Apple Inc. v. Allan & Associates Limited
- Edward Davila
- 5:19-cv-08372
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Apple v. Allan, Judge Davila denied both motions to seal because the parties did not make the required showing to overcome public access.
Apple, Inc., Allan & Associates Limited, et al., and the public’s access to the court filings.
What happened
Apple, Inc. v. Allan & Associates Limited, et al. is a breach-of-contract case involving requests to keep parts of court filings secret. Apple sought to seal portions of its complaint, and the defendants sought to seal parts of exhibits to their motion to dismiss.
The court applied a strong presumption that the public may inspect court records. Because the requested material was closely related to the case’s merits, the parties had to provide specific facts showing compelling reasons for secrecy. The court found that Apple offered only general statements about possible harm concerning the contract, security procedures, and employee information, and that the recycling vendor’s identity was already public.
Judge Edward J. Davila denied both administrative motions to file under seal. The order did not decide the underlying breach-of-contract claims.
The detailed version
- Apple Inc. v. Allan & Associates Limited · No. 5:19-cv-08372
- Edward Davila
- Jan. 23, 2020
Background
This is a breach-of-contract case. Apple moved to file portions of its complaint under seal. The defendants moved to file portions of exhibits attached to their motion to dismiss under seal. The information at issue included the allegedly breached contract, security procedures, the identity of Apple’s recycling vendor, and the names and email addresses of Apple employees.
Legal standard
The court explained that court records are generally subject to public access. Documents more than tangentially related to the merits of a case may be sealed only when the moving party shows “compelling reasons” that outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure. That showing requires specific factual findings, not broad or generalized allegations of harm. A confidentiality designation under a protective order is not by itself enough to justify sealing.
Court’s analysis
The court determined that all the material Apple sought to seal was more than tangentially related to the merits, so the compelling-reasons standard applied. It found that Apple had not provided sufficient specific factual findings concerning the contract terms, security procedures, or employee information. The court also found that Apple had not shown compelling reasons to seal the recycling vendor’s identity because that information was already public.
Disposition
Judge Edward J. Davila denied both motions to file under seal. The order addressed access to filings and did not resolve the underlying contract dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.