Hughes v. Apple, Inc.
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:22-cv-07668
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 54
In Hughes v. Apple, Judge Hixson approved rules protecting discovery materials and limiting their use in the litigation.
The plaintiffs, Apple Inc., nonparties that produce protected material, and people authorized to receive or handle protected discovery in the case.
What happened
In Hughes v. Apple Inc., the parties agreed that discovery could involve confidential, proprietary, commercially sensitive, trade-secret, and private information. They asked the court to enter a protective order governing that material.
The order creates two confidentiality levels: “CONFIDENTIAL” and “CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” It limits who may receive protected material, requires secure storage and data-security measures, establishes procedures for challenging designations, and explains how to handle accidental disclosures and privileged documents.
Judge Thomas S. Hixson ordered the protective order entered on April 11, 2025. The order allows protected material to be used only for prosecuting, defending, or settling this case and requires its return or destruction after the case ends, subject to limited archival retention by counsel.
The detailed version
- Hughes v. Apple, Inc. · No. 3:22-cv-07668
- Vince Chhabria
- Apr. 11, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs and Apple Inc. stipulated to a protective order because discovery in the case could involve confidential, proprietary, trade-secret, commercially sensitive, and private information. The filing states that the proposed order was based on the Northern District of California’s standard model order. The court entered the order pursuant to the parties’ stipulation.
What the Order Provides
The order defines protected discovery material as material designated “CONFIDENTIAL” or “CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” A producing party must limit designations to material that qualifies for protection; mass or unjustified designations may expose that party to sanctions. The order does not automatically allow confidential material to be filed under seal. A party seeking to file protected material under seal must comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5 and obtain a court order authorizing the sealing of the specific material.
Protected material may generally be used only to prosecute, defend, or attempt to settle this case or a related appeal. The order identifies categories of people who may receive each level of protected material, including counsel, certain employees, experts, court personnel, court reporters, litigation-support vendors, deposition witnesses, mediators, and others authorized under the order. Attorneys’-eyes-only material is subject to more limited disclosure and may be provided to specified outside counsel, qualifying experts or consultants, and other listed recipients.
The order requires protected material to be stored securely in the United States and requires reasonable data-security safeguards, including multifactor authentication and encryption in specified circumstances. A receiving party that learns that protected material may have been involved in a data breach must notify the producing party promptly and no later than five days after learning of the breach, to the extent permitted by law enforcement. The parties must also meet and confer about possible changes to discovery procedures or schedules.
Challenges, Privilege, and Final Disposition
A party or nonparty may challenge a confidentiality designation at any time. The challenging party must provide written notice and meet and confer directly with the designating party. If the dispute remains unresolved, the order sets deadlines and procedures for seeking court intervention, and places the burden of persuasion on the designating party.
The order also provides that an inadvertent production of material protected by attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, or another applicable protection does not waive that protection, subject to the order’s procedures. After final disposition, each receiving party generally must return or destroy protected material within 60 days and provide written certification. Counsel may retain limited archival copies of specified litigation materials, which remain subject to the order. Judge Thomas S. Hixson ordered the stipulated protective order entered on April 11, 2025.
Read the full 54-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.