In Re: MacBook Keyboard Litigation
- Edward Davila
- 5:18-cv-02813
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Re MacBook Keyboard Litigation: Judge DeMarchi granted Apple’s motion to seal specified discovery-letter material about a privilege dispute.
Apple, the plaintiffs, the other parties to the discovery dispute, and the public’s access to the specified court filings.
What happened
In Re MacBook Keyboard Litigation involved a discovery dispute over Apple’s request to retrieve information disclosed during a deposition. Apple said the information was protected by attorney-client privilege, and the parties disputed that claim.
Apple asked to seal portions of a joint discovery letter and attached exhibits. The court found that the dispute concerned discovery rather than the merits of the parties’ claims or defenses, so the lower “good cause” standard applied. It granted the motion and ordered specific portions sealed.
Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi issued the order on March 9, 2020. The order sealed material derived from a deposition marked “Highly Confidential — Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” which Apple described as containing confidential business communications that it also claimed were privileged.
The detailed version
- In Re: MacBook Keyboard Litigation · No. 5:18-cv-02813
- Edward Davila
- Mar. 9, 2020
Background
The parties submitted a joint discovery letter concerning Apple, Inc.’s request to retrieve information revealed during a deposition. Apple contended that the information was protected by the attorney-client privilege, and the parties disputed whether that privilege applied. Apple then filed an administrative motion to seal portions of the joint discovery letter and related exhibits.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that judicial records connected to dispositive motions generally receive a strong presumption of public access that can be overcome only by compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings. But that presumption is lower for materials related only indirectly to the merits of a case. Because the underlying dispute concerned discovery and the claimed attorney-client privilege—not the merits of the claims or defenses—the court applied the “good cause” standard under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The material Apple sought to seal came from a deposition designated “Highly Confidential — Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” Apple said the material contained confidential business communications and that those communications were also privileged. The court found good cause to seal the specified portions of the joint discovery letter and the identified portions of Exhibits A and B.
Disposition
Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi granted Apple’s administrative motion to seal the listed material. The order addressed sealing only; the text does not state that the court decided whether Apple’s attorney-client privilege claim was ultimately valid.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.