`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
` Case No.: 21-CV-812 TWR (JLB)
`
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
`APPLE INC.’S UNOPPOSED
`MOTIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS
`UNDER SEAL
`
`(ECF Nos. 308, 309)
`
`Defendant.
`
`TACTION TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`Presently before the Court is Defendant Apple Inc.’s Unopposed Motion to File
`Under Seal Portions of Apple’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Daubert Motion to Exclude
`Opinions of Defendant’s Experts (“Mot. to Seal,” ECF No. 308), in which Apple contends
`that “[c]ompelling reasons exist to file portions of [its] Opposition and accompanying
`Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, and 12 under seal.”1 (See id. at 1.) Specifically, “Exhibits
`1, 10, and 12 contain portions of Apple’s and Taction’s expert reports,” (see ECF No. 308-
`1 (“Tio Decl.”) ¶ 3), i.e., the Opening Expert Report of Michael Zinn, Ph.D., (see ECF No.
`309-1 (“Ex. 1”)); the Expert Rebuttal Report of Julie H. Know, CPA, CFA, CFF, (see ECF
`No. 309-8 (“Ex. 10”)); and the Rebuttal Expert Report of Michael Zinn, Ph.D. (See ECF
`
`
`1 Specifically, Apple seeks to file under seal Exhibits 2 through 7 in their entirety and only portions of
`Apple’s Opposition and Exhibits 1 and 10 through 12. (Compare ECF Nos. 310-1–14 (proposed public
`redacted documents), with ECF Nos. 309 (lodged sealed documents).)
`
`1
`
`21-CV-812 TWR (JLB)
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Document 314 Filed 06/13/23 PageID.16038 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`No. 309-10 (“Ex. 12”).) “Exhibit 11 contains excerpts of the deposition testimony of
`Apple’s damages expert, Julie Knox,” (Tio Decl. ¶ 4); “Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 are internal
`technical documents created by Apple,” (Tio Decl. ¶ 5); and “Exhibit 6 is a confidential
`technical document produced by third party supplied AAC.” (Tio Decl. ¶ 6.) Portions of
`Apple’s opposition discuss these documents. (See id. ¶¶ 2–6.) Apple maintains that
`disclosure of these documents would “harm [its] ability to maintain [its and its supplier’s]
`business and competitive position [in the market].” and/or allow “competitors to obtain and
`improper business advantage.” (See id. (citing Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S.
`589, 598 (1978); Orthopaedic Hosp. v. Encore Med., L.P., No. 19-CV-970 JLS (AHG),
`2021 WL 1966121, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2021)); Mezzadri v. Med. Depot, Inc., No. 14-
`cv-2330, 2015 WL 12564223, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2015)).)
`Upon a close review of the proposed redactions, the Court concludes that Apple has
`demonstrated compelling reasons to file under seal Exhibits 2 through 7 in their entirety
`and those limited portions of Apple’s opposition and Exhibits 1 and 10 through 12 that
`have been lodged under seal. See, e.g., Orthopaedic Hosp., 2021 WL 1966121, at *2. The
`Court therefore GRANTS Apple’s Motion to Seal (ECF No. 308), and the Clerk of Court
`SHALL FILE UNDER SEAL the documents previously lodged under seal at ECF No.
`309.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`Dated: June 13, 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
`
`2
`
`21-CV-812 TWR (JLB)
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
