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
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Document 219 Filed 02/24/23 PageID.5473 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
` Case No.: 21-CV-812 TWR (JLB)
`
`ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
`PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF TACTION
`TECHNOLOGY, INC.’S
`UNOPPOSED MOTION TO FILE
`DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
`
`(ECF Nos. 203, 204)
`
`Defendant.
`
`TACTION TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Taction Technology, Inc.’s Unopposed Motion
`to File Documents Under Seal (“Mot. to Seal,” ECF No. 203), through which Plaintiff
`seeks to file under seal over 500 pages of documents supporting its Motion to Strike
`Apple’s Amended Invalidity Contentions (“Mot. to Strike,” ECF No. 205)—specifically,
`portions of its memorandum of points and authorities in support of its Motion to Strike and
`the entirety of Exhibits A through I to the Declaration of Gavin Synder in Support of
`Taction’s Motion to Strike (“Snyder Decl.”), (see Mot. to Seal at 2; see also ECF No. 204
`(sealed lodged proposed documents))—on the grounds that Defendant Apple Inc.
`designated the documents as “CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” under
`the Stipulated Protective Order, ECF No. 37, as amended by ECF Nos. 41 and 139. (See
`Mot. to Seal at 2.)
`
`1
`
`21-CV-812 TWR (JLB)
`
`

`

`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
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Document 219 Filed 02/24/23 PageID.5474 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`Not only does the Motion to Seal fail to comply with the undersigned’s Standing
`Order for Civil Cases,1 but it also fails to make the requisite showing. See, e.g., Signal Hill
`Serv., Inc. v. Macquarie Bank Ltd., No. CV1101539MMMJEMX, 2013 WL 12244287, at
`*2 (C.D. Cal. May 14, 2013) (“The existence of a stipulated protected order is not enough,
`standing alone, to justify sealing under the [even the more permissive] ‘good cause’
`standard.” (citing Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992);
`In re Ferrero Litig., No. 11-CV-205 H(CAB), 2011 WL 3360443, *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 3,
`2011))); see also, e.g., Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. Salesforce, Inc., No. 3:13-
`CV-00628-RCJ-CLB, 2022 WL 2953429, at *1 (D. Nev. July 26, 2022) (applying
`compelling reasons standard to motion to seal documents submitted in opposition to a
`motion to strike portions of amended non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability
`contentions). Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s
`Motion to Seal (ECF No. 203). Either Party MAY FILE a renewed motion to file under
`
`
`1 Section III.C.4 of the undersigned’s Standing Order for Civil Cases provides:
`
`
`Given the strong presumption in favor of access to court records, parties seeking a sealing
`order must exercise discretion, limiting their requests to only those documents or portions
`of documents for which compelling reasons (dispositive motions) or good cause (non-
`dispositive motions) exist to file the document under seal. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty.
`of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–80 (9th Cir. 2006). Any party filing a motion for leave
`to file documents under seal must provide the Court with (1) a specific description of each
`particular document or portion of a document they seek to protect, and (2) a declaration
`showing sufficiently compelling reasons or good cause to protect those documents from
`disclosure. The standard for filing documents under seal will be strictly applied, and all
`proposed redactions must be as narrowly tailored as possible.
`
`If the moving party seeks to file a document under seal based on another party’s designation
`of the document as “confidential” under a protective order, the moving party must first
`meet and confer with the designating party to determine whether the designating party
`maintains that any portion of the document must be filed under seal. Because the ultimate
`burden of proof remains on the designating party, they may file a supplemental brief and/or
`evidence supporting their arguments that sealing is required under the applicable standard.
`
`
`Here, it does not appear that the Parties met and conferred, and Plaintiff has failed to “provide the Court
`with (1) a specific description of each particular document or portion of a document they seek to protect,
`and (2) a declaration showing sufficiently compelling reasons or good cause to protect those documents
`from disclosure.”
`
`2
`
`21-CV-812 TWR (JLB)
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Document 219 Filed 02/24/23 PageID.5475 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`seal any documents for which “compelling reasons” exist within fourteen (14) days of the
`electronic docketing of this Order. Should neither Party elect to file a renewed motion,
`Plaintiff SHALL FILE PUBLICLY ECF No. 204 in its entirety within twenty-one (21)
`days of the electronic docketing of this Order.
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`Dated: February 24, 2023
`
`
`
`_____________________________
`Honorable Todd W. Robinson
`United States District Judge
`
`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
`
`3
`
`21-CV-812 TWR (JLB)
`
`