Gordoa v. Apple, Inc.
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:22-cv-02900
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Gordoa v. Apple, Inc., Judge Corley granted Apple’s sealing requests, denied plaintiffs’ request, and resolved all three administrative motions.
Apple, Inc. and the plaintiffs were affected by the rulings on which portions of their summary-judgment and expert-related filings could remain sealed. The order also affects public access to those court records.
What happened
Gordoa v. Apple, Inc. concerns requests to keep parts of court filings private in connection with Apple’s summary-judgment motion and request to exclude the plaintiffs’ expert.
Apple argued that some exhibits contained sensitive business information about its safety testing, product testing, and confidential source code. The plaintiffs asked to seal all 22 exhibits supporting their opposition, relying only on the parties’ protective order.
Judge Jacquelyn Corley granted both of Apple’s narrowly tailored sealing motions and denied the plaintiffs’ motion because it did not provide the specific explanation required for sealing judicial records.
The detailed version
- Gordoa v. Apple, Inc. · No. 3:22-cv-02900
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Apr. 28, 2025
Background
The court resolved three administrative motions to seal filed in connection with Apple’s motion for summary judgment and motion to exclude the plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Hahn. The order applied the general presumption that court records should be publicly accessible. Because the records concerned motions more than tangentially related to the underlying claims, the parties seeking secrecy had to show compelling reasons supported by specific facts. Requests also had to be narrowly limited and explain the interests supporting secrecy, the harm that could result from disclosure, and why a less restrictive alternative would not be sufficient.
Rulings
Apple’s motion to seal portions of Exhibits A and C and all of Exhibit B submitted with its summary-judgment and expert-exclusion motions was granted. Apple showed that the materials contained sensitive business information, including information about its safety-testing protocols and the scope, nature, and timing of product testing.
The plaintiffs’ motion to seal all 22 exhibits submitted with their opposition was denied. The plaintiffs stated only that the exhibits contained confidential information protected by the parties’ agreed protective order. The court held that referring to a protective order was not enough to establish that the documents could be sealed and that the request did not meet the required specificity and narrow-tailoring standards.
Apple’s separate, more narrowly tailored motion to seal portions of Exhibits 12, 13, 14, and 15 was granted. The court found that Apple had shown those limited portions contained sensitive business information, including discussions of proprietary and confidential source code.
Result
The order disposed of Docket Nos. 198, 208, and 213. Judge Jacquelyn Corley signed the order on April 28, 2025.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.