`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN RE APPLE INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 4:19-cv-2033-YGR
`
`
`ORDER RELIEVING PARTIES FROM
`
`
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT PRE-FILING
`
`CONFERENCE REQUIREMENT
`
`
`
`Dkt. Nos. 271, 274, 275
`
`
`Based upon the Court’s review of the pre-filing letters submitted by the parties, no pre-filing
`conference is required, and the requested motion may be filed. The parties are reminded of the
`requirement to file separate statements of fact in the format set forth in paragraph 9(c) of this Court’s
`Standing Order, including the requirement that counsel attest that the evidence cited for each fact or
`dispute fairly and accurately supports the fact or dispute. Parties are also reminded to comply with
`local rules regarding the formatting of all briefing, including Local Rule 3-4(c)(2)’s requirement that
`all written text be in 12-point type or larger.
`The Court considers summary judgment a tool to be used prudently, when there are no
`disputed issues of material fact. To the extent there are triable issues of material fact, summary
`judgment will be denied with a succinct denial order, without extensive commentary, so that the
`determination is left wholly for the trier of fact.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 4:19-cv-02033-YGR Document 290 Filed 09/01/22 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs’ motion to seal portions of their letter is GRANTED. (Dkt. No. 274.) However, the
`order is this regard should not be expected for the motion for summary judgment. A higher bar exists
`to justify sealing such information for dispositive motions especially given the importance of the
`evidence to the issues and the lack of any showing that current business operations would be impacted
`by disclosure. The parties shall meet and confer and attempt to address this issue with as little motion
`practice as possible.
`
`This terminates docket number 274.
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`Dated: September 1, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________________________________
` YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 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
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`
`
`2
`
`