Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 30, 2020

Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc.

Judge
William Alsup
Docket
3:18-cv-00358
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Uniloc USA v. Apple, Judge Alsup granted in part and denied in part Apple’s motion to seal discovery materials.

Who this affects

Uniloc USA, Inc., Apple, Inc., and public access to the discovery materials.

What happened

In Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., Apple asked to seal several excerpts and a deposition transcript attached to its discovery request because Uniloc had designated them confidential.

Uniloc withdrew its confidentiality designations except for two dollar amounts in Apple’s Exhibit C, which it identified as sensitive financial information from business negotiations.

Judge William Alsup granted the motion as to those specified dollar amounts and denied it as to the rest.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc. · No. 3:18-cv-00358
Judge
William Alsup
Date
Jan. 30, 2020

Background

Apple moved to seal several excerpts and a deposition transcript attached to its discovery request. The materials had been designated confidential to Uniloc. Uniloc withdrew all of those confidentiality designations except for two dollar amounts in Apple’s Exhibit C, on page 139, lines 17 and 20. Uniloc characterized those amounts as sensitive financial information from business negotiations.

Legal standard

The court noted the strong public policy favoring openness in court proceedings. It explained that discovery matters outside the merits of a case are subject to the less demanding “good cause” standard for sealing information.

Ruling

The court found good cause to seal the specified sensitive financial information. It granted the motion as to those dollar amounts and denied the motion as to the rest. Judge William Alsup issued the order on January 30, 2020.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.