Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 192 Filed 11/02/22 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`FIRSTFACE CO., LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 18-cv-02245-JD
`
`
`ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Court has addressed the standards for sealing requests in conjunction with case filings,
`
`see In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation, 556 F. Supp. 3d 1106 (N.D. Cal. 2021), and that
`
`decision is incorporated here. In pertinent summary, “judicial records are public documents
`
`almost by definition, and the public is entitled to access by default.” Id. at 1107 (quoting
`
`Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Center
`
`for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (when considering a
`
`request to seal, “we start with a strong presumption in favor of access to court records.”)
`
`(quotation omitted)). The party seeking to seal a document bears the burden of articulating
`
`“compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of
`
`access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Id. (quotation and citation omitted). General
`
`assertions of potential competitive or commercial harm are not enough to establish good cause for
`
`sealing court records, and the “fact that the parties may have designated a document as
`
`confidential under a stipulated protective order is also not enough to justify sealing.” Id. (citation
`
`omitted).
`
`Defendant Apple and plaintiff Firstface filed sealing motions in connection with the
`
`motion to strike Apple’s initial disclosures. Dkt. Nos. 180, 184. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 192 Filed 11/02/22 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`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
`
`5, Firstface filed a notice of sealing for information that Apple designated confidential, Dkt. No.
`
`184, and Apple filed a declaration to state why the information should be sealed. Dkt. No. 186.
`
`Apple says portions of the motion to strike briefing should be redacted because they
`
`contain details about the personal and medical information of an Apple employee. See Dkt. No.
`
`180, 186. In support of the proposed redactions, Apple submitted a declaration from its Discovery
`
`Manager who says that the employee information is confidential and has not been disclosed in
`
`public filings. Dkt. No. 180-2 ¶¶ 5-6. Apple has met its burden for a subset of the information it
`
`seeks to redact, and the specific sealing determination are stated in the attached chart. See Ex. A.
`
`The Court will seal the portions of the documents that directly or indirectly identify the
`
`employee, who will not be a witness in the case, and the medical information. See Dkt. No. 184-3.
`
`Apple has not met its burden for sealing the information about when Apple learned of the
`
`employee’s medical condition, the documents it collected from the employee, and the substitution
`
`of another witness. See Dkt. Nos. 180-4, 180-5.
`
`Apple and Firstface also filed motions to seal in connection with a discovery letter and the
`
`motion to amend infringement contentions. Dkt. Nos. 152, 156, 175. Firstface filed a notice of
`
`sealing for information Apple designated confidential, Dkt. No. 156, and Apple filed a declaration
`
`to state why the information should be sealed. Dkt. No. 159.
`
`Apple says portions of its opposition to the motion to amend infringement contentions
`
`should be redacted because they contain “highly confidential descriptions of the functionality of
`
`Apple’s Touch ID and Apple’s proprietary implementation of that functionality, including in
`
`Apple’s proprietary source code.” Dkt. No. 152 at 1. Apple says that disclosure of this
`
`information would cause competitive harm by providing Apple’s competitors with insight into the
`
`“proprietary implementation of the functionality of Apple’s Touch ID, including how Apple
`
`implements this functionality in its source code.” Id. at 2. Apple also says that portions of a
`
`discovery dispute letter should be redacted because they contain “non-public and proprietary
`
`market research and consumer use data, including customer surveys, that contain market analyses
`
`of Apple’s product and product features.” Dkt. No. 175 at 2. Disclosure of this information is
`
`said to put Apple at a competitive disadvantage by providing its competitors insight into Apple’s
`
`2
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 192 Filed 11/02/22 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`consumer survey and usage data. Id. In support of the proposed redactions, Apple submitted
`
`declarations from its Discovery Manager. Dkt. No. 152-2; Dkt. No. 159 ¶ 4; Dkt. No. 176.
`
`Apple has not met its burden of stating “a specific factual demonstration of a compelling
`
`reason” for sealing. See In re Google Antitrust Litigation, 556 F. Supp. 3d at 1107-08. The
`
`declarations submitted in support of sealing merely repeat the conclusory assertions made in the
`
`motions to seal. Dkt. No. 152-2 ¶¶ 5-6, 8-9; Dkt. No. 176 ¶¶ 5-6. Apple has not demonstrated
`
`that statements that Touch ID requires “the additional user input of the user’s human flesh,”
`
`constitute proprietary information that could cause competitive harm if disclosed. See, e.g., Dkt.
`
`No. 152-3 at 4-5. Nor has it demonstrated that disclosure of generic descriptions such as
`
`“showing customer use of Touch ID vs. other features” and “buyer surveys discussing usage” or
`
`disclosure of metrics related to iPhone SE and Touch ID use could cause competitive harm. See
`
`Dkt. No. 175-3 at 1-2. Consequently, sealing is denied for Dkt. Nos. 152, 156, and 175.
`
`Sealing is also denied for Dkt. Nos. 142 and 166 because the designating parties stated that
`
`they do not seek to seal the documents. Dkt. Nos. 150, 172.
`
`For Dkt. No. 125, the parties are directed to file a single, joint motion to seal that is revised
`
`in accordance with this order by November 23, 2022. Unreasonable sealing requests may be
`
`sanctioned. Dkt. No. 125 is terminated without prejudice.
`
`The parties are directed to file revised redacted versions of Dkt. Nos. 180-4, 180-5, and
`
`unredacted versions of the documents for which sealing is denied, within seven court days of this
`
`order. Civil L.R. 79-5.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: November 2, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JAMES DONATO
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`3
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 192 Filed 11/02/22 Page 4 of 4
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A TO ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL
`
`Document
`
`Information sought
`to be sealed
`
`Proffered Reason for
`Sealing
`
`Ruling
`
`Highlighted portions
`on pages 1-9.
`
`Opposition to
`Motion to
`Strike. Dkt.
`No. 180-4.
`
`Contains confidential
`and personal medical
`information. Dkt. No.
`180-2 ¶¶ 5-6.
`
`Highlighted portions
`on pages 1-2.
`
`Contains confidential
`and personal medical
`information. Dkt. No.
`180-2 ¶¶ 5-6.
`
`Dawson
`Declaration in
`Support of
`Opposition to
`Motion to
`Strike. Dkt.
`No. 180-5
`
`Reply in
`Support of
`Motion to
`Strike. Dkt.
`No. 184-3.
`
`Highlighted portions
`on pages 2-6.
`
`Contains confidential
`and personal medical
`information. Dkt. No.
`180-2 ¶¶ 5-6
`
`Granted in part. The
`employee’s name,
`identifying information,
`and medical information on
`pages 1-9 may be redacted
`because it discloses
`confidential and personal
`medical information.
`
`Denied for all other
`proposed redactions.
`
`Granted in part. The
`employee’s name,
`identifying information,
`and medical information on
`pages 1-2 may be redacted
`because it discloses
`confidential and personal
`medical information.
`
`Denied for all other
`proposed redactions.
`
`Granted. The employee’s
`name and medical
`information on pages 2-6
`may be redacted because it
`discloses confidential and
`personal medical
`information.
`
`
`
`4
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`