Williams v. Apple, Inc.

Background

The parties filed administrative motions asking to file under seal documents connected to briefing on the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Apple sought protection for information concerning iCloud users, revenues, data-storage practices, pricing, technical systems, business plans, forecasts, internal communications, and alleged trade secrets. The plaintiffs also filed motions concerning documents Apple had designated confidential.

Legal standard

The court explained that judicial records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. Because the materials were related to class certification—which can overlap with the merits of the claims—the court applied the “compelling reasons” standard. Under that standard, sealing may be justified by specific evidence that disclosure could cause competitive harm, reveal trade secrets, or otherwise create a legally recognized harm. A request must also be narrowly tailored to seal only material that qualifies for protection.

Court’s analysis

The court found that many of Apple’s requests were supported by specific explanations that disclosure could harm Apple’s competitive position. The court therefore approved sealing for much of the confidential business information, including internal technical documents, certain expert-report materials, financial and operational information, and specified portions of declarations, briefs, deposition testimony, and exhibits.

The court rejected or narrowed other requests because Apple’s support was vague, the information was already public or previously reported, or the requested sealing would interfere with the public’s ability to understand the class-certification ruling. The court specifically required public access to facts concerning iCloud’s launch and February 2016 expansion of in-house servers, the extent to which data was stored on Apple rather than third-party servers, the non-random nature of iCloud’s storage algorithm, and limits in Apple’s records. Those facts helped explain why the court had granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ class-certification motion.

Rulings

For ECF No. 78, Apple’s motion concerning the plaintiffs’ class-certification motion and supporting exhibits, the court granted in part and denied in part the administrative motion to file documents under seal. It granted sealing for specified portions of the briefing, all of Exhibit 7, pages 2–5 and email addresses in Exhibit 12, and specified portions of the expert report. It denied with prejudice sealing of page 1 of Exhibit 12, except for email addresses, and denied with prejudice the remaining portions of the other listed requests. The court denied as moot the plaintiffs’ related motion, ECF No. 76.

For ECF No. 81, Apple’s motion concerning its opposition and supporting materials, the court granted in part and denied in part the administrative motion to file documents under seal. It granted sealing for specified portions of Apple’s opposition, the listed portions of Dr. Lorin Hitt’s expert report, specified portions and exhibits of Dane Aconfora’s declaration, and identified portions or entire documents involving Ahmed Bashir, Evan Krasts, Monica Sarkar, and exhibits to the Wong declaration. It denied with prejudice the remaining portions of the opposition and Aconfora’s declaration.

For ECF No. 95, Apple’s motion concerning the plaintiffs’ reply, the court granted in part and denied in part the administrative motion to file documents under seal. It granted sealing for specified portions of the reply, the listed supporting exhibits, and specified paragraphs of the reply expert report. It denied with prejudice the remainder of the reply-sealing request. The court denied as moot the plaintiffs’ related motion, ECF No. 91.

For ECF No. 98, Apple’s motion concerning its sur-reply materials, the court granted in part and denied in part the administrative motion to file documents under seal. It denied with prejudice the request concerning Apple’s motion for leave to file a sur-reply. It granted sealing for specified portions of the sur-reply and all of Exhibits B and C, while denying with prejudice the remaining portions of the sur-reply request.

For ECF No. 103, Apple’s motion concerning the plaintiffs’ response to the sur-reply, the court granted in part and denied in part the administrative motion to file documents under seal. It granted sealing for specified portions of the response and all six listed supporting exhibits. It denied with prejudice the remaining portions of the response-sealing request. The court denied as moot the plaintiffs’ related motion, ECF No. 100.

The court also granted Apple’s motion, ECF No. 94, to remove Ahmed Bashir’s declaration after it had accidentally been filed publicly, and to file that declaration entirely under seal.