reflect Apple’s strategy and systems for conducting litigation and managing its vendors.
`The information is competitively sensitive because public access to this information would cause Apple
`economic harm and put it at a competitive disadvantage by disclosing not only Apple’s billing processes,
`but also how those processes affect Apple’s work with its third-party vendors and law firms. Rollins
`Decl. ¶ 41; Perry Decl. ¶¶ 7–8; see also Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097; Williams v. Apple Inc.,
`2021 WL 2476916, at *2–*3 (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2021) (noting Apple’s narrowed sealing requests with
`“tailored redactions” and finding “most of Apple’s sealing requests[ ] appropriate” to the extent the
`disclosures “would harm Apple’s competitive standing”).
`Sealing is necessary here because public disclosure of this information would risk competitors
`or others gaining an unfair business advantage by benefitting from Apple’s extensive efforts to create
`proprietary technology tools and processes for managing their billing and vendor relationships, all of
`which Apple intended to keep confidential. Rollins Decl. ¶¶ 41–42; Perry Decl. ¶¶ 7–8; see also, e.g.,
`Algarin v. Maybelline, LLC, 2014 WL 690410, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2014) (sealing “confidential
`business material” where “improper use by business competitors seeking to replicate L’Oréal’s business
`
`APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO SEAL
`
`
`2
`
`CASE NO. 4:20-CV-05640-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 872 Filed 01/16/24 Page 6 of 8
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`practices” may “circumvent the time and resources necessary in developing their own practices and
`strategies”).
`Courts in the Ninth Circuit—including this Court—have allowed the sealing of such
`competitively sensitive business information if the request is narrowly tailored. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 643
`at 3 (finding Apple’s proposed redactions for an exhibit “narrowly tailored in seeking sensitive and
`confidential information, the disclosure of which would result in competitive harm to Apple”); Williams,
`2021 WL 2476916, at *1; see also Ervine, 214 F. Supp. 3d at 919. Here, Apple has met this standard by
`narrowly tailoring its request to seal only confidential information regarding Apple’s internal processes
`and policies for managing client billing. See Perry Decl. ¶¶ 7, 9.
`The following documents fall within this category for the reasons discussed above, as articulated
`more fully in the accompanying Declaration of Mark A. Perry: (1) the Motion, (2) the Rollins
`Declaration, (3) the Irwin Declaration and its Exhibits B and C, and (4) the Pearl Declaration and its
`Exhibit A.
`
`II.
`
`THE COURT SHOULD GRANT APPLE’S REQUEST TO SEAL INFORMATION
`THAT REFLECTS ITS NEGOTIATIONS WITH ITS VENDORS
`
`Apple also seeks to seal competitively sensitive business information that reflects negotiations
`with its law firms and vendors that worked on the Epic litigation. If made public, disclosure of that
`information would create a substantial risk of serious financial or other injury to Apple and to its
`relationships with other vendors or clients. See In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig., 2018 WL
`3067783, at *2 (granting a motion to seal where the disclosure of “information that could be used to
`derive” attorney rates and “privately negotiated financial arrangements could impair the attorneys’
`bargaining power”).
`First, the disclosure would constrain Apple’s ability to negotiate with current and future vendors,
`who would be able to use confidential knowledge to their advantage during negotiations. Rollins Decl.
`¶¶ 41–42; Perry Decl. ¶¶ 10–11. Second, disclosure of the information could harm Apple’s vendors,
`which prefer that their business negotiations remain confidential, as they likewise want to maintain a
`level playing field in future negotiations with clients. Rollins Decl. ¶¶ 41–42; Perry Decl. ¶¶ 10–11.
`Third, and for that reason, any disclosure here would damage Apple’s relationships with its vendors.
`
`APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO SEAL
`
`
`3
`
`CASE NO. 4:20-CV-05640-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 872 Filed 01/16/24 Page 7 of 8
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`Rollins Decl. ¶ 41; Perry Decl. ¶¶ 10–11. Fourth, sealing is necessary here because public disclosure of
`this non-public, confidential information for each specific vendor by name would risk competitors or
`others gaining an unfair business advantage by using this information to influence negotiations or
`otherwise affect competition against Apple and/or its vendors. Rollins Decl. ¶ 41; Perry Decl. ¶¶ 10–
`11. All of these harmful consequences establish sufficient cause to seal. See Philips v. Ford Motor Co.,
`2016 WL 7374214, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2016) (noting that the “need to avoid competitive
`disadvantage in contract negotiations and undercutting by competitors is a compelling reason that
`justifies sealing”); Vigdor v. Super Lucky Casino, Inc., 2018 WL 4510734, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18,
`2018) (sealing “business and financial information relating to the operations of Defendants”). Given the
`sensitive nature of this information, Apple keeps such information confidential in the ordinary course of
`business operations. Rollins Decl. ¶ 42; see Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097; Nixon, 435 U.S. at
`598 (sealing appropriate where documents may be used “as sources of business information that might
`harm a litigant’s competitive standing”).
`Here, Apple’s request is sufficiently narrowly-tailored because it has redacted only payment
`information kept confidential in the ordinary course of business and that would injure Apple and its
`vendors for the Epic litigation if made public. Perry Decl. ¶¶ 10, 12; see also See Vineyard House, LLC,
`619 F. Supp. 3d at 972 n.2.
`The following documents fall within this category for the reasons discussed above, as articulated
`more fully in the accompanying Declaration of Mark A. Perry: (1) the Irwin Declaration and its Exhibits
`B and C, and (2) the Pearl Declaration.
`III. THE COURT SHOULD GRANT APPLE’S REQUEST TO SEAL INFORMATION
`THAT REFLECTS APPLE’S FINANCIAL INFORMATION RELATING TO COSTS
`EXPENDED BY APPLE IN THE EPIC LITIGATION
`Apple further seeks to seal specific non-public, competitively sensitive financial information that
`reflects costs Apple paid to its vendors in the Epic litigation. Non-public financial information such as
`this is regularly sealed, because it can reveal sensitive information that could provide competitors with
`an unfair advantage over the litigant. See In re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litig., 2013 WL 163779,
`at *8 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2013) (allowing the sealing of documents containing “confidential
`compensation information”).
`
`APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO SEAL
`
`
`4
`
`CASE NO. 4:20-CV-05640-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 872 Filed 01/16/24 Page 8 of 8
`
`
`
`Here, Apple has narrowly tailored its sealing request to include only that cost information kept
`confidential in the ordinary course of business. See in re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig., 2018 WL
`3067783, at *2 (granting a narrowly-tailored request to seal rates paid for attorneys and a paralegal);
`Perry Decl. ¶¶ 13–14. Sealing is necessary here because public disclosure of this information, which is
`ordinarily kept confidential, would risk competitors or others gaining an unfair business advantage by
`using this information regarding how Apple and its vendors, including law firms, deployed financial
`resources throughout the Epic litigation.
`The following documents fall within this category for the reasons discussed above, as articulated
`more fully in the accompanying Declaration of Mark A. Perry: (1) the Motion, (2) the Rollins
`Declaration, (3) the Irwin Declaration, and (4) the Pearl Declaration.
`CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Apple respectfully requests that the Court partially seal the identified
`information.
`Dated: January 16, 2024
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: [s] Mark A. Perry
`Mark A. Perry
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`
`Attorney for Apple Inc.
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO SEAL
`
`
`5
`
`CASE NO. 4:20-CV-05640-YGR
`
`