DSS Technology Management, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:14-cv-05330
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In DSS Technology Management v. Apple, Judge Gilliam granted the parties’ renewed motion to seal confidential business information.
DSS Technology Management, Inc. and Apple, Inc.; specified portions of their filed exhibits remain sealed.
What happened
DSS Technology Management, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. concerned the parties’ renewed request to seal portions of documents filed in connection with nondispositive motions. The documents included information about third-party components in Apple’s products and the operation of Apple product source code.
The court applied the lower “good cause” standard because the documents concerned nondispositive motions. It found that the parties had narrowly tailored their request and had shown that the materials contained confidential and proprietary business information.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted the renewed motion to seal. The order specified exhibits and portions that would remain sealed and stated that redacted versions were available on the docket.
The detailed version
- DSS Technology Management, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. · No. 4:14-cv-05330
- Haywood Gilliam
- Jan. 30, 2020
Background
Plaintiff DSS Technology Management, Inc. and Defendant Apple, Inc. filed a renewed joint motion to seal portions of documents connected to nondispositive motions. The court had previously denied requests to seal entire exhibits because those requests were not narrowly tailored.
The renewed request sought to conceal only information concerning the identity and operations of third-party-supplied components in Apple’s products and confidential information about the operation of source code for Apple’s products.
Legal standard
The court explained that judicial records attached to dispositive motions generally require “compelling reasons” to overcome the public’s strong presumption of access. Records attached to nondispositive motions are subject to the lower “good cause” standard under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That standard requires a particularized showing that disclosure would cause specific prejudice or harm; broad, unsupported allegations are insufficient.
Because the parties’ motion concerned documents related to nondispositive motions, the court applied the good-cause standard.
Ruling
The court found that the parties had shown good cause because the documents contained confidential and proprietary business information relating to Apple’s operations. It also found that the renewed request was narrowly tailored to the identified confidential information.
The court therefore granted the parties’ renewed motion to seal. The following portions of exhibits were to remain sealed:
- Exhibits 11, 25, 26, 27, and 29 to DSS’s administrative motion to seal DSS’s motion;
- Exhibit K to Apple’s opposition to DSS’s motion to amend infringement contentions and cross-motion to strike an expert report;
- Exhibit 2 to DSS’s opposition to Apple’s cross-motion to strike an expert report; and
- Exhibits 4 and 36 to DSS’s reply in support of its motion to amend infringement contentions.
The court stated that redacted versions consistent with the order were available at Docket No. 428.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.